Will Joining Cooperative Promote Farmers to Replace Chemical Fertilizers with Organic Fertilizers?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Mechanism
2.1. Scale Effects
2.2. Learning Effects
2.3. Regulatory Effects
3. Data Sources and Model Setting
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Model Setting
3.2.1. Endogenous Conversion Model
3.2.2. Estimation of Treatment Effects
3.3. Variable Setting and Descriptive Statistics
3.3.1. Core Dependent Variables
3.3.2. Core Independent Variables and Instrumental Variables
3.3.3. Control Variables
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Results
4.2. Treatment Effect Estimation
4.3. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Policy Suggestions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Caires, E.F.; Zardo, R.; Barth, G.; Joris, H.A.W. Optimizing Nitrogen Use Efficiency for No-Till Corn Production by Improving Root Growth and Capturing NO3-N in Subsoil. Pedosphere 2016, 26, 474–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savari, M.; Damaneh, H.E.; Damaneh, H.E. Factors involved in the degradation of mangrove forests in Iran: A mixed study for the management of this ecosystem. J. Nat. Conserv. 2022, 66, 126153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y.J. What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 882–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savari, M.; Yazdanpanah, M.; Rouzaneh, D. Factors affecting the implementation of soil conservation practices among Iranian farmers. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 8396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Billen, G.; Garnier, J.; Lassaletta, L. The nitrogen cascade from agricultural soils to the sea: Modelling nitrogen transfers at regional watershed and global scales. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uhunamure, S.E.; Kom, Z.; Shale, K.; Nethengwe, N.S.; Steyn, J. Perceptions of Smallholder Farmers towards Organic Farming in South Africa. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lassaletta, L.; Billen, G.; Grizzetti, B.; Anglade, J.; Garnier, J. 50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping systems: The relationship between yield and nitrogen input to cropland. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 947–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kremen, C.; Miles, A. Ecosystem Services in Biologically Diversified versus Conventional Farming Systems: Benefits, Externalities, and Trade-Offs. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.L.; Abdulai, A.; Goetz, R. Agricultural Cooperatives and Investment in Organic Soil Amendments and Chemical Fertilizer in China. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 100, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulletin on the First National Census on Pollution Sources [DB/OL]. Available online: http://g.mnr.gov.cn/201701/t20170123_1428261.html (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- Norse, D.; Ju, X.T. Environmental costs of China’s food security. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 209, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, P.; Abler, D.; Lin, G.; Sher, A.; Quan, Q. Substituting Organic Fertilizer for Chemical Fertilizer: Evidence from Apple Growers in China. Land 2021, 10, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, X.T.; Gu, B.J.; Wu, Y.Y.; Galloway, J.N. Reducing China’s fertilizer use by increasing farm size. Glob. Environ. Change 2016, 41, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sapbamrer, R.; Thammachai, A. A Systematic Review of Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Organic Farming. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sradnick, A.; Feller, C. A Typological Concept to Predict the Nitrogen Release from Organic Fertilizers in Farming Systems. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, S.; Nico, H.; Gideon, K.; Qu, F. Do fragmented landholdings have higher production costs? Evidence from rice farmers in Northeastern Jiangxi province, PR China. China Econ. Rev. 2008, 19, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilic, N.; Burgut, A.; Gündesli, M.A.; Nogay, G.; Ercisli, S.; Kafkas, N.E.; Ekiert, H.; Elansary, H.O.; Szopa, A. The Effect of Organic, Inorganic Fertilizers and Their Combinations on Fruit Quality Parameters in Strawberry. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.Y.; Xi, X.C.; Tang, X.; Luo, D.M.; Gu, B.J.; Lam, S.K.; Vitousek, P.M.; Chen, D.L. Policy distortions, farm size, and the overuse of agricultural chemicals in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 7010–7015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ren, C.C.; Liu, S.; van Grinsven, H.; Reis, S.; Jin, S.Q.; Liu, H.B.; Gu, B.J. The impact of farm size on agricultural sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.F.; Dou, Z.X.; He, P.; Ju, X.T.; Powlson, D.; Chadwick, D.; Norse, D.; Lu, Y.L.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, L.; et al. New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8375–8380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.L.; Chen, Y.Q.; Sui, P.; Yan, P.; Yang, X.L.; Gao, W.S. Preliminary analysis on economic and environmental consequences of grain production on different farm sizes in North China Plain. Agric. Syst. 2017, 153, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diiro, G. Impact of off-farm income on agricultural technology adoption intensity and productivity. Agric. Econ. 2013, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, L.X.; Niu, H.P.; Yang, X.M.; 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] [PubMed]
- Yan, M.; Luo, T.; Bian, R.J.; Cheng, K.; Pan, G.X.; Rees, R. A comparative study on carbon footprint of rice production between household and aggregated farms from Jiangxi, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.C.; Waqas, M.A.; Li, Y.E.; Zou, X.X.; Jiang, D.F.; Wilkes, A.; Qin, X.B.; Gao, Q.Z.; Wan, Y.F.; Hasbagan, G. Large-scale farming operations are win-win for grain production, soil carbon storage and mitigation of greenhouse gases. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2143–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Zhao, W.; Sun, W.; Fan, Y. Application prospect of sprinkler irrigation technology in water-short areas of northern China. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2012, 28, 1–6. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Pishgar-Komleh, S.H.; Ghanderijani, M.; Sefeedpari, P. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 33, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.L.; Renwick, A.; Yuan, P.; Ratna, N. Agricultural cooperative membership and technical efficiency of apple farmers in China: An analysis accounting for selectivity bias. Food Policy 2018, 81, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruben, R.; Lerman, Z. Why Nicaraguan peasants stay in agricultural production cooperatives. Euro Rev. Lat. Am. Caribb. Stud. 2005, 6, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cai, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, Q. Can social networks increase households’ contribution to public-good provision in rural China?: The case of small hydraulic facilities construction. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2016, 8, 148–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tregear, A.; Cooper, S. Embeddedness, social capital and learning in rural areas: The case of producer cooperatives. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 44, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wossen, T.; Abdoulaye, T.; Alene, A.; Haile, M.G.; Feleke, S.; Olanrewaju, A.; Manyong, V. Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 54, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valentinov, V. Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational economics perspective. J. Inst. Econ. 2007, 3, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abebaw, D.; Haile, M.G. The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Food Policy 2013, 38, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhofstadt, E.; Maertens, M.J.A. Smallholder cooperatives and agricultural performance in Rwanda: Do organizational differences matter? Agric. Econ. 2014, 45, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.N.; Liang, Q.; Huang, Z.H. Benefits and pitfalls of social capital for farmer cooperatives: Evidence from China. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2018, 21, 1137–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Q.; Hendrikse, G.; Huang, Z.H.; Xu, X.C. Governance Structure of Chinese Farmer Cooperatives: Evidence From Zhejiang Province. Agribusiness 2015, 31, 198–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.H.; Wu, B.; Xu, X.C.; Liang, Q. Situation features and governance structure of farmer cooperatives in China: Does initial situation matter? Soc. Sci. J. 2016, 53, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Wu, B. Are cooperatives an ideal carrier for the organic connection between small farmers and modern agricultural development? China Rural Econ. 2018, 11, 80–95. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, P. “Company + Cooperative + Farmers” under the four modes of agricultural industrialization from the perspective of improving farmers’ welfare. China Rural Econ. 2013, 4, 71–78. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Z. Some theoretical and practical problems in the development of farmers’ cooperative organizations in China. China Rural Econ. 2008, 11, 4–7. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Grashuis, J.; Magnier, A. Product differentiation by marketing and processing cooperatives: A choice experiment with cheese and cereal products. Agribusiness 2018, 34, 813–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shumeta, Z.; D’Haese, M. Review, A.M. Do coffee cooperatives benefit farmers? An exploration of heterogeneous impact of coffee cooperative membership in Southwest Ethiopia. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. 2016, 19, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, L.; Cai, H. Research on the influence of cooperative participation on the adoption of formula fertilization technology by farmers-based on the perspective of standardized production. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2021, 3, 63–77. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Vandenberg, L.N.; Hauser, R.; Marcus, M.; Olea, N.; Welshons, W.V. Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Reprod. Toxicol. 2007, 24, 139–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hamilton, J.; Sidebottom, J. Mountain Pesticide Education and Safety Outreach program: A model for community collaboration to enhance on-farm safety and health. N. C. Med. J. 2011, 72, 471–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naziri, D.; Aubert, M.; Codron, J.M.; Loc, N.T.T.; Moustier, P. Estimating the Impact of Small-Scale Farmer Collective Action on Food Safety: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam. J. Dev. Stud. 2014, 50, 715–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genius, M.; Koundouri, P.; Nauges, C.; Tzouvelekas, V. Information Transmission in Irrigation Technology Adoption and Diffusion: Social Learning, Extension Services, and Spatial Effects. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2014, 96, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zander, U.; Kogut, B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organ Sci. 1995, 6, 76–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feng, X.; Huo, X. Research on the social network’s incentive for farmers to adopt environmentally friendly technologies. J. Chongqing Univ. 2016, 22, 72–81. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wollni, M.; Fischer, E. Member deliveries in collective marketing relationships: Evidence from coffee cooperatives in Costa Rica. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2015, 42, 287–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirezieva, K.; Bijman, J.; Jacxsens, L.; Luning, P.A. The role of cooperatives in food safety management of fresh produce chains: Case studies in four strawberry cooperatives. Food Control 2016, 62, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saenger, C.; Qaim, M.; Torero, M.; Viceisza, A. Contract farming and smallholder incentives to produce high quality: Experimental evidence from the Vietnamese dairy sector. Agric. Econ. 2013, 44, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.B.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Trivedi, M.H.; Gobi, T.A. Phosphate solubilizing microbes: Sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils. SpringerPlus 2013, 2, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Snider, A.; Gutierrez, I.; Sibelet, N.; Faure, G. Small farmer cooperatives and voluntary coffee certifications: Rewarding progressive farmers of engendering widespread change in Costa Rica? Food Policy 2017, 69, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, P.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, M.; Zhao, X. Can participating in cooperatives promote the adoption of green production technologies by food and agriculture?—From the perspective of endogenous power and external constraints. World Agric. 2022, 11, 71–82. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, A.; Saroj, S.; Joshi, P.; Takeshima, H.J. Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from a panel data analysis of smallholder dairy farmers in Bihar, India. Food Policy 2018, 75, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hao, J.H.; Bijman, J.; Gardebroek, C.; Heerink, N.; Heijman, W.; Huo, X.X. Cooperative membership and farmers’ choice of marketing channels—Evidence from apple farmers in Shaanxi and Shandong Provinces, China. Food Policy 2018, 74, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miguel, E.; Kremer, M. Worms: Identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica 2004, 72, 159–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdulai, A.; Huffman, W. The Adoption and Impact of Soil and Water Conservation Technology: An Endogenous Switching Regression Application. Land Econ. 2014, 90, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lokshin, M.; Sajaia, Z. Impact of interventions on discrete outcomes: Maximum likelihood estimation of the binary choice models with binary endogenous regressors. Stata J. 2011, 11, 368–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Emmanuel, D.; Owusu-Sekyere, E.; Owusu, V.; Jordaan, H. Impact of agricultural extension service on adoption of chemical fertilizer: Implications for rice productivity and development in Ghana. NJAS-Wagen. J. Life Sci. 2016, 79, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramirez, A. The influence of social networks on agricultural technology adoption. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 79, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chavas, J.P.; Nauges, C. Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture. Appl. Econ. Perspect. P. 2020, 42, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Admassie, A.; Ayele, G.J. Adoption of improved technology in Ethiopia. Ethiopian J. Econ. 2010, 19, 155–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hailu, B.K.; Abrha, B.K.; Weldegiorgis, K.A. Adoption and impact of agricultural technologies on farm income: Evidence from Southern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Int. J. Food Agric. Econ. 2014, 2, 91–106. [Google Scholar]
- Asfaw, S.; Shiferaw, B.; Simtowe, F.; Haile, M. Agricultural technology adoption, seed access constraints and commercialization in Ethiopia. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 2011, 3, 436–477. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Y.; Li, B.B.; Zhang, Z.H.; Wang, J. Farm size and agricultural technology progress: Evidence from China. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 93, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Janvry, A.; Emerick, K.; Gonzalez-Navarro, M.; Sadoulet, E. Delinking Land Rights from Land Use: Certification and Migration in Mexico. Am. Econ. Rev. 2015, 105, 3125–3149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feng, Y.; Wu, J.F. Cooperative organization, planting scale and farmers’ adoption behavior of soil testing and formula fertilization technology-based on the survey of rice growers in Taihu and Chaohu basins. J. Nanjing Univ. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2018, 17, 28–37. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Cai, R.; Wang, Z.; Long, Q.; Du, Z. Do Cooperatives Promote Family Farms to Choose Environmental-friendly Production Practices? An Empirical Analysis of Fertilizers and Pesticides Reduction. China Rural Surv. 2019, 1, 51–65. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, X.Y.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, M.Y.; Wei, X.; Li, H. Analysis of influencing factors of green production behavior of tea farmers under the model of “tea farmers+planting cooperatives”—Based on the principal-agent theory. World Agric. 2022, 1, 72–80. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, L.P.; Ding, X.L.; Li, H. Study on the correlation effect and influencing factors of farmers’ green fertilization behavior-taking the green agriculture construction pioneer area in northern Shaanxi as an example. China’s Agric. Resour. Zoning 2021, 10, 1–9. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- He, L.J.; Tong, R.; Wang, Y.Q. The influence of social network heterogeneity on the adoption behavior of organic fertilizer instead of chemical fertilizer in fruit farmers. Resour. Environ. Yangtze River Basin 2021, 30, 225–233. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Li, Q. Does policy cognition affect livestock farmers’ investment in manure recycling facilities? Evidence from China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, L.; Zhang, Y.X.; Zhong, W.J. How can agricultural socialized service organizations promote fertilizer reduction-based on the matching effect of business entities. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 2022, 2, 47–56. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Spielman, D.J.; Byerlee, D.; Alemu, D.; Kelemework, D. Policies to promote cereal intensification in Ethiopia: The search for appropriate public and private roles. Food Policy 2010, 35, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Variables | Variables’ Meaning | Unit | Mean | Std. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Key dependent variables | NPK | Whether or not fertilizer is applied in reduced quantities | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.188 | 0.391 | 0 | 1 |
organic | Whether to use organic fertilizer | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.212 | 0.409 | 0 | 1 | |
cost | Cost of fertilizer per hectare | $/ha | 1028.866 | 135.49 | 434.95 | 1300.49 | |
Key independent variable | coop | Whether to join a cooperative | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.188 | 0.391 | 0 | 1 |
Instrumental variable | coop1 | Whether there is a cooperative in the village | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.219 | 0.414 | 0 | 1 |
Individual characteristics | age | Actual age in interview year | Age | 49.802 | 8.914 | 31 | 70 |
gender | Gender of the farmer | Men = 1; women = 0 | 0.796 | 0.403 | 0 | 1 | |
edu | How many years of schooling in total | Year | 6.535 | 2.534 | 0 | 13 | |
risk | The type of risk preference | Preferred risk = 5; generally preferred risk = 4; risk neutral = 3; generally risk averse = 2; risk averse = 1 | 2.412 | 1.1 | 1 | 5 | |
cognition | Whether the farmer knows that chemical fertilizer is harmful to the quality and safety of agricultural products | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.249 | 0.433 | 0 | 1 | |
Family characteristics | income | Annual household income per capita | $ | 766.96 | 414.65 | 434.95 | 3044.63 |
relation | Whether there are any civil servants among the farmer’s family and friends | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.274 | 0.446 | 0 | 1 | |
loan | Current loan amount | $ | 21752 | 12700 | 0 | 43495 | |
Business characteristics | land | Actual area of land in use | hectare | 1.184 | 1.189 | 0.067 | 5 |
rights | The proportion of land farmed with confirmed rights | % | 89.826 | 9.201 | 70 | 100 | |
worker | The percentage of family members who are employed outside the home | % | 33.895 | 17.211 | 0 | 80 | |
subsidy | Whether or not to receive government support policies | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0.267 | 0.443 | 0 | 1 |
NPK | Organic | Cost | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Probit | Marginal Effects | Probit | Marginal Effects | OLS | |
coop | 1.203 *** | 0.081 *** | 0.868 ** | 0.068 *** | −0.962 *** |
(0.290) | (0.018) | (0.279) | (0.022) | (0.134) | |
age | −0.035 | −0.002 * | −0.001 | −0.000 | −0.004 |
(0.021) | (0.001) | (0.018) | (0.001) | (0.003) | |
gender | −0.941 *** | −0.063 *** | −1.022 *** | −0.080 *** | 0.049 |
(0.284) | (0.019) | (0.259) | (0.020) | (0.094) | |
edu | 0.056 | 0.004 | −0.028 | −0.002 | −0.001 |
(0.070) | (0.005) | (0.065) | (0.005) | (0.011) | |
risk | 0.139 | 0.009 | 0.060 | 0.005 | −0.011 |
(0.115) | (0.008) | (0.105) | (0.008) | (0.019) | |
cognition | 0.169 | 0.011 | 0.336 | 0.026 | 0.002 |
(0.328) | (0.022) | (0.307) | (0.024) | (0.053) | |
income | −0.635 | −0.043 * | 0.369 | 0.028 | 0.080 |
(0.369) | (0.025) | (0.342) | (0.026) | (0.098) | |
relation | 0.033 | 0.002 | 0.513 | 0.040 * | −0.020 |
(0.372) | (0.025) | (0.299) | (0.023) | (0.054) | |
loan | 0.028 | 0.002 | −0.019 | −0.002 | −0.002 |
(0.023) | 0.002 | (0.021) | (0.002) | (0.003) | |
land | 0.032 *** | 0.002 *** | 0.029 *** | 0.002 *** | −0.003 * |
(0.009) | (0.001) | (0.009) | (0.001) | (0.002) | |
rights | 0.043 | 0.003 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
(0.030) | (0.002) | (0.024) | (0.002) | (0.003) | |
worker | 0.019 * | 0.001 ** | 0.012 * | 0.001 ** | −0.002 |
(0.007) | (0.000) | (0.006) | (0.000) | (0.001) | |
subsidy | 1.029 ** | 0.069 *** | 0.939 *** | 0.074 | −0.060 |
(0.332) | (0.022) | (0.272) | (0.021) | (0.052) | |
_cons | 1.846 | - | −2.492 | - | 4.792 *** |
(3.028) | — | (2.509) | - | (0.319) | |
N | 712 | 712 | 712 | 712 | 561 |
r2 | - | - | - | - | 0.254 |
Selected Equ. | Resulting Equ. | Selected Equ. | Resulting Equ. | Selected Equ. | Resulting Equ. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coop | NPK0 | NPK1 | Coop | Organic0 | Organic1 | Coop | lncost0 | lncost1 | |
age | −0.015 | −0.002 | −0.003 | −0.012 | −0.001 | 0.012 | −0.028 | −0.001 | 0.001 |
(0.026) | (0.001) | (0.006) | (0.028) | (0.001) | (0.006) | (0.027) | (0.001) | (0.003) | |
gender | −1.497 *** | −0.253 *** | 0.002 | −1.796 *** | −0.388 *** | 0.046 | −1.802 *** | 0.039 * | −0.016 |
(0.387) | (0.030) | (0.081) | (0.387) | (0.028) | (0.078) | (0.404) | (0.016) | (0.030) | |
edu | 0.165 | −0.002 | 0.021 | 0.212 * | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.171 | 0.005 * | 0.002 |
(0.087) | (0.005) | (0.019) | (0.096) | (0.004) | (0.019) | (0.092) | (0.002) | (0.007) | |
risk | 0.055 | 0.002 | 0.023 | 0.124 | 0.029 *** | −0.046 | 0.104 | 0.004 | −0.003 |
(0.159) | (0.008) | (0.028) | (0.166) | (0.007) | (0.028) | (0.172) | (0.004) | (0.011) | |
cognition | 0.526 | 0.008 | 0.156 | 0.360 | 0.066 ** | 0.075 | 0.538 | 0.017 | 0.002 |
(0.385) | (0.022) | (0.089) | (0.447) | (0.020) | (0.090) | (0.418) | (0.011) | (0.036) | |
income | −0.251 | −0.021 | −0.086 | −0.341 | 0.223 *** | −0.169 | −0.391 | 0.027 | −0.041 |
(0.451) | (0.038) | (0.096) | (0.484) | (0.035) | (0.096) | (0.476) | (0.019) | (0.038) | |
relation | −1.303 * | 0.029 | 0.051 | −1.713 * | 0.052 * | 0.043 | −1.641 * | 0.011 | −0.021 |
(0.604) | (0.024) | (0.103) | (0.678) | (0.022) | (0.102) | (0.646) | (0.012) | (0.041) | |
loan | 0.034 | −0.004 ** | 0.012 * | 0.021 | −0.005 *** | 0.008 | 0.012 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
(0.028) | (0.001) | (0.006) | (0.028) | (0.001) | (0.006) | (0.029) | (0.001) | (0.002) | |
land | 0.016 | 0.003 *** | 0.001 | 0.023 | 0.003 *** | 0.009 ** | 0.021 | −0.002 *** | −0.004 *** |
(0.011) | (0.001) | (0.003) | (0.013) | (0.001) | (0.003) | (0.012) | (0.000) | (0.001) | |
rights | −0.032 | −0.002 | 0.018 | −0.005 | −0.000 | −0.009 | −0.013 | 0.002 ** | −0.000 |
(0.040) | (0.001) | (0.012) | (0.045) | (0.001) | (0.012) | (0.045) | (0.001) | (0.005) | |
worker | −0.020 * | 0.003 *** | 0.000 | −0.024 ** | 0.003 *** | −0.004 * | −0.026 ** | −0.002 *** | −0.002 * |
(0.009) | (0.001) | (0.002) | (0.009) | (0.001) | (0.002) | (0.009) | (0.000) | (0.001) | |
subsidy | 0.312 | 0.087 *** | 0.164 | 0.386 | 0.124 *** | 0.007 | 0.458 | 0.003 | −0.046 |
(0.396) | (0.023) | (0.101) | (0.440) | (0.021) | (0.103) | (0.436) | (0.011) | (0.041) | |
coop1 | 3.129 *** | - | - | 3.159 *** | - | - | 3.130 *** | - | - |
(0.429) | - | - | (0.481) | - | - | (0.460) | - | - | |
_cons | 0.821 | 0.474 *** | −1.368 | −1.740 | 0.218 | 1.124 | 0.422 | 6.074 *** | 6.217 *** |
(3.853) | (0.139) | (1.172) | (4.480) | (0.127) | (1.205) | (4.208) | (0.071) | (0.481) |
Endogenous Transformation Probit Model/Endogenous Transformation Model | |||
---|---|---|---|
ATT | ATU | ATE | |
Probability of fertilizer application reduction | 0.456 *** | 0.330 *** | 0.354 *** |
(0.239) | (0.299) | (0.286) | |
Probability of organic fertilizer application | 0.220 *** | 0.834 *** | 0.718 *** |
(0.296) | (0.347) | (0.412) |
NPK | Organic | Cost | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
High-Scale | Low-Scale | High-Scale | Low-Scale | High-Scale | Low-Scale | |
coop | 1.272 ** | 1.903 ** | 1.115 * | 0.561 | −1.668 *** | −0.699 *** |
(0.483) | (0.595) | (0.509) | (0.428) | (0.454) | (0.151) | |
Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
N | 241 | 471 | 241 | 471 | 121 | 440 |
NPK | Organic | Cost | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cognition = 1 | Cognition = 0 | Cognition = 1 | Cognition = 0 | Cognition = 1 | Cognition = 0 | |
coop | 1.546 | 2.208 *** | 2.244 * | 0.595 | −1.021 * | −0.888 *** |
(0.915) | (0.588) | (0.880) | (0.367) | (0.411) | (0.154) | |
Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
N | 177 | 535 | 177 | 535 | 79 | 482 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Wei, G.; Kong, X.; Wang, Y. Will Joining Cooperative Promote Farmers to Replace Chemical Fertilizers with Organic Fertilizers? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16647. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416647
Wei G, Kong X, Wang Y. Will Joining Cooperative Promote Farmers to Replace Chemical Fertilizers with Organic Fertilizers? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16647. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416647
Chicago/Turabian StyleWei, Guangcheng, Xiangzhi Kong, and Yumeng Wang. 2022. "Will Joining Cooperative Promote Farmers to Replace Chemical Fertilizers with Organic Fertilizers?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16647. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416647