Factors and Minimal Subsidy Associated with Tea Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Ecological Pest Management
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Comparison between Tea Conventional Pest Management and TEPM
2.2. Survey Area
2.3. Survey Design
2.4. The Valuation Method
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Reliability and Validity of the Questionnaire
3.2. The Socio-Economic Characteristics
3.3. Reasons for Tea Farmers’ Unwillingness to Adopt TEPM
3.4. Economic Analysis of Tea Pest Management Mode
3.5. The Variables of Farmers’ WTA Subsidy and Estimate of WTA Subsidy
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- He, D.C.; Zhan, J.S.; Xie, L.H. Problems, challenges and future of plant disease management: From an ecological point of view. J. Integr. Agric. 2016, 15, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, L.H. Plant protection strategy of China in the 21 century. Rev. China Agric. Sci. Technol. 2003, 5, 5–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, H.; Ren, X.; Li, S.; Wu, X.; Cheng, H.; Xu, B.; Gu, B.J.; Yang, G.F.; Peng, C.H.; Ge, Y.; et al. Assessment of private economic benefits and positive environmental externalities of tea plantation in China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 8501–8516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, Z.H.; Reddy, G.V.P.; Hui, C.; Li, B.L. Approaches and mechanisms for ecologically based pest management across multiple scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Antoci, A.; Russu, P.; Ticci, E. Environmental externalities and immiserizing structural changes in an economy with heterogeneous agents. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 81, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Björn, S.; Svensson, M.; Schulenburg, J.M.G.V.D. Estimating a constant WTA for a QALY—A mission impossible? Eur. J. Health Econ. 2018, 3, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelo, D.; Koch, S.F. Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, X.; Abler, D. The demand for food quality in rural china. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2010, 91, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Jiang, C.; Lun, L.I. The economic valuation of cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation study in Wenling City, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 119, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appendini, K.; Quijada, M.G. Consumption strategies in Mexican rural households: Pursuing food security with quality. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 439–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deguine, J.P.; Ferron, P.; Russell, D. Sustainable pest management for cotton production. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 28, 113–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, L.N. Anxi Tea Exports to Asean Market Increased Significantly. Available online: http://www.sohu.com/a/160468362_267106, (accessed on 7 July 2017).
- Database: The Data of Chinese Tea Production and Exports were from National Bureau of Statistics of China. Available online: http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01(accessed on 12 October 2017).
- Lin, A.H.; Gao, S.L.; Ye, N.X. Empirical study on the influencing factors of tea farmers’ construction willingness for ecological tea garden—Taking Anxi county as a case. Tea Sci. Technol. 2014, 03, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akram, A.A.; Olmstead, S.M. The value of household water service quality in lahore, Pakistan. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 49, 173–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt, C.A.; Laury, S.K. Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92, 1644–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhry, P.; Singh, B.; Tewari, V.P. Non-market economic valuation in developing countries: Role of participant observation method in CVM analysis. J. For. Econ. 2007, 13, 259–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, B.K.; Whitehead, J.C.; Mason, D.S.; Walker, G.J. Willingness to accept payment for downtown public goods generated by large, sports- anchored development projects: The CVM approach. City Cult. Soc. 2012, 3, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhry, P.; Tewari, V.P. A comparison between TCM and CVM in assessing the recreational use value of urban forestry. Int. For. Rev. 2010, 8, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, C.; Nan, L.; Ouyang, X. Chinese public willingness to accept payment to avoid having nuclear power plants in the neighborhood. Sustainability 2014, 6, 7197–7223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanemann, M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1984, 66, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ormazabal, K.M. The law of diminishing marginal utility in alfred marshall’s principles of economics. Eur. J. Hist. Econ. Thought 1995, 2, 91–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardenas, J.C.; Carpenter, J.P. Three themes on field experiments and economic development. Res. Exp. Econ. 2005, 10, 71–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binici, T.; Koç, A.A.; Zulauf, C.R.; Bayaner, A. Risk attitudes of farmers in terms of risk aversion: A case study of Lower Seyhan Plain farmers in Adana Province, Turkey. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2003, 27, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren, M.P. Hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms: Putting benefits and risks into perspective. J. Fam. Pract. 2010, 59, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, M.T.; Yazhen, G.; Riccardo, S. Hungry birds and angry farmers: Using choice experiments to assess “eco-compensation” for coastal wetlands protection in China. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 154, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
TEPM | TCPM | |
---|---|---|
Aim | Improving health conditions of tea populations in agro-ecosystems | Eliminating pests |
Strategies | Maximizing the regulatory functions of nature through the balanced application of resistance, avoidance, elimination and remedy strategies | Utilizing chemical measures |
Key technology | Cultivating diversified trees, intercropping soybeans and peanuts crops, keeping grasses on hillsides, utilizing organic fertilizer, pest biological and agricultural management | Using chemical pesticides, herbicide and fertilizer, no grass, simplified cultivating |
Effectiveness of management | Optimizing economic, ecological and social benefits (high yield, efficiency, good quality and safety). | Using maximum yield as the sole target, thereby allowing many unnecessary and negative effects to affect the environment and society |
Category | Questions | Answering Items |
---|---|---|
Sample selection questions | Are you willing to adopt TEPM? | 1. Yes, I am willing to adopt. 2. No, I am unwilling to adopt. |
The WTA a subsidy elicitation questions | If the answer of the sample selection question is “Yes, I am willing to adopt”, we will ask double-bounded dichotomous choice (DBDC) questions to elicit the farmers’ WTA a subsidy. | |
First choice | Are you willing to accept BID0 for the ecological management of tea production? | 1. Yes. 2. No. |
Second choice | (To those who answered ‘Yes’) Are you willing to accept BIDl for tea ecological pest management? (To those who answered ‘No’) Are you willing to accept BIDu for tea ecological pest management? | 1. Yes. 2. No. |
Item | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BID0 (Initial bid) (yuan/ha/yr) | 3000 | 3750 | 4500 | 5250 | 6000 | 6750 | 7500 |
BIDl (Lower bid) (yuan/ha/yr) | 2250 | 3000 | 3750 | 4500 | 5250 | 6000 | 6750 |
BIDu (Higher bid) (yuan/ha/yr) | 3750 | 4500 | 5250 | 6000 | 6750 | 7500 | 8250 |
Yes, Yes (%) | 8.47 | 23.73 | 7.55 | 28.57 | 37.34 | 70.59 | 67.21 |
Yes, No (%) | 10.17 | 32.2 | 16.98 | 33.33 | 28.3 | 15.69 | 26.23 |
No, Yes (%) | 33.9 | 16.95 | 24.53 | 20.64 | 15.09 | 5.88 | 0 |
No, No (%) | 47.46 | 27.12 | 50.94 | 17.46 | 18.87 | 7.84 | 6.56 |
Variables | Category | Number of Individuals | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Age | ≤30 | 21 | 5.26 |
31–40 | 113 | 28.32 | |
41–50 | 140 | 35.09 | |
51–60 | 53 | 13.28 | |
≥60 | 72 | 18.05 | |
Education level | 0 | 170 | 42.61 |
1 | 147 | 36.84 | |
2 | 64 | 16.04 | |
3 | 18 | 4.51 | |
Income (yuan) | ≤50,000 | 71 | 17.79 |
50,000–100,000 | 157 | 39.35 | |
100,000–150,000 | 92 | 23.06 | |
150,000–200,000 | 62 | 15.54 | |
≥200,000 | 17 | 4.26 | |
Size of plantation (ha) | ≤0.4 | 102 | 25.56 |
0.4–0.8 | 190 | 47.62 | |
0.8–1 | 71 | 17.79 | |
1–1.5 | 29 | 7.27 | |
≥1.5 | 7 | 1.76 | |
Knowledge of environmental conservation | 1 | 56 | 14.04 |
2 | 151 | 37.85 | |
3 | 132 | 33.08 | |
4 | 52 | 13.03 | |
5 | 8 | 2 | |
Knowledge of health | 1 | 123 | 30.82 |
2 | 159 | 39.85 | |
3 | 64 | 16.04 | |
4 | 40 | 10.03 | |
5 | 13 | 3.26 | |
Risk index (I) | 1 | 75 | 18.8 |
2 | 149 | 37.34 | |
3 | 156 | 39.1 | |
4 | 18 | 4.51 | |
5 | 1 | 0.25 | |
Accept initial bid (yuan/ha/yr) | 3000 | 48 | 18.64 |
3750 | 26 | 55.93 | |
4500 | 40 | 24.53 | |
5250 | 24 | 61.9 | |
6000 | 18 | 65.64 | |
6750 | 7 | 86.28 | |
7500 | 4 | 93.44 |
Items | TEPM (yuan/ha/yr) | TCPM (yuan/ha/yr) |
---|---|---|
Organic fertilizer | 3467 ± 117 | 0 |
Chemical fertilizer | 6457 ± 125 | 19,467 ± 772 |
Chemical pesticide | 1264 ± 89 | 3626 ± 236 |
Labor (weeding, loosening, trimming, application and picking) | 32,444 ± 244 | 28,467 ± 942 |
The cost of planting trees and intercropping peanuts or soybeans | 10,110 ± 536 | 0 |
Economic input | 53,742 ± 1001 | 51,560 ± 1117 |
Economic output | 94,452 ± 797 | 98,706 ± 6223 |
Net profit | 40,710 ± 1323 | 47,146 ± 3517 |
Variable | Coefficient (β) | Standard Deviation | p |
---|---|---|---|
Constant | 390.29 *** | 61.2166 | 0.000 |
Age | 8.1286 *** | 0.847 | 0.000 |
Education level | −30.9692 *** | 11.2812 | 0.006 |
Income | −0.1154 | 1.5889 | 0.942 |
Area of tea plantation | −0.9035 | 2.0047 | 0.652 |
Understanding of environment conservation | −20.1000 ** | 10.523 | 0.056 |
Understanding of health | −53.4324 *** | 10.4997 | 0.000 |
Risk index | −88.6346 *** | 12.495 | 0.000 |
Log likelihood | −486.8173 | ||
Wald chi2 (7) | 299.85 | ||
Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 | ||
Observations | 399 |
Value of Mean WTA Subsidy (yuan/ha/yr) | Standard Deviation | p | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|
5668.8 | 18.264 | 0 | 6205.8 | 5131.8 |
© 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zheng, R.; Zhan, J.; Liu, L.; Ma, Y.; Wang, Z.; Xie, L.; He, D. Factors and Minimal Subsidy Associated with Tea Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Ecological Pest Management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226190
Zheng R, Zhan J, Liu L, Ma Y, Wang Z, Xie L, He D. Factors and Minimal Subsidy Associated with Tea Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Ecological Pest Management. Sustainability. 2019; 11(22):6190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226190
Chicago/Turabian StyleZheng, Rongrong, Jiasui Zhan, Luxing Liu, Yanli Ma, Zishuai Wang, Lianhui Xie, and Dunchun He. 2019. "Factors and Minimal Subsidy Associated with Tea Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Ecological Pest Management" Sustainability 11, no. 22: 6190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226190