Measuring the Impact of Relative Deprivation on Tea Farmers’ Pesticide Application Behavior: The Case of Shaanxi, Sichuan, Zhejiang, and Anhui Province, China

Abstract

Reducing chemical interaction within core farming tactics has gained much attention worldwide due to ever-increasing water, soil, and air pollution trends caused by various agricultural activities. Since, in the developing countries, tea is primarily produced conventionally, clarifying the impact of relative deprivation on the pesticide application rate of tea farmers is conducive to promoting the reduction of pesticides and the green development of the tea industry. Thus, based on extensive literature reviews, the study constructs a theoretical framework of relative deprivation and pesticide application rate by tea farmers. Moreover, the moderating effect of external intervention and behavioral factors has also been assessed. A data set of 786 tea farmers’ responses from Shaanxi, Sichuan, Zhejiang, and Anhui provinces has been utilized to test, outline and validate the proposed framework. We utilized the Ordered Probit model to measure the psychological fluctuation of tea farmers. The results are as follows. (i) The more substantial their perception of relative deprivation, the more tea farmers tend to increase the application rate. (ii) In external interventions, the degree of government regulation can not only directly promote the reduction of pesticide application but also play a negative regulatory role between the relative deprivation and the amount of pesticide applied by tea farmers. Although the degree of community control can directly promote the reduction of pesticide application by tea farmers, its regulating effect is insignificant. (iii) Regarding behavioral ability, the management scale can directly promote the reduction of pesticide application by tea farmers, but its regulating impact is not significant. Thus, government should highlight the importance of organic and environmentally friendly tea cultivation and encourage tea farmers to reduce pesticide application. Along with the market regulation, point-of-sale testing and traceability of pesticide residues should continue to be consolidated, strengthened and improved.

1. Introduction

The delicate extracts of Camellia Sinensis are used to make tea, one of the primary and most-liked drinks on the planet, due to its distinct fragrance, taste, and medicinal benefits [1]. Day by day, the popularity and demand for this unique product are increasing; especially in Asia, the demands for tea are massive [2,3]. Tea is cultivated over a total area of 4.72 million hectares, spread throughout more than 34 nations in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania, producing 5.68 million tons of the finished beverage each year [4]. Its cultivation is the primary driver of economic activity in several of these nations, so their national economies are highly reliant on it [5]. Moreover, tea can play a vital role in rural revitalization, poverty alleviation and lessening food deprivations in emerging economies and is considered one of the most significant global cash crops [6,7]. In China, tea is a part of local culture with a long history. For over a thousand years, China has been growing tea, an exceptional natural commodity that artisan experts meticulously developed. China is the leading grower and supplier of tea [7,8], which became one of China’s prominent gateways into the international capitalist system [9,10]. In 2021, China’s tea exports reached around 2.5 billion US dollars, constituting one-fourth of the global supply. China’s tea production exceeded 3.18 million metric tons in 2021, with the majority originating from the southern and subtropical parts of the nation. The tea industry holds a crucial practical position for China’s “green agriculture” and “clear waters and green mountains” policy [11,12] and plays a vital role in the income guarantee mechanism and the ecological protection of marginal mountainous regions of China [13,14]. Because of this, the intensification of the tea venture is significant for tea producers.

However, tea producers are generally risk-sensitive. Thus, they have to use pesticides to promptly manage any pests and diseases and minimize damage to output. Moreover, tea is mainly cultivated conventionally with an increasing dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides [15,16], which eventually degrades the soil, water, atmosphere and ecosystem through volatilization and infiltration [17,18]. The times before pesticide application and harvesting are shorter for tea plantations than for other plants, and certain inadequate chemicals are still unlawfully utilized [19]. Most farmers, especially in developing countries, significantly rely on pesticide application to attain the massive intensification currently the industry is going through. Specifically, China holds one of the top rankings for applying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Due to the effectiveness of pesticides in the short term, their use in tea gardens has increased, including the popular chemical pesticides Endosulfan, Imidacloprid, Bifenthrin, Cypermethrin, Deltamethrin, Acetamiprid, Propagite and highly carcinogenic chemical compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls, organophosphorus, and synthesized permethrin [9,20,21]. Thus, the widespread use of chemical substances causes agricultural non-point source pollution to be distributed in the vast production areas, seriously threatening the ecological environment, safer food and public health [22,23].

There are a variety of human health problems that may be caused by pesticides, including effects on the cardiovascular, testicular, neurological, hormonal and immune functions. Several studies (e.g., Mesnage and Benbrook [24], Daugbjerg [25] and Tabe-Ojong et al. [26]) highlighted that uncontrolled pesticide usage in food and drinks could cause not only severe threats to public health but also be dangerous for farmers as they primarily apply the chemicals themselves without taking proper protective measures or with minimal protection. Apart from this severe health issue, the broader environmental health risk factor is drawing much attention. In a pesticide policy and practice study, Hofmann et al. [27] identified that the adverse pesticide effects hinder the effectiveness of sustainable development goals set by the United Nations (UN). Interestingly, pesticide residues could be a significant threat in drinks because pesticides display a higher transfer rate in drink infusion with increasing water temperature and infusion duration, specifically in hot drinks such as tea and coffee [28]. In a study in Guizhou province, China, Liu et al. [29] identified that the potential risk of heavy metal and chemical contamination could cause severe health risks for adults via consuming mature tea infusions. According to the World Health Organization, there are three million occurrences of chemical intoxication worldwide each year, with around 2,200,000 deaths attributed to synthetic pesticides [30].

Because of these unexpected consequences, there is increased public concern over typical usage and sustainability concerns of insecticides. Pesticide residues have been an increasing problem for the tea sector as importing nations have tightened their regulations on the acceptance of cultivation methods [31]. In particular, tea customers are becoming more concerned about chemical residues in their tea. Moreover, with increased concern about chemical contaminants, environmental and human safety concerns (which might make tea unsafe to consume) and the increasing prices of new-generation insecticides, the perspective on pest management through agrochemicals has experienced substantial alterations over time [32]. Increasing crop protection effectiveness and using new techniques will increase agricultural yields and enhance ecological sustainability by minimizing the usage of harmful insecticides. Reducing the use of pesticides is also essential as an increasing number of pests are developing resistance to chemical pest control. However, agricultural products are not homogeneous, and the quality of information is seriously asymmetrical [33].

Interestingly, to ensure that drinking tea is not hazardous to public health, it is important to conduct and disclose research that quantifies the amount of insecticides that are caused by drinking tea. The growth in health concerns can serve as a foundation for creating and modifying the limits permitted for pollutants in tea, in order to protect human health. Thus, all the associated stakeholders should act responsibly to facilitate a better and safer pesticide management mechanism. However, as the final user of pesticides, tea farmers can make independent decisions on pesticides and application techniques [34,35]. As the dynamic entity of the agriculture systems, farmers and their behavior are a complex phenomenon, and governments are trying to adopt several strategies to encourage farmers to adopt green production technology. However, pesticide governance depends on the behavior of tea farmers. Especially in pesticide management, the notion of environmentally friendly behavior has become more apparent. The Chinese government has taken several initiatives to counter excessive pesticide usage in tea cultivation and encourage marginal farmers. For example, in 2015, China initiated the Action Plan for Zero Growth of Pesticide Use by 2020, the new Pesticide Management Regulations and supporting management measures in 2017, and Green Standardized Production Demonstration Base Construction Plan for Fruit, Vegetable and Tea in 2018 [36,37,38].

The pesticides used in tea continue to be a hotly contested issue. Demand for tea is still massive worldwide, but the countries that produce the largest amounts of the plant may not have the regulations to forbid the use of certain pesticides, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), methomyl, carbofuran, dicofol and endosulfan, which are banned in most of the biggest importers of tea such as the EU, US, Canada and the UK. Though it has been recommended that maximum residue limi (MRLs) thresholds should be followed, MRLs are not harmonized, and nations that produce tea for export (e.g., China, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal) cannot reference a single accepted standard for pesticides in tea. This places a burden on producing nations, making it difficult to conform to global markets. Tea plants are vulnerable to many pests, including parasites, worms, stem infestations, stem moths, leaf rodents, and various mites [39]. If such infections and invasive species are not successfully handled, they can trigger production disruption of between 10 and 20% [40]. In China, tea production is under national surveillance for pesticide use, and the government is putting significant efforts into monitoring, adjusting and controlling pesticide residues within the threshold level. In addition, supermarkets and other large-scale importers closely monitor pesticide residues. Nevertheless, the impact of these inspections is relatively weak. In addition, the number of tea farmers in China is significant, and their farming scale (actual operating area of tea farmers’ tea gardens) is small, so it is not easy to conduct a comprehensive and direct pesticide residue inspection. Therefore, in China, the government and community’s direct supervision of farmers’ pesticide application behavior can significantly impact tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity. Therefore, the questions of (i) how to minimize the application of chemical pesticides and (ii) what factors affect the pesticide application behavior of tea farmers have held high research significance and have drawn the attention of consumers, development organizations, academia and governments from all over the world. Several studies (e.g., Zheng et al. [41], Lou et al. [42] and Wu et al. [43]) have emphasized the improvement of pesticide application effectiveness and efficiency in terms of the application objects, pesticide formulations and preparations, application methods and instruments to reduce the pesticide application amount and negative externalities.

In this regard, integrated pest management (IPM) can be a better option for maintaining a sound balance of pesticide usage [44], as it is an ecosystem approach to crop production and protection that combines different management strategies of biological, cultural and chemical practices to control insects and pests [45,46]. Various researchers have advocated IPM in various setups. For example, Guastella et al. [47] evaluated how various control methods (biological, cultural, chemical and pest resistance) can effectively minimize the attack of various pests in tea, cocoa and coffee cultivation. Mamun and Ahmed [48] assessed the impact of IPM on tea cultivation in Bangladesh and found that it substantially reduced the total usage of chemical interactions. Handique and Roy [49] identified that the frequent and reliable monitoring and early detection of pest populations are one of the most critical components of IPM, substantially reducing the severity of subsequent pest attacks.

Currently, the existing literature (such as Damalas and Koutroubas [50], Hu et al. [51], and Ding et al. [17]) mainly focuses on individual characteristics, family characteristics, cognitive characteristics, external intervention and other perspectives to investigate the farmers’ pesticide application behavior in an isolated manner. In a study of Shucheng County, China, Lou et al. [42] evaluated the theory of planned behavior to predict tea farmers’ pro-green control technology behavior. Hu et al. [51] investigated how farmers’ perceptions of the vulnerability to various diseases and pests influenced their willingness to use environmentally friendly pest management methods in Sichuan province, China. In a study of Sri Lankan small-scale organic tea farmers, Karalliyadda and Kazunari [52] evaluate the pesticide application behavior as a critical matrix for evaluating quality standards. Aida [53] evaluated the neighborhood effects of pesticide use by employing a spatial panel econometric approach in Bohol Island in the Philippines. In a study in Assam, India, Biggs et al. [54] employed comprehensive multi-stakeholder insights to find the ultimate pesticide application intensity.

According to Walker [55], “relative deprivation” is the phenomenon of contrasting, perceiving, and experiencing an individual’s emotional responses. Farmers evaluate their competencies as an economic entity compared to other instances for performing any behavior [56]. They feel deprived if they obtain less than what they expect or than their peers [57]. More precisely, an impression of one’s inferiority, viewed as inequitable, might result from comparison with some standard [58]. This might cause frustration or hostility, which could lead to further measures. If farmers think that the market cannot guarantee the quality premium of sustainable pesticide application, they will have a sense of relative deprivation to a certain extent, affecting the amount of pesticide application [59]. The notion of the farmer’s relative deprivation has been explored by several existing studies. For example, Si et al. [60] evaluated the role of relative deprivation in leaving the homestead among rural farmers in Jinan, China. Xu and Sun [61] assessed how relative deprivation impacts the growers’ perceptions regarding sustainable rural tourism. In a study of the western Chitwan Valley, Nepal, Bhandari [62] evaluated how farmers’ relative deprivation impacts urban migration.

Interestingly, research into farmers’ sense of relative deprivation in pesticide application is in the preliminary stages and rarely explored by the existing literature. Does the psychological state of agricultural producers cause fluctuation in pesticide usage? How do psychological fluctuations affect the pesticide application amount of agricultural producers? How do external entities and factors impact farmers’ behaviors? These crucial questions have not been given enough attention yet by the existing literature. Likewise, governmental and communal interventions in regulating tea farmers’ pesticide behavior have not been critically explored in the context of marginal farmers. The theoretical and empirical research on the relationship between the regulatory role of external intervention and behavioral ability is still inadequate. Therefore, the present study takes tea farmers in key tea-producing areas as the research object and uses “relative deprivation” to measure the psychological basis of any fluctuation of tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity. More specifically, we construct a theoretical analysis framework of relative deprivation and tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity and analyze the impact of relative deprivation on tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity. Moreover, we analyze the regulatory role of external intervention and farmers’ responses to provide theoretical support and decision-making reference for the government to formulate measures to promote the reduction of pesticides in the tea industry and green development.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Hypothesis Formulation

2.1. The Effect of Relative Deprivation on the Pesticide Application Rate of Tea Farmers

Relative deprivation refers to an individual’s subjective feeling from the gap between what one expects and gets during the comparison process [60,63]. The notion of relative deprivation involves the perceptual aspects of socio-economic contrast and the sentiment of frustration and discouragement [64,65]. Moreover, it is an integrated behavioral aspect; objections, disputes, and retaliation constitute a personal experience of people or organizations, perceiving oneself in a less favorable situation through correlation [66,67]. During the processes of societal comparability, impoverished people may feel deprived of fundamental value, and this feeling of deprivation may have a detrimental impact on their ability to adjust psychologically and behaviorally [68,69]. Much negative behavior may result directly or indirectly from farmers’ sense of relative deprivation. The contextual perception of relative deprivation as a reflection of one’s constrained privileges and the inferior socio-economic position may lead to dissatisfaction, distress, and rationalizing undesirable behaviors [62,70]. Thus, a strong sense of relative deprivation is one of the essential incentives and core mechanisms that trigger farmers’ perceived actions [59,71]. Figure 1 represents the theoretical framework of the study.

In the tea sector, the market signal of high quality and reasonable price is obscured, and tea farmers who produce safely following the green agricultural product standards pay more but cannot get the corresponding return [72], resulting in a strong sense of relative deprivation [73]. In addition, the sense of relative deprivation is diffuse; tea farmers who do not produce green agricultural products may also feel a sense of relative deprivation by observing situations that they are closely related to themselves or may belong to a group of tea farmers who are not getting any increments in selling price [74,75]. If a rational tea farmer feels significant “relative deprivation” for a long time, he will have a “corrective” behavioral impulse, that is, the tea farmer who is worried that “the effort has not been rewarded” under the feeling of relative deprivation will increase the number or amount of pesticides [76]. According to Yao et al. [71], farmers are relatively more sensitive regarding financial shock; thus, their sense of relative deprivation can be a significant indicator of any behavioral actions. It is a fact that if a farmer feels that he will lose a significant proportion of output by adopting novel approaches or tactics, he will feel more deprived, which can significantly impact his behavior [77]. In this sense, if farmers find that by reducing pesticide intensity, they are more likely to lose their production capacity, they will be discouraged from doing so [78]. Because of this, the study proposes the following assumptions:

H1: 

Perceived relative deprivation has a significant positive effect on the intensities of pesticide application by tea farmers.

2.2. The Moderating Effect of the External Intervention on the Relationship between Relative Deprivation and Pesticides Usage Intensity by Tea Farmers

The pesticide application behavior of tea farmers has the characteristics of perceived awareness and externality [79,80]. Thus external intervention could be a primary criterion for facilitating farmers’ adoption behavior [81]. As specific external interventions, government and community regulations could significantly impact tea farmers’ pesticide application behavior [82]. In terms of government regulation, Fan et al. [83] found that government regulation has a significant impact on farmers’ quality and safety control behavior. Among them, the intensity of testing is crucial for regulating farmers’ production safety, and punitive measures can reduce farmers’ use of banned chemicals [84]. Research by Wang et al. [85] found that the government’s pesticide residue testing, pesticide application penalties and prohibition of highly toxic pesticides have an excellent guiding effect on whether farmers should use pesticides, whether they should pay attention to the safe interval of pesticide application and pesticide residues. However, Maddah et al. [86] advocated that in terms of community control, the community is more concerned about the responsibility of members than the government is concerned about the management object. The community can provide a sustainable governance model of self-management and self-development based on the joint input of members [87,88], which can effectively control the abuse of farmers’ use of pesticides [89,90].

It should be noted that the degree of governmental regulation and community regulation belong to the institutional category of external intervention [91], and they can implement strong regulation on tea farmers within their jurisdiction through various intervention methods [92]. This kind of regulation can not only reduce the antagonistic psychology of tea farmers within the group but also reduce the opportunistic behavior of farmers in their pesticide application [93] and narrow the behavior differences between them [94]. Because of this, this article proposes the following hypothesis:

H2a: 

The degree of government regulation negatively moderates the relationship between relative deprivation and the number of pesticides tea farmers apply.

H2b: 

The degree of community control has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers.

2.3. The Moderating Effect of Behavioral Ability between Relative Deprivation and the Amount of Pesticide Applied by Tea Farmers

The difference in the behavioral ability of tea farmers is mainly reflected in technical ability and marketability. Therefore, the scale of operation and the participation of cooperatives, which are closely related to the above two abilities, are used to characterize the behavioral ability and analyze its influence on the number of pesticides applied by tea farmers. The expansion of operational scale is conducive to obtaining economies of scale and prompts farmers to pay more attention to the safety and standardization of production. In contrast, small farmers are accustomed to overestimating the loss due to pests and diseases and will overuse pesticides to avoid risks [29]. Sharifzadeh et al. [95] found that small-scale farmers generally lack knowledge of pest control and the ecosystem and use chemical pesticides as a standard measure for pest control. Bhandari et al. [96] found that the larger the farming area, the more vital farmers’ awareness of quality and safety control, and the more likely they are to apply pesticides reasonably. Hou and Wu [97] identified that farming scale has a significant impact on intensity; moreover, the different scales of farming have their own sets of pest control mechanisms. According to the existing literature (e.g., Ferdous et al. [98], Biesheuvel et al. [99] and Mazlan and Mumford [100]), farm size primarily regulates the way farmers perceive regarding risk and deprivation, and impacts their particular actions. It can be argued that the farming scale can act as a moderating factor between farmers’ sense of relative deprivation. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

H3a: 

Management scale plays a negative moderating role between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers.

Regarding cooperative participation, cooperatives have the dual effects of improving economic efficiency and standardizing producers’ behavior, which can help farmers apply pesticides safely [33]. Hamilton and Sidebottom [101] showed that farmers in North American mountainous areas could significantly reduce their pesticide application rates when they joined cooperative organizations. Based on a study of tea farmers in Fujian Province, China, Xiaorong et al. [102] found that the more profound the farmers’ participation in the cooperative and the closer the interests of the cooperative, the more inclined they are to carry out the safe production of apples. Interestingly, some scholars believe that the phenomena of “captured by the elites of cooperatives” and “big farmers eat small farmers” are relatively controversial [103,104]; these situations not only fail to protect marginal farmers’ rights and interests but lead to a waste of police resources [105]. However, cooperative organizations can empower marginal farmers with superior management scale [33], act as an information-sharing channel and facilitate knowledge spillover effects [106]. Specifically, in tea production in China, cooperative participation may effectively transmit market signals and assist farmers in obtaining timely information [107,108]. Thus, the information symmetry of both parties and the market bargaining power of tea farmers can be enhanced [109], and farmers’ knowledge regarding current market standards and practices can be strengthened. According to the study of Falconer [110], cooperative participation assists farmers in reducing the potential risk of engaging with any new technology or governmental scheme and possesses a particular spillover effect on farmers’ behavior. In a study of farmers’ pesticide application behavior in Shandong and Henan provinces, Wei et al. [111] found that connecting with the collective organization helped farmers choose ecofriendly farming techniques and reduced the possibility of using synthetic fertilizer and pesticides by 35%. Seemingly, the existing literature (such as Zhang et al. [112], Ren and Jiang [113] and Xu et al. [114]) advocates that the technical support, training facilities and collective experience sharing opportunities fostered by cooperative organizations significantly lower the risk cognition and adoptability of environmentally friendly pest control and thus the intensity of chemical interventions within the farm could be reduced marginally. In this regard, it can be hypothesized that cooperative participation can regulate the effect of relative deprivation on tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity and therefore, farmers’ pesticide application usage intensity can be reduced. Given this, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3b: 

Cooperative participation plays a negative moderating role between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers.

3. Materials and Methods

This paper adopts the Ordered Probit model to craft its findings. Since the dependent variable, tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity, is a multiple ordered variable, which is measured as “decrease = 1”, “unchanged = 2”, or “increase = 3” compared with the previous year, an Ordered Probit model should be perfect for dealing with the ordered variables [115,116].

3.1. Research Design

First, the study identified the problem statement and laid out its theoretical framework based on the existing literature and the current situation of the tea farming mechanisms. We outlined the possible relationship among the key variables in the theoretical framework and introduced intermediary variables. In the second stage, combined with the theoretical analysis, we selected appropriate models. In the third stage, the appropriate econometric model was used to verify that relative deprivation significantly impacted the amount of pesticide applied by farmers and the regulatory effect of external intervention and behavioral capacity. In the third stage, a structured questionnaire survey mechanism was chosen within a survey sample as an empirical setup according to our previous knowledge and the existing literature. In the questionnaire, along with the key variables, we included several control variables that may influence the farmer’s decision-making. In the fourth stage, this study used Stata14.0 (StataCorp, www.stata.com, accessed on 15 October 2022) software to build the Ordered Probit and regulatory effect models to perform the analysis. In addition, we performed a regression analysis with robust heteroscedasticity standard errors to control the heteroscedasticity problem. This is expected to clearly show the model results and realistic logic and verify the theoretical analysis and proposed hypotheses. After that, we compiled and compared our findings with the existing literature within a similar setup. At the final stage, we summarize findings, outline conclusions and present several practical policy recommendations.

3.2. Data Sources

The study utilizes a multistage sampling tactic to obtain final data by referring to the study of Bagheri et al. [117], Monfared et al. [118] and Sarkar et al. [119], as the tactics allow researchers to strategically divide a large sample into several subsamples and eventually reach targeted respondents. First, China’s four major tea-producing areas (Shaanxi, Sichuan, Zhejiang and Anhui provinces) have been identified and selected based on their geographical locations and annual production. These areas have a moist climate and feature several mountains ranges with adequate rainfall, favoring high-quality tea production [120]. After that, we discussed with regional agricultural extension officers to understand tea-producing areas’ trends and each region’s relative information. Considering the feasibility and representativeness of field research, we randomly identified the following eight tea-producing counties (two counties from each province): Ziyang County, Xixiang County from Shaanxi, Wanyuan County and Qingchuan County from Sichuan, Kaihua County and Anji County from Zhejiang, Huangshan county and Qimen county from Anhui province. Then, three towns were randomly selected from each county and two villages were selected from each town. Finally, the survey has been conducted with around 15–18 randomly selected households of tea farmers from 48 towns.

We first approached the head of household or the primary person responsible for pesticide application and other farming decisions (over 18 years old). The survey was conducted in the form of a questionnaire interview, and the survey contents included family characteristics, pesticide application situation, relative sense of deprivation, technical channels, and external environment characteristics. A total of 818 interviews were conducted in this survey, and 786 valid questionnaires were obtained after excluding some questionnaires with missing data. A group of graduate-level students responsible for conducting the formal interviews were first trained under two senior professors from the College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University. Before collecting the final responses, the interviewers briefly explained the questionnaire’s content and the study’s prime aim to maintain the high quality of the required responses.

However, farmers in the investigated area may utilize various environmentally friendly comprehensive pest management tactics such as IPM, physical prevention and control (yellow board), and regional prevention and control measures. Aligned with our prime objective, we do not consider these in our study. The amount of pesticide applied by tea farmers in this study is a comprehensive concept. Thus, we follow a basic assumption that the less intensity of pesticide applied, the closer the green production of tea is to realization and the more friendly it is to human health and the environment, as suggested by Xu et al. [114]. As the study does not collect any personally identifiable data of the respondents and oral consent was obtained from each respondent, the study does not require any strict requirement for obtaining written consent from the Institutional Review Board. According to the existing literature (such as Wang et al. [121], Setiyowati et al. [122], and Ramírez et al. [123]), it is well aligned with the Declaration of Helsinki.

3.3. Model Construction

The pesticide application rate of tea farmers is a multivariate ordinal variable, so an Ordered Probit model is constructed for estimation as recommended by Musafiri et al. [124]. The latent variable has been measured as follows $Y^{*}$:

$$W^{*}=\alpha R+\epsilon$$

(1)

$$W=\{\begin{array}{l}1, if W^{*}\le v_1\\ 2, if v_1<W^{*}\le v_2\\ 3, if W^{*}>v_3\end{array}$$

(2)

In Equation (1), $W^{*}$ is the unobservable amount of pesticide applied by tea growers, which $R$ is the relative sense of deprivation, $\alpha$ is the regression coefficient, and $\epsilon$ is the obedience of the disturbance term $N(0,1)$. In Equation (2), $W$ is the amount of pesticide applied by the observable tea grower; $v_1, v_2, v_3$ represent the cut-off points, and $v_1<v_2<v_3$.

$$P(W=1|R)=P(W^{*}\le v_1|R)=P(v\le \alpha R+{\epsilon }_1|R)=\mathrm{\Phi }{(v_1-\alpha R)}_{}^{}$$

(3)

$$P(W=2|R)=P(v_1<W^{*}\le v_2|R)=\mathrm{\Phi }(v_2-\alpha R)-\mathrm{\Phi }(v_1-\alpha R)$$

(4)

$$P(W=3|R)=P(W^{*}>v_3|R)=1-\mathrm{\Phi }(v_2-\alpha R)$$

(5)

3.4. Variable Selection

3.4.1. The Amount of Pesticide Applied by Tea Farmers

It is difficult to directly observe the pesticide application rate of tea farmers. Based on comparing the types of pesticides, the average application rate per mu (1 Mu corresponding to 1/15 ha¹, about ⅔ × 1000 (or 666.7) m².), and the annual application frequency, the pesticide application rates of tea farmers are quantified into decreased, neutral, and increased. In the actual investigation, the investigator first asked the tea farmers about the types of pesticides applied, the frequency of pesticide application, and the average application amount per mu, and then determined whether the pesticide application amount of the tea farmers decreased, remained unchanged, or increased compared with the previous year.

3.4.2. A Sense of Relative Deprivation

The sense of relative deprivation is a psychological gap experienced by tea farmers after comparing the objective information at their disposal. To measure it effectively, the investigator asked the tea growers whether “reduced doses of pesticides can obtain corresponding price returns”, and the answer “reduced doses of pesticides cannot obtain corresponding price returns” means they have a sense of relative deprivation. The answer that reduced doses of pesticides can obtain corresponding price returns means that there is no sense of relative deprivation. To capture the required information regarding the sense of relative deprivation, we asked the following question to the respondent “Can the corresponding price return be obtained by reducing the amount of pesticide application?”

3.4.3. Adjustment Variable

The government and the community, respectively, represent formal and informal regulation, which have an important influence on the behavior of tea farmers. Therefore, two variables, the degree of government regulation and community regulation represent external intervention to verify the relationship between relative deprivation and tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity. The core connotation of government control degree and community control degree refers to the government or community taking direct action to control farmers’ pesticide application, such as restricting the use of specific pesticides or prohibiting certain pesticides. Behavioral ability includes both the technical ability of tea farmers and the market bargaining power of tea farmers. It is characterized by two variables, the scale of operation (the actual management area of tea gardens) and the participation of cooperatives, to verify the moderating effect between the relative sense of deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers.

3.4.4. Control Variables

By referring to the existing studies (such as Xu et al. [114], Udimal et al. [84] and Damalas [88]), the study selects the following control variables: (i) Household characteristics (gender, age, and educational level of the head of the household), (ii) family characteristics (family population size, years of family tea cultivation, family tea income, and family pesticide selection methods), (iii) technical channels (pest control records, neighborhood technical exchanges, and government technical support), (iv) cognition effect (pesticide yield, pesticide brand, and pesticide environmental effect cognition). In addition, the county-level dummy variables are measured based on the current tea geographical indications in county administration. The specific meanings and assignments of the above variables are shown in

Table 1. Variable meaning and descriptive statistics.

Variable		Assignment Description	Mean	Std.	MN	MX
The amount of pesticide applied by tea farmers		Compared with the previous year, what is the change in your application intensity?, Decrease = 1; Neutral = 2; Increase = 3	2.109	0.786	1	3
Relative deprivation		Can the corresponding price return be obtained by reducing the amount of pesticide application? Yes = 1, No = 0	0.692	0.462	0	1
External intervention	Degree of government regulation	What do you think about the degree to which government regulation affects your pesticide application decisions? 0 = no basic governmental regulation; 1 = occasional government regulation; 2 = frequent government regulation	0.219	0.490	0	2
	Degree of community control	What do you think about the degree to which community regulation affects your pesticide application decisions? 0 = The community is basically unsupervised; 1 = The community is occasionally supervised; 2 = The community is often supervised.	0.366	0.629	0	2
Behavioral capacity	Farming scale	What is the farming scale of your tea garden? The actual operating area of the tea garden (mu)?	5.727	5.700	0.3	55
	Cooperative participation	Does your family participate in any cooperative organization? yes = 1, 0 = no	0.123	0.329	0	1
Head of Household Characteristics	Head of Household Gender	Gender of your household head? Male = 1; Female = 0	0.950	0.217	0	1
	Age of head of household	How old is the head of your household? Actual age (years)	57.865	9.778	32	78
	The cultural level of the head of the household	How educated is the head of the household? Years of education (years)	6.123	3.497	0	16
Family characteristics	Family size	How many people are in your family? Total number of household members (persons)	4.117	1.701	1	12
	Family tea growing period	How many years have your family been planting tea? Tea planting time (year)	25.389	12.596	1	58
	Household tea income	What is your family income, mainly from tea cultivation? Income from tea cultivation (ten thousand yuan)	1.351	2.223	0	30
	Home pesticide selection method	How do you apply pesticides? Self-matching = 1; other subject’s matching = 0	0.653	0.476	0	1
Technical channel	Pest control records	Does your family have pest prevention records? yes = 1; no = 0	0.744	0.437	0	1
	Neighborhood Technology Exchange	Do you rely on neighborhood technology exchange? Yes = 1; No = 0	0.271	0.445	0	1
	Government technical support	Does your family receive government technical support? yes = 1; no = 0	0.452	0.498	0	1
Knowledge of pesticide effects	Knowledge of pesticide yield effect	What is the yield loss caused by pesticide reduction? Yield loss due to pesticide reduction: less than 10% = 1; 10–20% = 2; 20–30% = 3; 30–40% = 4; 40–50% = 5; more than 60% = 6	3.104	1.866	1	6
	Pesticide brand awareness	Will pesticide issues damage the original brand? strongly disagree = 1; somewhat disagree = 2; generally = 3; somewhat agree = 4; strongly agree = 5	3.125	0.985	1	5
	Awareness of the environmental effects of pesticides	Will pesticides cause environmental pollution? strongly disagree = 1; somewhat disagree = 2; generally = 3; somewhat agree = 4; strongly agree = 5.	2.272	1.013	1	5

Note: Std: Standard Deviation, MN: Minimum value, MX: Maximum Value.

.

4. Results

Among the sample households, male household heads accounted for 95.14%, heads of households aged 45 and above accounted for 88.68%, and 90.33% had education below high school. In terms of family population, the family size is mainly large families with more than three people, accounting for 60.05% of the total sample. Regarding operation scale, farmers with a planting area of 5 mu or less accounted for more than 60%. Seemingly, 83.08% of households planted tea for more than ten years, and only 12.34% of farmers participated in cooperatives.

4.1. Benchmark Model Results and Analysis

4.1.1. Relative Sense of Deprivation

The sense of relative deprivation is a psychological mapping of tea farmers’ perceptions of unfairness and injustice in the objective market environment. The results of Model 2 in

Table 2. Factors of importance for the pesticide application rate by tea farmers.

Variable		Model (1)		Model (2)
		Coefficient	Standard Error	Coefficient	Standard Error
Relative deprivation				0.405 ***	0.155
Head of Household Characteristics	Head of household gender	−0.547 *	0.324	−0.552 *	0.316
	Age of head of household	0.125	0.447	0.130	0.446
	The cultural level of the head of the household	0.051 **	0.022	0.053 **	0.022
Family characteristics	Family size	0.029	0.043	0.034	0.043
	Family tea growing period	0.178	0.114	0.187	0.116
	Household tea income	0.142	0.168	0.166	0.167
	Home pesticide selection method	0.446 ***	0.153	0.493 ***	0.155
Technical channel	Pest control records	−0.536 ***	0.202	−0.577 ***	0.203
	Neighborhood technology exchange	0.499 ***	0.179	0.467 ***	0.181
	Government technical support	−0.313 **	0.147	−0.362 **	0.150
Knowledge of pesticide effects	Knowledge of pesticide yield effect	0.165 ***	0.042	0.160 ***	0.042
	Pesticide brand awareness	−0.286 ***	0.078	−0.307 ***	0.078
	Awareness of the environmental effects of pesticides	−0.337 ***	0.079	−0.305 ***	0.080
County-level dummy variables		Yes		Yes
Observations		786		786
Wald chi2		136.050		136.010
Prob		0.000		0.000

Note: ***, **, and * represent the significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10% in turn. To eliminate heteroscedasticity, the logarithm of the age of the household head, farming scale, family tea planting time, and family tea income was brought into the analysis. Standard errors are heteroscedastic robust standard errors.

show that the relative sense of deprivation prompted tea farmers to increase the pesticide application rate at the 1% significance level, and Hypothesis 1 (H1) was verified.

4.1.2. Control Variables

The selection method of household pesticides significantly encourages tea farmers to increase the pesticide usage intensity. The results of Model 1 and Model 2 showed that the gender of the household head significantly promoted the reduction of the number of pesticides applied by tea farmers. The educational level of the head of the household significantly promoted the increase in the number of pesticides applied by tea farmers.

Tea farmers themselves act as the main body of pesticide selection, which is easily affected by drug experience; it is difficult to effectively deal with the resistance of pests and diseases, increasing the intensity of pesticides applied. Pest control records have significantly encouraged tea farmers to reduce pesticide application rates. Pest control records allow tea farmers to recognize pests and diseases more scientifically and their prevention and control, reduce the ineffective application of pesticides and reduce the intensity of pesticides. Government technical support has significantly encouraged tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides applied. The technical exchanges between villagers have significantly promoted tea farmers to increase the number of pesticides. Mutual imitation habits and shared concerns about risks cause tea farmers to repeatedly use and mix drugs under the influence of other villagers, increasing the intensity of pesticides used by tea farmers.

Brand effect cognition significantly encourages tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides applied. The brand of origin significantly impacts product sales and income, and tea farmers with strong brand awareness will reduce the intensity of pesticides to protect the brand. However, the awareness of pollution effects significantly encourages tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides and acts as an essential manifestation of the ecological rationality and environmental literacy of tea farmers.

4.2. Moderating Effect Results and Analysis

Based on the model mentioned above, the moderating effects of external intervention and behavioral ability on the relationship between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers were further tested. First, we introduce the core, moderating, and control variables, as in model 3, model 5, model 7, and model 9, as in

Table 3. Factors of influence on the relative deprivation and pesticide use by tea farmers.

Variable		M3	M 4	M 5	M 6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12
		Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)	Ce (Se)
Relative deprivation		0.400 ** (0.157)	0.407 *** (0.156)	0.351 ** (0.157)	0.353 ** (0.157)	0.396 ** (0.156)	0.407 ** (0.155)	0.399 *** (0.156)	0.397 *** (0.155)	0.346 ** (0.158)	0.359 ** (0.157)
External intervention	Degree of government regulation	−0.716 *** (0.178)	−0.706 *** (0.156)	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.609 *** (0.181)	−0.585 *** (0.182)
	Degree of community control	-	-	−0.458 *** (0.136)	−0.463 *** (0.139)	-	-	-	-	−0.370 *** (0.138)	−0.382 *** (0.141)
Behavioral capacity	Farming scale	-	-	-	-	−0.190 * (0.103)	−0.191 * (0.103)	-	-	−0.191 * (0.104)	−0.182 * (0.105)
	Cooperative participation	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.190 (0.255)	−0.171 (0.266)	−0.105 (0.263)	−0.090 (0.271)
The relative sense of deprivation * degree of government regulation		-	−0.659 *** (0.296)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.750 *** (0.328)
Relative deprivation * degree of community control		-	-	-	−0.075 (0.254)	-	-	-	-	-	0.071 (0.274)
The relative sense of deprivation * scale of operation		-	-	-	-	-	−0.099 (0.184)	-	-	-	−0.132 (0.196)
Relative deprivation * co-op engagement		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.156 (0.489)	-	0.366 (0.526)
Control variable		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations		786	786	786	786	786	786	786	786	786	786
Wald chi2		153.800	156.040	141.090	141.230	140.140	140.450	139.000	139.290	156.27	157.60
Prob		0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

Note: ***, **, and * represent the significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10% in turn. Here, M: model, CE (SE): coefficient (standard error).

. Then, we introduce the core variables, moderating variables, interaction terms, and control variables, as shown in the model in Table 3 (Model 6, Model 8, Model 10); finally, we introduce the core variable, all adjustment variables, and control variables into the construction of Model 11, and introduce the core variables, all adjustment variables, interaction terms, and control variables into the construction of Model 12. The specific results are shown in Table 3.

4.2.1. External Intervention

Model 3 and Model 4 show that the level of government regulation at the 1% significance level encourages tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides applied and can play a negative regulatory role between the relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers. Moreover, it shows that the degree of government regulation not only can directly prompt tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides, and can also indirectly promote the reduction of pesticides by tea farmers by weakening the relationship between the relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers. Therefore, it can be assumed that Hypothesis 2a was verified.

The results of model 5 and model 6 show that the degree of community control encourages tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides applied at the 1% significance level. However, its moderating effect between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers failed the significance test. Thus, Hypothesis 2b cannot be endorsed.

4.2.2. Behavioral Capacity

As shown in Model 7 and Model 8, the management scale encourages tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides applied at the 10% significance level. However, the moderating effect between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers is insignificant. This indicates that although the management scale can help directly reduce the intensity of pesticides applied, it failed to regulate the relationship between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides used by tea farmers. Hypothesis 3a was rejected. The results of Model 9 and Model 10 show that the participation of cooperatives neither directly affects the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers nor does it play a moderating role between the relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers significantly. Therefore, Hypothesis 3b has been rejected.

In Model 11 and Model 12, the degrees of government regulation, community regulation and management scale have significant effects on the choice of pesticide application rate for tea farmers, while the effect of cooperative participation is not significant; in the interaction term, only the moderating effect of government regulation and relative deprivation is significant. This is consistent with the regression results for classification.

5. Discussion

The widespread use of chemical pesticides in typical farming across the globe is a significant issue for apprehension, and this is true not just from the viewpoint of conserving nature. Farmers are the consumers of agrochemicals and pesticides, and their usage behavior and intensity can significantly impact both ecological degradation and agricultural activities. Pesticides enter the soil, water and atmosphere through volatilization and infiltration, causing agricultural non-point source pollution to be distributed in the vast production areas almost in the form of an unwanted “flower arrangement”, seriously threatening the ecological environment, food safety and human health in the production areas. Pesticides may harm organisms they are not intended to eliminate, eventually weakening the farm’s pest resistance. Moreover, several external factors may also make the situation even worse. According to the study of Ma et al. [125], climate change, global warming and uneven seasonal changes can potentially change the distribution of pests globally and their resistance to pesticides. The impacts of rising temperatures on the patterns of insect populations have led to forecasts of production losses of 10–25% per degree of average temperature increase in wheat, rice, and maize [126]. Thus, pesticide application intensity may differ each year [127]. The success of effective pesticide management may primarily rely on how far we can reduce our reliance on chemicals in the near future by switching the objective from minimizing preharvest damage to obtaining adequate or ideal outputs with minimal synthetic chemicals. The advanced science of pest management and farmers’ favorable pesticide application behavior can be crucial to attaining these core challenges [128,129].

Based on the Ordered Probit Model and regression analysis, the study found that the relative sense of deprivation has a significant positive effect on the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers. It also highlights that the stronger the sense of relative deprivation, the more tea farmers tend to increase the intensity of pesticides applied. However, in the current market, tea farmers cannot improve their situation through fair competition, and a “race to the bottom” has become the norm. In the end, tea farmers may blindly seek to improve their disadvantaged position, abuse pesticides like others, and maintain their application rates at high levels. Male households hold more control and power in relation to the reduction of pesticide use. This could be possible as male heads of households are more adventurous and try new things, and thus can use less pesticide than female heads. We also found that household heads with high educational levels are more likely to work elsewhere concurrently and tend to replace labor by applying more pesticides, so tea farmers with high educational levels increase the intensity of pesticides applied. Concerning external interventions, the degree of government control could not only directly encourage the tea farmers to reduce the pesticide application intensity but also play a negative role between the relative deprivation and the pesticide application intensity. The government can embed advanced technology into the original technology system of tea farmers, improve the technical ability of tea farmers, and urge tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides.

Theoretically, external intervention can not only directly constrain the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers but also reduce the relative deprivation of tea farmers through overall control of the jurisdiction, thereby affecting the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers. However, due to the current decline in community governance and the adverse effects of social capital, it is difficult for the community to implement non-discriminatory control over tea farmers equally. The results are parallel with the study of Lou et al. [42] and Karki et al. [130]. Although the degree of community control can directly encourage tea farmers to reduce the amount of pesticide application, its regulatory effect is not significant. Likewise, Zhu et al. [131] found related findings in a study of Chinese farmers. However, regarding behavioral ability, production scale can directly encourage tea farmers to reduce their pesticide application but the regulatory effect is insignificant. Gao et al. [132] advocated similar assumptions in a study of Chinese farmers from 31 provinces.

The cognition of the pesticide yield effect significantly encourages tea farmers to increase the intensity of pesticides. Tea farmers have a robust motivation to minimize losses. Under this motivation, they tend to increase the intensity of pesticides to reduce yield losses. Therefore, the perception of the yield effect makes tea farmers increase the intensity of pesticide usage. Finally, we found that the participation in cooperatives has no significant impact on tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity which is dissimilar to the findings of Liu and Wu [38] and Li et al. [133]. Theoretically, the participation of large-scale organizations or cooperatives, on the one hand, can enhance the technical ability of tea farmers and promote the reduction of pesticide application [32]. However, in practice, the reason for the insignificant adjustment effect of farming scale and cooperative participation is that tea farmers cannot eliminate disorderly competition in the tea market [113]. Although tea farmers have expanded their farming scale or joined cooperatives, their market bargaining power has not been significantly improved. If production standards are not lowered, there will still be losses or even bankruptcy, so the adjustment effect is insignificant. It indicates that although the degree of control can directly prompt tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides applied, it cannot regulate the relationship between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers.

Based on the above discussions, the following policy implications are drawn. (i) The green and organic agricultural product certification system should be improved in the geographical indication of tea areas. The transparency of product quality information should also be enhanced. The market price and reputation mechanism should be used to weaken the sense of relative deprivation caused by the market dynamics and encourage tea farmers to reduce pesticide application. (ii) Governmental regulating authorities should be more responsible for facilitating better access to required information and improved pest control technology for farmers. On the one hand, the conventional means of government intervention, such as point-of-sale testing and traceability of pesticide residues, should be consolidated, strengthened and improved. In addition, a deterrent punishment system should be established for tea farmers’ illegal use of pesticides. (iii) The lack of vitality of community organizations is a fundamental reason for their lack of influence on the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers. Therefore, the training of community staff and cadres should be strengthened to improve their management awareness and sense of responsibility. Moreover, a community-level incentive system for pesticide management performance should be formulated, and communities should be encouraged to take measures such as persuasion and supervision to encourage tea farmers to reduce the dosage. (iv) Appropriate subsidies or rewards should be availed for land transfer to support tea farmers to expand their farming scale and realize the large-scale allocation of production factors. At the same time, increased policy subsidies for large-scale operation standards may prevent tea farmers from lowering production standards, while support is needed for technological advancement and tea farming development. (v) Policies should give full play to the radiating and leading role of green production of cooperatives, inluxinv improvement of the internal governance mechanism of cooperatives. (vi) It is apparent that farmers’ knowledge and relative deprivation are interconnected and significantly influence the choice of pesticide use. The existing literature (e.g., Mochizuki [134], Gnanapragasam [135] and Ye et al. [136]) suggests implementing efficient use of pesticides combined with various methods, popularly known as integrated pest management (IPM). IPM is not only a technique that conserves resources; it has a broader range of applications [137]. These, coupled with reduced crop losses and savings in the cost of pesticides, make IPM particularly important for tropical smallholders [138]. Therefore, IPM may be considered a kind of pest control technique that boosts social, human, and natural capital interconnections and eventually reduces pests’ intensity.

Likewise, we must admit that this research has certain constraints. The prime challenges of the study were the limited survey area and lack of reliable panel data. Moreover, China has a vast tea area, and the research is based on four representative provinces. The research area can be further expanded based on the analysis framework of relative deprivation and tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity. The cross-sectional data used in this paper cannot profoundly investigate the evolution process of relative deprivation and its dynamic impact on tea farmers’ application intensity. The study does not collect information regarding some externalities, such as perceptions regarding health hazards caused by pesticides, climate change and seasonal variabilities, which can impact the application intensity. Although the environmental effect includes some health effects, the impact and mechanism of these externalities on tea farmers’ application amount should be included for a robust outcome.

6. Conclusions

Reducing the amount of pesticide application by tea farmers is an integral part of the high-quality development of agriculture and the protection of the ecological environment, and constitutes a fundamental problem to be solved. Based on the survey data of 768 tea farmers’ households from four major tea-producing areas, this study empirically analyses the effect of relative deprivation on the pesticide application intensity of tea farmers. Moreover, we explored the moderating role of governmental regulation, community regulation, farming scale, and cooperative participation on farmers’ behavior. Policy options include developing cooperatives to ensure the market quality premium ability of tea farmers, use of honorary titles, funds, and targeted subsidies to encourage cooperatives to radiate and drive tea farmers to reduce the pesticide usage intensity.

The study found that relative deprivation significantly influences farmers’ pesticide utilization intensity. Government regulation, community control, farmers’ behavioral ability, and farming scale significantly positively reduce pesticide application intensity. However, the regulatory effect of community control, behavioral ability, and farming scale is insignificant. Interestingly, the study found that the participation in cooperatives has no significant impact on tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity. The results of our research might not be perfectly generalizable. However, it certainly tends to offer specific legislative recommendations for encountering farmers’ sense of relative deprivation and offers guidance on how to reduce pesticide application intensity in developing countries where marginal farming is typical.

The empirically tested framework of the study could be crucial for future research as it could be tested with other primary cash crops. Future studies should further expand the research framework, obtain panel data, and draw a general conclusion based on more significant survey areas. Moreover, the connotation, farming types, and measurement methods of relative deprivation should be extended. Additionally, potential researchers should explore more regulatory variables under the various agricultural sub-sectors. We examined the mediator impact of external intervention and behavioral capacity on relative deprivation and farmers’ pesticide application behavior, and we did not precisely measure the dangers of pesticide use. Therefore, further research is required to determine the adverse effects of the pesticide. Moreover, different pesticide reduction tactics such as biological control, IPM and selective control should be explored critically in the sense of farmers’ perceptions of relative deprivation. It would be very interesting if the framework presented in the study could be analyzed with more complex and structural modelling tactics like structural equation modelling (SEM) and interpretive structural modelling. In addition, the variables tested in the study could be outlined as more robust outcomes with the slack base model (SBM), such as super-SBM.