The Deviation of the Behaviors of Rice Farmers from Their Stated Willingness to Apply Biopesticides—A Study Carried Out in Jilin Province of China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Studies on Farmers’ Application Behaviors of Biopesticides
1.2. Studies on the Deviation of Behavioral Intentions
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Source
2.2. Variable Settings
2.2.1. Dependent Variable
2.2.2. Independent Variable
- (1)
- Individual and Family Characteristics
- (2)
- Farmers’ Awareness
- (3)
- External Factors
2.3. Research Methodology
2.3.1. Logistic Regression Model
2.3.2. ISM Model
Determine the Adjacency Matrix R between the Factors
Determine the Hierarchy of Each Factor
3. Results
3.1. Logistic Regression Results
3.2. ISM Analysis Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Deviation of Biopesticide Application Intentions and Behaviors of Rice-Growing Farmers
4.1.1. Analysis of the Impacts of Individual and Family Characteristics
4.1.2. Analysis of the Influences from Farmers’ Perceptions
4.1.3. Analysis of the Influences from External Factors
4.2. Hierarchical Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Deviation of Biopesticide Application Intentions and Behaviors of Rice-Growing Farmers
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- There are still many farmers using chemical pesticides and there are many deviations between their willingness and behaviors in the application of biopesticides, so it is not promising to promote biopesticides as an alternative to chemical pesticides on a full scale. The divergence between the willingness and behaviors of rice farmers to apply biopesticides is influenced by various factors. In terms of individual and family characteristics, both education level and scales of rice planting have a negative effect on it. In terms of farmers’ awareness, biopesticide awareness, awareness of hazardous effects from chemical pesticides and quality and safety awareness of agricultural products have a negative effect on the deviation. The better the farmers’ awareness towards environment protection, the lower the possibility of the deviation to take place. As for external factors, peer influences, emergency conditions and price affordability have positive effects on the occurrence of deviation.
- (2)
- The logical hierarchy of influencing factors can be summarized as a “single path with three drivers” model. Biopesticide awareness is at the surface level, awareness of chemical pesticides’ hazards and awareness of agricultural quality and safety are indirect factors at the mid-level while the farmers’ characteristics such as education level and planting scales are root causes. The three drivers refer to external factors such as price affordability, emergency conditions and peer influences and they are also surface-level direct influencing factors. It’s very important for governing agencies to put focus on these root causes while promoting the application of biopesticides to achieve a promising outcome.
- (3)
- Some of the key reasons for the deviation of farmers’ willingness and behaviors are listed below: farmers’ education level is generally low, farmers are not much concerned about the quality and safety of agricultural products, farmers’ lack knowledge and expertise about the characteristics of biopesticides and the hazardous effects from chemical pesticides. Farmers are constrained by economic conditions and their purchasing power is quite limited in terms of biopesticides procurement. In addition, the lack of publicity and incomplete construction of markets for biopesticides have led to farmers having difficulties distinguishing between biopesticides and chemical pesticides.
Suggestions
- (1)
- It is extremely important to improve the expertise level of the farmers, to reduce the constraints of farmers’ resource endowment and to promote the conversion of farmers’ willingness to apply biopesticides into behaviors. It’s also necessary to enhance the education level of rural farmers through face-to-face coaching sessions and education on fields for farmers with low education level. In this approach, a new generation of young professional farmers can be cultivated with better agricultural expertise level. The promotion of biopesticides should also be focused such as the development of differentiated promotion programs for farmers of different planting scales in different regions.
- (2)
- It is also recommended to strengthen the publicity of the ideas of green production and to raise the cognition level of farmers towards green production. On one hand, publicity and promotion work for biopesticide popularization through television, Internet and other social medias and face-to-face coaching can strengthen farmers’ understanding of green production and green transformation of agricultural production. On the other hand, it is necessary to deepen the farmers’ perceptions of green agricultural production experiences by carrying out special environmental protection activities such as organizing visits to green production demonstration projects and establishing green production demonstration households. In this way, farmers’ sense of responsibility to protect the environment in agricultural productions can be improved.
- (3)
- Finally, it is crucial to speed up the establishment of the biopesticide market and to optimize the policy mechanisms and enforcement of biopesticide use. At present, farmers are facing the problem of selecting from various types of pesticides, which makes it difficult for farmers to distinguish between biopesticides and chemical pesticides. This phenomenon reminds us that attention should be paid to improving the identifiability of biopesticides at pesticide distribution sites hence reducing the extra identification costs for farmers. At the same time, price affordability is also one of the major concerns of farmers. The price of biopesticides need to be regulated to a relatively acceptable range through improved subsidy schemes and promotions. Moreover, subsidy schemes and promotions need to be made known to the public to obtain satisfaction from the farmers in order for them to have confidence in the application of biopesticides.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hou, B.; Wu, L. Safety impact and farmer awareness of pesticide residues. Food Agric. Immunol. 2010, 21, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Sun, Y.; Li, Z.; Hu, R.; Cai, J. A Bibliometric Analysis of Studies on Human Health Damage from Pesticide Exposure. J. Agrobiol. 2016, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmed, O.O. Gender Variation in Knowledge Level on Precautionary Measures against Pesticides’ Health and Environmental Hazards among Cocoa Farmers in Nigeria. Int. J. Appl. Agric. Sci. 2017, 3, 166–173. [Google Scholar]
- Marmot, M. The social environment and health. Clin. Med. 2005, 5, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jong, F.M.; De Snoo, G.R.; Loorij, T.P. Trends of pesticide use in The Netherlands. Mededelingen (Rijksuniv. Gent. Fak. Landbouwkd. Toegep. Biol. Wet.) 2001, 66, 823–834. [Google Scholar]
- Cha, E.S.; Jeong, M.; Lee, W.J. Agricultural Pesticide Usage and Prioritization in South Korea. J. Agromedicine 2014, 19, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, D.P.; Lohrke, S.M. United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service research programs in biological control of plant diseases. Pest Manag. Sci. 2003, 59, 654–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewhurst, I.C. Regulatory issues for biological pesticides. Toxicol. Lett. 2006, 164, S39–S40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Writers, S. Major Scientific Push To Tackle Agricultural Productivity And Food Security In Developing World. Farm News. 2008, 35, 53–69. [Google Scholar]
- Sattler, C.; Kächele, H.; Verch, G. Assessing the intensity of pesticide use in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 119, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalska, A. Organic farming as a development factor of sustainable consumption. J. Agribus. Rural. Dev. 2015, 37, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.-g.; Lin, H.-p.; Hou, L.-s.; Yao, X. An assessment for sustainable developing capability of integrated agricultural regionalization in China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2002, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achtnicht, M. German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO2 emissions. Clim. Chang. 2011, 113, 679–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, M.P.; Kabir, M.M.M.; Haque, S.S.; Qin, X.; Nasrin, S.; Landis, D.; Holmquist, B.; Ahmed, N. Farmer’s behavior in pesticide use: Insights study from smallholder and intensive agricultural farms in Bangladesh. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pray, C.; Nagarajan, L.; Li, L.P.; Huang, J.K.; Hu, R.F.; Selvaraj, K.N.; Napasintuwong, O.; Babu, R.C. Potential Impact of Biotechnology on Adaption of Agriculture to Climate Change: The Case of Drought Tolerant Rice Breeding in Asia. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1723–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bagde, S.; Epple, D.; Taylor, L. Does Affirmative Action Work? Caste, Gender, College Quality, and Academic Success in India. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016, 106, 1495–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nie, L.; Peng, S. Rice Production in China. In Rice Production Worldwide; Chauhan, B.S., Jabran, K., Mahajan, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2017; pp. 33–52. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, N.; Di, Y.-t.; Zhao, G.-c.; Xu, K.-z.; Wu, Z.-h.; Zhang, Z.-a.; Ling, F.-l. Biomasses in Different Organs of Rice Cultivars Developed During Recent Forty-Seven Years in Jilin Province, China. Rice Sci. 2010, 17, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villa-Rodríguez, E.; Parra-Cota, F.; Castro-Longoria, E.; López-Cervantes, J.; Santos-Villalobos, S.d.l. Bacillus subtilis TE3: A promising biological control agent against Bipolaris sorokiniana, the causal agent of spot blotch in wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum). Biol. Control 2019, 132, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Njoroge, J.M.; Waithaka, K.; Chweya, J.A. Effects of Intercropping Young Plants of the Compact Arabica Coffee Hybrid Cultivar Ruiru 11 with Potatoes, Tomatoes, Beans and Maize on Coffee Yields and Economic Returns in Kenya. Exp. Agric. 1993, 29, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paudel, K.P.; Lohr, L.; Martin, N.R. Effect of risk perspective on fertilizer choice by sharecroppers. Agric. Syst. 2000, 66, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gong, Y.; Baylis, K.; Kozak, R.; Bull, G. Farmers’ risk preferences and pesticide use decisions: Evidence from field experiments in China. Agric. Econ. 2016, 47, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, E.M.; Huang, J. Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China. J. Dev. Econ. 2013, 103, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pan, Y.; Ren, Y.; A Luning, P. Factors influencing Chinese farmers’ proper pesticide application in agricultural products—A review. Food Control 2021, 122, 107788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Möhring, N.; Wuepper, D.; Musa, T.; Finger, R. Why farmers deviate from recommended pesticide timing: The role of uncertainty and information. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 2787–2798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, L.; Sok, J.; van der Werf, W.; Bianchi, F.J.J.A. Kicking the Habit: What Makes and Breaks Farmers’ Intentions to Reduce Pesticide Use? Ecol. Econ. 2021, 180, 106868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damalas, C.A. Farmers’ intention to reduce pesticide use: The role of perceived risk of loss in the model of the planned behavior theory. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abou Zeid, M.I.; Jammoul, A.M.; Melki, K.C.; Abou Jawdah, Y.; Awad, M.K. Suggested policy and legislation reforms to reduce deleterious effect of pesticides in Lebanon. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arvola, A.; Vassal lo, M.; Dean, M.; Lampila, P.; Saba, A.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Shepherd, R. Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite 2008, 50, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhodes, R.E.; Bruijn, G.J. How big is the physical activity intention–behaviour gap? A meta-analysis using the action control framework. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2013, 18, 296–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Perren, K.; Yang, L. Psychosocial and Behavioural Factors Associated with Intention to Save Water around the Home: A Greek Case Study. Procedia Eng. 2015, 119, 1447–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zannat, T.R.A.; Liu, Y.; Man, Y.; Mahmudul, H.M.; Mehedi, A.K.; Anindita, S.S. Assessing farmers’ intention towards conservation agriculture by using the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 280, 111654, (prepublish). [Google Scholar]
- Icek, A. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar]
- Newman, T.P.; Fernandes, R. A re-assessment of factors associated with environmental concern and behavior using the 2010 General Social Survey. Environ. Educ. Res. 2016, 22, 153–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.W.K.; Chan, A. Knowledge sharing and social media: Altruism, perceived online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship commitment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 39, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, J.R. The Past, Present, and Future of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2002, 87, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Lei, X.; Strauss, J.; Zhao, Y. Health Insurance and Health Care among the Mid-Aged and Older Chinese: Evidence from the National Baseline Survey of CHARLS. Health Econ. 2017, 26, 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abbade, E.B.; Dewes, H. Food insecurity worldwide derived from food supply patterns. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Chen, J. Analysis of factors affecting small-scale farmland water conservancy construction based on the perspective of farmers’ subdivision. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Water Resource and Environment, Macao, China, 16–19 July 2019; Volume 344. [Google Scholar]
- Adewale, J.G.; Adekunle, O.A. Nigerian rice farmers’ use of indigenous agricultural practices. Trop. Agric. 2003, 80, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
- Schultz, H. Theoretical considerations relating to supply. J. Politi Econ. 1927, 35, 437–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jinghua, L.; Renan, J.; Xiaogang, Z. The Tendency of the Household Contract Responsibility System Based on Economics—Based on Pingxiang Agriculture Empirical Analysis; China Machine Press: Beijing, China, 2008; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, M.; Doss, C. How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 1999, 81, 1313. [Google Scholar]
- Sankoh, A.I.; Whittle, R.; Semple, K.T.; Jones, K.C.; Sweetman, A.J. An assessment of the impacts of pesticide use on the environment and health of rice farmers in Sierra Leone. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wenyu, W.; Jianjun, J.; Rui, H.; Haozhou, G. Gender differences in pesticide use knowledge, risk awareness and practices in Chinese farmers. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 590–591, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
- Binswanger, H.P. Attitudes toward Risk—Experimental-Measurement in Rural India. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 1980, 62, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pan, D.; He, M.; Kong, F. Risk attitude, risk perception, and farmers’ pesticide application behavior in China: A moderation and mediation model. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benaboud, J.; Elachour, M.; Oujidi, J.; Chafi, A. Farmer’s behaviors toward pesticides use: Insight from a field study in Oriental Morocco. Environ. Anal. Health Toxicol. 2021, 36, e2021002-0. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, J.; Yan, Z.; Li, K. Understanding farmer cooperatives’ self-inspection behavior to guarantee agri-product safety in China. Food Control 2016, 59, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, L.; Chen, L.; Zhao, J.; Wang, R. Comparative analysis on environmental and economic performance of agricultural cooperatives and smallholder farmers: The case of grape production in Hebei, China. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ataei, P.; Gholamrezai, S.; Movahedi, R.; Aliabadi, V. An analysis of farmers’ intention to use green pesticides: The application of the extended theory of planned behavior and health belief model. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 81, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, S.; Chima, C.D. Determinants of Pesticide Use in Food Crop Production in Southeastern Nigeria. Agriculture 2018, 8, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qin, S.-L.; Lu, X.-Y. Do large-scale farmers use more pesticides? Empirical evidence from rice farmers in five Chinese provinces. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 590–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Wang, W.; He, R.; Gong, H. Pesticide Use and Risk Perceptions among Small-Scale Farmers in Anqiu County, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 14, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zheng, W.; Luo, B.; Hu, X. The determinants of farmers’ fertilizers and pesticides use behavior in China: An explanation based on label effect. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 123054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goeb, J.; Lupi, F. Showing pesticides’ true colors: The effects of a farmer-to-farmer training program on pesticide knowledge. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 279, 111821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walton, A.L.; LePrevost, C.E.; Hatch, D.J.; Grisle, S.Y. A Comparison of Pesticide Risk Beliefs between Farmers and Farmworkers: Implications for Risk Communication and Education. J. Agromed. 2021, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, L.; Niu, H.; Yang, X.; Qin, W.; Bento, C.P.M.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Factors affecting farmers’ behaviour in pesticide use: Insights from a field study in northern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 537, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karasmanaki, E.; Dimopoulou, P.; Vryzas, Z.; Karipidis, P.; Tsantopoulos, G. Is the Environmental Behavior of Farmers Affecting Their Pesticide Practices? A Case Study from Greece. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheze, B.; David, M.; Martinet, V. Understanding farmers’ reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 167, 106349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, S.; Li, G. Factors Affecting Farmers’ Behavior of Cultivated Land Protection Based on Logistic-ISM Model in Karst Region: A Case Study in Guizhou Province. In Proceedings of the 2015 12th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, Guangzhou, China, 22–24 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, R.; Hou, B.; Sun, P.; Li, H.; Wang, J. Vegetable farmers’ use intention towards biopesticides and its influencing factors: Based on the survey in Jiangsu province, China. Carpathian J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 8, 14–22. [Google Scholar]
- Duc, N.M. Farmers satisfaction with aquaculture—A logistic model in Vietnam. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokhrel, K.P.; Sharaf, T.; Bhandari, P.; Ghimire, D. Farm Exit among Smallholder Farmers of Nepal: A Bayesian Logistic Regression Models Approach. Agric. Res. 2020, 9, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warfield, J.N. Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 1973, SMC3, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Halder, P.; Zhang, X.; Qu, M. Analyzing the deviation between farmers’ Land transfer intention and behavior in China’s impoverished mountainous Area: A Logistic-ISM model approach. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 2000, 14, 137–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Britz, W.; Ferris, M.; Kuhn, A. Modeling water allocating institutions based on Multiple Optimization Problems with Equilibrium Constraints. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 46, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type | Options | Sample Size | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 120 | 73.6 |
Female | 43 | 26.4 | |
Age | ≤30 years old | 6 | 3.7 |
31–40 years old | 36 | 22.1 | |
41–50 years old | 71 | 43.6 | |
51–60 years old | 46 | 28.2 | |
>60 years old | 4 | 2.5 | |
Participation in Cooperatives | Yes | 70 | 42.9 |
No | 93 | 57.1 | |
Education Level | Below Primary School | 2 | 1.2 |
Primary School | 38 | 23.3 | |
Junior High School | 84 | 51.5 | |
High school or Junior College | 27 | 16.6 | |
College and Above | 12 | 7.4 | |
Rice Revenue Share | 0–20% | 44 | 27.0 |
20–40% | 30 | 18.4 | |
40–60% | 20 | 12.2 | |
60–80% | 15 | 9.2 | |
80–100% | 54 | 33.1 |
Pesticide Application | Number of Samples (pcs) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Willingness Without Behaviors | 73 | 45 |
Willingness with Behaviors | 90 | 55 |
Total | 163 | 100 |
Variables | Variable Interpretation and Assignment | Average Value | Standard Deviation | Index Sources | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | Biopesticide Application Intentions and Behaviors | Deviation exists between intentions and actions. Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.45 | 0.499 | [37] | |
Independent Variables | Individual and Family Characteristics | Gender | Male = 1; Female = 0 | 0.74 | 0.442 | [44] |
Age | 30 years old and below = 1; 31–40 years old = 2; 41–50 years old = 3; 51–60 years old = 4; 60 years old and above = 5 | 3.04 | 0.867 | [48] | ||
Education Level | Below elementary school = 1; Elementary school = 2; Junior high school = 3; High school or junior college = 4; College and above = 5 | 3.06 | 0.862 | [49] | ||
Participation in Cooperatives | Do you participate in a cooperative? Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.43 | 0.497 | [51] | ||
Annual Household Income | Real annual household income/Ұ in 2019 | 11.86 | 0.500 | [52] | ||
Percentage of Income from Rice Plantation | Rice revenue to total revenue ratio (%) | 78.75 | 0.500 | [53] | ||
Rice Planting Scales | Rice growing area (hm2) | 1.22 | 0.500 | [54] | ||
Farmers’ Awareness | Biopesticide Awareness | Do you know anything about biopesticides? Not at all = 1; Not very well informed = 2; General knowledge = 3; Well informed = 4; Very well informed = 5 | 2.54 | 0.897 | [57] | |
Awareness of Hazardous Effect from Chemical Pesticides | Are you aware of the hazards of chemical pesticides to humans and to the environment? Not at all = 1; Not very well informed = 2; General awareness = 3; Well informed = 4; Very well informed = 5 | 3.067 | 1.0548 | [29] | ||
Quality and Safety Awareness of Agricultural Products | Are you concerned about the quality and safety of agricultural products? Not at all = 1; Not too concerned = 2; Generally concerned = 3; Much concerned = 4; Very much concerned = 5 | 3.71 | 1.094 | [57] | ||
Confidence Level over Biopesticides Promotion | Do you believe in the effectiveness of biopesticides as advertised? Strongly disbelieve = 1; Relatively disbelieve = 2; General confidence level = 3; Relatively believe = 4; Strongly believe = 5 | 3.09 | 1.029 | [58] | ||
External Factors | Peer Influences | The types of pesticides you would purchase are easily influenced by the farmers around you. Strongly disagree = 1; Relatively disagree = 2; General attitude = 3; Relatively agree = 4; Strongly agree = 5 | 3.75 | 0.810 | [26] | |
Emergency Conditions | When there’s outbreak of pest’s diseases, you would give priority to chemical pesticides. Strongly disagree = 1; Relatively disagree = 2; No preference = 3; Relatively agree = 4; Strongly agree = 5 | 3.82 | 0.925 | [60] | ||
Biopesticides Availability | When you want to buy biopesticides, you cannot get it in time. Strongly disagree = 1; Relatively disagree = 2; No preference = 3; Relatively agree = 4; Strongly agree = 5 | 3.40 | 0.843 | [59] | ||
Price Affordability | You think biopesticides are too expensive. Strongly disagree = 1; Relatively disagree = 2; Fair = 3; Relatively agree = 4; Strongly agree = 5 | 3.25 | 0.928 | [61] |
Variable Category | Variable Name | Regression Coefficient β | Inspection Error S. E. | Power Value Exp (βi) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Individual and Family Characteristics | Gender | 0.377 | 0.181 | 1.457 |
Age | 0.008 | 0.011 | 1.065 | |
Education level | −0.547 ** | 0.240 | 0.579 | |
Participation in Cooperatives | −0.248 | 0.328 | 0.781 | |
Annual Household Income | −0.015 | 0.163 | 0.985 | |
Percentage of Income out of Rice Plantation | 0.112 | 0.162 | 1.189 | |
Scales of Rice Planting | −0.050 ** | 0.046 | 0.951 | |
Farmers’ Awareness | Biopesticide Awareness | −0.507 * | 0.221 | 0.602 |
Awareness of Hazardous Effect from Chemical Pesticides | −0.710 ** | 0.173 | 0.492 | |
Quality and Safety Awareness of Agricultural Products | −0.936 ** | 0.315 | 0.392 | |
Confidence Level over Biopesticides Promotion | −0.192 | 0.210 | 0.825 | |
External Factors | Peer Influences | 1.702 *** | 0.605 | 5.484 |
Emergency Conditions | 0.733 ** | 0.343 | 2.081 | |
Biopesticides Availability | 0.284 | 0.425 | 1.287 | |
Price Affordability | 0.385 *** | 0.343 | 1.470 | |
−2 times the log likelihood value | 285.592 | |||
R2 test | 84.773 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, H.; Sun, F.; Pan, C.; Yang, B.; Li, Y. The Deviation of the Behaviors of Rice Farmers from Their Stated Willingness to Apply Biopesticides—A Study Carried Out in Jilin Province of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6026. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116026
Guo H, Sun F, Pan C, Yang B, Li Y. The Deviation of the Behaviors of Rice Farmers from Their Stated Willingness to Apply Biopesticides—A Study Carried Out in Jilin Province of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(11):6026. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116026
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Hongpeng, Fanhui Sun, Chulin Pan, Baiming Yang, and Yin Li. 2021. "The Deviation of the Behaviors of Rice Farmers from Their Stated Willingness to Apply Biopesticides—A Study Carried Out in Jilin Province of China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 11: 6026. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116026
APA StyleGuo, H., Sun, F., Pan, C., Yang, B., & Li, Y. (2021). The Deviation of the Behaviors of Rice Farmers from Their Stated Willingness to Apply Biopesticides—A Study Carried Out in Jilin Province of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 6026. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116026