Effect of Farmland Scale on Farmers’ Application Behavior with Organic Fertilizer
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Influence of Farmland Scale on Farmers’ Organic Fertilizer Applications
2.2. Heterogeneity Analysis on the Effect of Farmland Scale on Farmers’ Organic Fertilizer Applications
2.3. Data Source
2.4. Methodology
2.4.1. Variable Selection
2.4.2. Model Specification
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. The Impact of Farmland Scale on Citrus Farmers’ Organic Fertilizer Applications
3.2. Estimated Results of the IV-Probit Model and the IV-Tobit Model
3.3. Robustness Check
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Nadolnyak, D.; Wesley, J.D.; Zhang, Y. Fertilizer industry subsidies in China: Who are the beneficiaries? China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2014, 6, 433–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, G.; Niu, Z.; Yu, J.; Li, Z.; Ma, J.; Xiang, P. Soil heavy metal pollution and food safety in China: Effects, sources and removing technology. Chemosphere 2020, 267, 129205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iqbal, A.; He, L.; Ali, I.; Ullah, S.; Khan, A.; Khan, A.; Akhtar, K.; Wei, S.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, J.; et al. Manure combined with chemical fertilizer increases rice productivity by improving soil health, post-anthesis biomass yield, and nitrogen metabolism. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, Y.; Zou, L.; Wang, Y. Spatial-temporal characteristics and influencing factors of agricultural eco-efficiency in China in recent 40 years. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hu, X. Assessment and analysis of agricultural non-point source pollution loads in China: 1978–2017. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 263, 110400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naila, A.; Meerdink, G.; Jayasena, V.; Sulaiman, A.Z.; Ajit, A.B.; Berta, G. A review on global metal accumulators—Mechanism, enhancement, commercial application, and research trend. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 26449–26471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corguinha, A.P.B.; de Souza, G.A.; Gonçalves, V.C.; Carvalho, C.A.; de Lima, W.E.A.; Martins, F.A.D.; Yamanaka, H.C.; Francisco, E.A.B.; Guilherme, L.R.G. Assessing arsenic, cadmium, and lead contents in major crops in Brazil for food safety purposes. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 37, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Willians, C.H.; David, D.J. The accumulation in soil of cadmium residues from phosphate fertilizers and their effect on the cadmium content of plants. Soil Sci. 1976, 121, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, G.Q.; Wang, X.X.; Qian, H.Y.; Zhang, T.L.; Zhao, Q.G. Negative impact of chemical fertilizer application on agricultural ecological environment and countermeasures. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 4, 656–660. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, T.; Yang, Y.; Ni, J.; Xie, D. Adoption behavior of cleaner production techniques to control agricultural non-point source pollution: A case study in the three gorges reservoir area. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 897–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, L.; Yuan, Y.; Ying, Z.; Lam, K.S.; Liu, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, H.; Gu, B. Decreasing farm number benefits the mitigation of agricultural non-point source pollution in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Q.K.; Zhu, Y.L.; Yu, T.R. Fertilizer Problems in China’s Agricultural Sustainable Development; Jiangxi Science and Technology Press: Nanchang, China, 1998. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, H.; Ge, Y. Excessive Application of Fertilizer, Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution, and Farmers’ Policy Choice. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ni, B.; Liu, M.; Lv, S.; Xie, L.; Wang, Y. Environmentally friendly slow-release nitrogen fertilizer. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 10169–10175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, R.; Shao, C.; Shi, R.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, R. Development Trend and Driving Factors of Agricultural Chemical Fertilizer Efficiency in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, N.J.; Sun, X.L.; Xu, Y.T.; Zhou, Z.Y.; Zhu, L.Q. Influencing factors of farmers’ organic fertilizer application behavior and their stratification based on Logistic-ISM model. Resour. Sci. 2019, 41, 1120–1130. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, S.; Feng, H.; Yang, F.; Zhao, Z.; Hu, X.; Wei, C.; Liang, T.; Li, H.; Geng, Y. Does dual reduction in chemical fertilizer and pesticides improve nutrient loss and tea yield and quality. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 33–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, M.; Li, D.; Li, J.; Qin, D.; Kazuyuki, Y.; Hosen, Y. Effects of Organic Manure Application with Chemical Fertilizer on Nutrient Absorption and Yield of Rice in Hunan of Southern China. Agric. Sci. China 2008, 7, 1245–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Y.; Cui, B.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Sun, J.; Niu, W. Effects of manure fertilizer on crop yield and soil properties in China: A meta-analysis. Catena 2020, 193, 104617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, H.; Yang, Y.B. Research on farmers’ chemical fertilizers use based on resources substitution. J. Agro-Tech. Econ. 2015, 3, 84–91. [Google Scholar]
- Pingali, P.L. Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12302–12308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- David, C.; Jia, W.; Tong, Y.A.; Yu, G.; Shen, Q.; Chen, Q. Improving manure nutrient management towards sustainable intensification in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 209, 34–46. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y. What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 882–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Nguyen, T.; Poppenborg, P.; Shin, H.J.; Koellner, T. Conventional, Partially Converted and Environmentally Friendly Farming in South Korea: Profitability and Factors Affecting Farmers’ Choice. Sustainability 2016, 8, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caulfield, M.; Bouniol, J.; Fonte, S.J.; Kessler, A. How rural out-migrations drive changes to farm and land management: A case study from the rural Andes. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 594–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mozzato, D.; Gatto, P.; Defrancesco, E.; Bortolini, L.; Pirotti, F.; Pisani, E.; Sartori, L. The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature? Sustainability 2018, 10, 3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Savari, M.; Gharechaee, H. Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to predict Iranian farmers’ intention for safe use of chemical fertilizers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karapandzin, J.; Rodić, V.; Caracciolo, F. Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of integrated pest management in Serbia: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1196–1205. [Google Scholar]
- Démurger, S.; Pelletier, A. Volunteer and satisfied? Rural households’ participation in a payments for environmental services programme in Inner Mongolia. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Heerink, N.; Feng, S.; Shi, X. Farmland tenure in China: Comparing legal, actual and perceived security. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, X.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, P.; Tian, Y.; Zou, Y. A novel framework for rural homestead land transfer under collective ownership in China. Land Use Policy 2018, 78, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Wu, W.; Liu, Y. Land consolidation for rural sustainability in China: Practical reflections and policy implications. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 137–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, W.; Xu, Y.; Zhou, N.; He, Z.; Zhang, L. How did land titling affect China’s rural land rental market? Size, composition and efficiency. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Huang, X.; Bao, H.X.; Ju, X.; Zhong, T.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, Y. Rural land rights reform and agro-environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from China. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, H.; Zhu, X.; Heijman, W.; Zhao, K. The impact of land transfer and farmers’ knowledge of farmland protection policy on pro-environmental agricultural practices: The case of straw return to fields in Ningxia, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, X.; Du, W.; Wei, X.; Ying, Y.; Shao, Y.; Hou, R. Quantitative analysis of research on China’s land transfer system. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waithaka, M.M.; Thornton, P.K.; Shepherd, K.D.; Ndiwa, N. Factors affecting the use of fertilizer and manure by smallholders: The case of Vihiga, western Kenya. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2007, 78, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Shen, Y. Effects of land transfer quality on the application of organic fertilizer by large-scale farmers in China. Land Use Policy 2020, 100, 105124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F.; Zhang, J.; He, K. Impact of informal institutions and environmental regulations on farmers’ green production behavior: Based on survey data of 1105 households in Hubei Province. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 2019, 41, 1227–1239. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ajewole, O.C. Farmers’ response to adoption of commercially available organic fertilizers in Oyo state, Nigeria. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 18, 2497–2503. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Y.; Wang, N.; Li, X.F.; Wang, Y. Adoption of eco-friendly soil management practice by smallholder farmers in Shandong of China. Issues Agric. Econ. 2017, 1, 38–47. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Bambio, Y.; Agha, S.B. Land Tenure Security and Investment: Does Strength of Land Right Really Matter in Rural Burkina Faso? World Dev. 2018, 111, 130–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, R.; Safa, L.; Damalas, C.A.; Ganjkhanloo, M.M. Drivers of farmers’ intention to use integrated pest management: Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gao, Y.; Liu, B.; Yu, L.; Yang, H.; Yin, S. Social capital, land tenure and the adoption of green control techniques by family farms: Evidence from Shandong and Henan Provinces of China. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taghikhah, F.; Voinov, A.; Shukla, N.; Filatova, T. Exploring consumer behavior and policy options in organic food adoption: Insights from the Australian wine sector. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 109, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Ruiz-Menjivar, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.B.; Swisher, M.E. Technical training and rice farmers’ adoption of low-carbon management practices: The case of soil testing and formulated fertilization technologies in Hubei, China. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 226, 454e462. [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. 2013, 96, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, H.; Zhang, P.; Hu, H.; Xie, H.; Yu, Z.; Chen, S. Effect of the grain-growing purpose and farm size on the ability of stable land property rights to encourage farmers to apply organic fertilizer. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, L.; Lin, S.; Zhang, Z. Effect of the family life cycle on the family farm scale in Southern China. Agric. Econ. 2016, 61, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nigussie, A.; Kuyper, T.W.; de Neergaard, A. Agricultural waste utilization strategies and demand for urban waste compost: Evidence from smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Waste Manag. 2015, 44, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wollni, M.; Andersson, C. Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 97, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Joshi, S.; Arano, K. Determinants of private forest management decision: A study on West Virginia NIPF land owner. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 11, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appiah-Effah, E.; Nyarko, K.B.; Adum, L.; Antwi, E.O.; Awuah, E. Perception of Peri-Urban Farmers on Fecal Sludge Compost and Its Utilization: A Case Study of Three Peri-Urban Communities in Ashanti Region of Ghana. Compos. Sci. Util. 2015, 23, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Xie, H.; Lv, T.; Yao, G. Determinants of cultivated land recuperation in ecologically damaged areas in China. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Xie, H. Impact of changes in labor resources and transfers of land use rights on agricultural non-point source pollution in Jiangsu Province, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 207, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F.; Ren, J.; Wimmer, S.; Yin, C.; Li, Z.; Xu, C. Incentive mechanism for promoting farmers to plant green manure in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.; Abdulai, A.; Goetz, R. Agricultural Cooperatives and Investment in Organic Soil Amendments and Chemical Fertilizer in China. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 100, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.M.; Sun, Z.L.; Ma, W.L.; Valentinov, V. The effect of cooperative membership on agricultural technology adoption in Sichuan, China. China Econ. Rev. 2019, 62, 101334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mponela, P.; Tamene, L.; Ndengu, G.; Magreta, R.; Kihara, J.; Mango, N. Determinants of integrated soil fertility management technologies adoption by smallholder farmers in the Chinyanja Triangle of Southern Africa. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Long, H.; Li, Y.; Ge, D.; Tu, S. How does off-farm work affect chemical fertilizer application? Evidence from China’s mountainous and plain areas. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranjan, P.; Wardropper, C.B.; Eanes, F.R.; Reddy, S.M.W.; Harden, S.C.; Masuda, Y.J.; Prokopy, L.S. Understanding barriers and opportunities for adoption of conservation practices on rented farmland in the US. Land Use Policy 2019, 80, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dillon, B.; Voena, A. Widows’ land rights and agricultural investment. J. Dev. Econ. 2018, 135, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mi, J.W.; Huang, J.K.; Chen, R.J.; Liu, E.M. Risk aversion and pesticide application behavior of Chinese cotton farmers. Chin. Rural Econ. 2012, 7, 60–71. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Variable Name | Variable Definition | Mean | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variables | |||
Organic fertilizer application | 1 = farmer has applied organic fertilizer; 0 = no | 0.70 | 0.46 |
The intensity of application | The ratio of organic fertilizer in total fertilizer application (%) | 24.55 | 25.09 |
Independent variable | |||
Farmland scale | Total citrus planting area (ha) | 1.45 | 5.25 |
Control variables | |||
Education level | Farmer’s years of education (years) | 7.15 | 3.62 |
Planting year | Farmer’s years of citrus planting (years) | 13.79 | 10.69 |
Agricultural labor | The number of household agricultural laborers | 2.05 | 1.00 |
Terrain | 1 = plain; 2 = hill; 3 = mountain | 2.01 | 0.43 |
Distance to market | Distance from farmer’s home to market (km) | 3.51 | 2.91 |
Environmental awareness | The application of organic fertilizer can improve the environment (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = comparatively disagree; 3 = general; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree) | 4.02 | 0.69 |
Economic cognition | The application of organic fertilizer makes citrus a good price (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = comparatively disagree; 3 = general; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree) | 3.78 | 0.82 |
Farmers’ cooperative | 1 = farmer has joined farmers’ cooperative; 0 = no | 0.66 | 0.48 |
Training | The number of organic fertilizer related training sessions (times) | 2.50 | 3.38 |
Variable | Organic Fertilizer Applicator | Non-Applicator | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
Farmland scale | 28.243 (3.918) | 7.016 (1.110) | 21.227 *** |
Education level | 7.758 (0.143) | 5.761 (0.239) | 1.997 *** |
Planting year | 14.776 (0.453) | 11.518 (0.650) | 3.258 *** |
Agricultural labor | 2.064 (0.045) | 2.024 (0.051) | 0.039 |
Terrain | 1.996 (0.019) | 2.045 (0.024) | −0.048 |
Distance to market | 3.228 (0.116) | 4.159 (0.199) | −0.932 *** |
Environmental awareness | 4.117 (0.028) | 3.810 (0.044) | 0.307 *** |
Economic cognition | 3.878 (0.034) | 3.571 (0.052) | 0.307 *** |
Farmers’ cooperative | 0.708 (0.019) | 0.538 (0.032) | 0.170 *** |
Training | 3.046 (0.160) | 1.239 (0.095) | 1.807 *** |
Observations | 565 | 247 |
Variable | Probit (I) | Probit (II) | Tobit (I) | Tobit (II) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Farmland scale | 0.005 ** (0.002) | 0.023 ** (0.011) | ||
Education level | 0.043 *** (0.016) | 0.034 ** (0.016) | 0.788 *** (0.248) | 0.720 *** (0.249) |
Planting year | 0.014 *** (0.005) | 0.015 *** (0.005) | 0.105 (0.080) | 0.120 (0.081) |
Agricultural labor | −0.036 (0.055) | −0.070 (0.061) | −0.045 (0.823) | −0.455 (0.843) |
Terrain | 0.079 (0.124) | 0.070 (0.126) | 7.019 *** (1.998) | 6.786 *** (1.996) |
Distance to market | −0.072 *** (0.017) | −0.076 *** (0.018) | −0.888 *** (0.286) | −0.872 *** (0.286) |
Environmental awareness | 0.221 *** (0.082) | 0.196 ** (0.083) | 3.736 *** (1.350) | 3.459 ** (1.353) |
Economic cognition | 0.070 (0.066) | 0.077 (0.067) | −2.328 ** (1.107) | −2.277 ** (1.104) |
Farmers’ cooperative | 0.251 ** (0.109) | 0.235 ** (0.110) | 7.948 *** (1.800) | 7.766 *** (1.797) |
Training | 0.188 *** (0.030) | 0.182 *** (0.031) | 1.596 *** (0.254) | 1.553 *** (0.254) |
Observations | 812 | 812 | 812 | 812 |
LR chi2 | 159.88 *** | 168.13 *** | 127.98 *** | 132.39 *** |
Pseudo R2 | 0.160 | 0.169 | 0.017 | 0.018 |
Variable | IV-Probit | IV-Tobit |
---|---|---|
Farmland scale | 0.015 *** (0.001) | 0.473 *** (0.180) |
Education level | −0.014 (0.0155) | −0.088 (0.729) |
Planting year | 0.015 *** (0.004) | 0.505 ** (0.196) |
Agricultural labor | −0.237 *** (0.047) | −8.723 ** (3.603) |
Terrain | −0.072 (0.103) | 3.800 (4.354) |
Distance to market | −0.034 * (0.019) | −1.115 * (0.589) |
Environmental awareness | −0.026 (0.080) | −0.188 (3.455) |
Economic cognition | 0.065 (0.055) | −0.687 (2.239) |
Farmers’ cooperative | 0.044 (0.100) | 7.618 ** (3.863) |
Training | 0.077 ** (0.035) | 1.182 ** (0.595) |
Observations | 812 | 812 |
Wald chi2 | 195.07 *** | 78.63 *** |
Exogeneity test (Chi2) | 13.97 *** | 10.11 *** |
Variable | Probit (III) | Tobit (III) |
---|---|---|
Farmland scale | 0.004 ** (0.002) | 0.021 * (0.012) |
Education level | 0.027 (0.017) | 0.612 ** (0.265) |
Planting year | 0.012 ** (0.005) | 0.111 (0.088) |
Agricultural labor | −0.074 (0.068) | −0.685 (0.955) |
Terrain | −0.045 (0.136) | 5.934 *** (2.169) |
Distance to market | −0.077 *** (0.019) | −0.922 *** (0.312) |
Environmental awareness | 0.266 ** (0.090) | 4.963 *** (1.475) |
Economic cognition | 0.088 (0.072) | −2.978 ** (1.210) |
Farmers’ cooperative | 0.193 (0.118) | 7.231 *** (1.934) |
Training | 0.197 *** (0.034) | 1.511 *** (0.263) |
Observation | 690 | 690 |
LR chi2 | 151.11 *** | 113.40 *** |
Pseudo R2 | 0.174 | 0.018 |
Social Capital | Higher Level | Lower Level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Probit (IV) | Tobit (IV) | Probit (V) | Tobit (V) | |
Farmland scale | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.008 ** | 0.078 ** |
(0.002) | (0.012) | (0.004) | (0.030) | |
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observation | 413 | 413 | 399 | 399 |
LR chi2 | 49.21 *** | 56.14 *** | 72.53 *** | 48.37 *** |
Pseudo R2 | 0.144 | 0.015 | 0.132 | 0.014 |
Human Capital | Higher Level | Lower Level | ||
Probit (VI) | Tobit (VI) | Probit (VII) | Tobit (VII) | |
Farmland scale | 0.005 * | 0.024 * | 0.007 * | 0.026 |
(0.003) | (0.013) | (0.004) | (0.020) | |
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observation | 382 | 382 | 430 | 430 |
LR chi2 | 52.99 *** | 75.73 *** | 84.01 *** | 46.35 *** |
Pseudo R2 | 0.146 | 0.022 | 0.144 | 0.012 |
Financial Capital | Higher Level | Lower Level | ||
Probit (VIII) | Tobit (VIII) | Probit (IX) | Tobit (IX) | |
Farmland scale | 0.005 ** | 0.019 * | 0.003 | −0.013 |
(0.003) | (0.011) | (0.006) | (0.087) | |
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observation | 368 | 368 | 444 | 444 |
LR chi2 | 64.19 *** | 88.55 *** | 88.38 *** | 52.09 *** |
Pseudo R2 | 0.174 | 0.026 | 0.149 | 0.013 |
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
Chen, Y.; Fu, X.; Liu, Y. Effect of Farmland Scale on Farmers’ Application Behavior with Organic Fertilizer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094967
Chen Y, Fu X, Liu Y. Effect of Farmland Scale on Farmers’ Application Behavior with Organic Fertilizer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(9):4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094967
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Yushi, Xinhong Fu, and Yuying Liu. 2022. "Effect of Farmland Scale on Farmers’ Application Behavior with Organic Fertilizer" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 9: 4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094967