Does Farm Size Expansion Improve the Agricultural Environment? Evidence from Apple Farmers in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Relationship between Farm Size and Agricultural Economy
2.2. Environmental Consequences Related to Farm Size
2.3. The Application of LCA Method in Agricultural Production
2.4. Summary of Literature
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Data Sources
3.3. Variable Descriptions
3.4. Research Method and Model Construction
3.4.1. Life-Cycle Assessment Method
3.4.2. Mediating Effect Model Construction
4. Results
4.1. Analysis of the Environmental Impact and the Contribution at Different Phases
4.2. Direct Impact of Farm Size on the Environmental Effects of Apple Production
4.3. The Mediating Effect Test of Farm Size on the Environmental Effects
4.3.1. The Mediating Effect Test of Fertilizer Input Intensity
4.3.2. The Mediating Effect Test of Pesticide Input Intensity
4.3.3. The Mediating Effect Test of Machinery Input Intensity
4.3.4. Robustness Test
4.4. Heterogeneity Test Based on Agricultural Cooperative Participation
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Implications
- (1)
- The system boundary of apple production was considered from the agricultural material production phase to the farming phase. It was found that the farming phase had a more significant negative environmental impact on the apple production system, with a contribution potential of 56.50%. After converting the 15 midpoint indicators considered to the 4 endpoint indicators of human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and natural resource depletion, it was found that the apple production process caused the most significant negative impact on ecosystem quality.
- (2)
- Farm size directly impacts the environmental effects of apple production, and there is a U-shaped trend between the two. On the left side of the turning point U shape, the estimated coefficient of farm size on the environmental effects is negative and with a significance at the 5% statistical level. On the right side of the turning point, the estimated coefficient becomes positive but does not pass the statistical significance test, mainly because most decision units in the study sample belong to the left of the turning point.
- (3)
- There were mediating effects in the path of farm size on the environmental effects of apple production. In particular, the effect of fertilizer input intensity is the largest and identified as a fully mediating effect. The effect of machinery input intensity is the second largest and recognized as a partially mediating effect, with the mediating effect accounting for 15.50–15.89% of the total effect. The mediating effect of pesticide input intensity is not significant.
- (4)
- Joining agricultural cooperatives is beneficial to promoting the improvement of the negative environmental effects of apple production. The sensitivity of the environmental effects of farmers who joined agricultural cooperatives was much higher than that of farmers who did not join cooperatives both in terms of estimated coefficients and significance levels.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ren, C.; Liu, S.; van Grinsven, H.; Reis, S.; Jin, S.; Liu, H.; Gu, B. The Impact of Farm Size on Agricultural Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 357–367. [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, 105011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Yang, G. Understanding Recent Challenges and New Food Policy in China. Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 12, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanali, M.; Kokei, D.; Aghbashlo, M.; Nasab, F.K.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Tabatabaei, M. Energy Flow Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment of Apple Juice Production: Recommendations for Renewable Energies Implementation and Climate Change Mitigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elahi, E.; Khalid, Z.; Tauni, M.Z.; Zhang, H.; Lirong, X. Extreme Weather Events Risk to Crop-Production and the Adaptation of Innovative Management Strategies to Mitigate the Risk: A Retrospective Survey of Rural Punjab, Pakistan. Technovation 2022, 117, 102255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razzaq, A.; Xiao, M.; Zhou, Y.; Anwar, M.; Liu, H.; Luo, F. Towards Sustainable Water Use: Factors Influencing Farmers’ Participation in the Informal Groundwater Markets in Pakistan. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 944156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohseni, P.; Borghei, A.M.; Khanali, M. Coupled Life Cycle Assessment and Data Envelopment Analysis for Mitigation of Environmental Impacts and Enhancement of Energy Efficiency in Grape Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 937–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Chen, Y.; Sui, P.; Yan, P.; Yang, X.; Gao, W. 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]
- Chuanmin, S.; Falla, J.S. Agro-Industrialization: A Comparative Study of China and Developed Countries. Outlook Agric. 2006, 35, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, X.; Lyu, Y.; Wu, X.; Li, H.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, C.; Yuan, L.; Jiang, R.; Jiang, B.; Rengel, Z.; et al. Grain Production versus Resource and Environmental Costs: Towards Increasing Sustainability of Nutrient Use in China. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 4935–4949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, S.; Hu, R.; Zhang, C.; Shi, G. Do Farmers Misuse Pesticides in Crop Production in China? Evidence from a Farm Household Survey: Pesticide Misuse by Chinese Farmers. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2133–2141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unay Gailhard, İ.; Bojnec, Š. Farm Size and Participation in Agri-Environmental Measures: Farm-Level Evidence from Slovenia. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bojnec, Š.; Fertő, I. Farm Income Sources, Farm Size and Farm Technical Efficiency in Slovenia. Post-Communist Econ. 2013, 25, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velandia, M.; Rejesus, R.M.; Knight, T.O.; Sherrick, B.J. Factors Affecting Farmers’ Utilization of Agricultural Risk Management Tools: The Case of Crop Insurance, Forward Contracting, and Spreading Sales. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2009, 41, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bojnec, Š.; Latruffe, L. Farm Size, Agricultural Subsidies and Farm Performance in Slovenia. Land Use Policy 2013, 32, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Key, N. Farm Size and Productivity Growth in the United States Corn Belt. Food Policy 2019, 84, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Julien, J.C.; Bravo-Ureta, B.E.; Rada, N.E. Assessing Farm Performance by Size in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda. Food Policy 2019, 84, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Wang, Q.; Li, D.; Yu, J. Comparative Analysis of Environmental and Economic Performance of Agricultural Cooperatives and Smallholder Farmers for Apple Production in China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.; Abdulai, A. Does Cooperative Membership Improve Household Welfare? Evidence from Apple Farmers in China. Food Policy 2016, 58, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Li, F.; Yu, J.; Fleskens, L.; Ritsema, C.J. Price Decline, Land Rental Markets and Grain Production in the North China Plain. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2020, 13, 124–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rada, N.E.; Fuglie, K.O. New Perspectives on Farm Size and Productivity. Food Policy 2019, 84, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, C.B.; Bellemare, M.F.; Hou, J.Y. Reconsidering Conventional Explanations of the Inverse Productivity–Size Relationship. World Dev. 2010, 38, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Chen, K.Z.; Das Gupta, S.; Huang, Z. Is Small Still Beautiful? A Comparative Study of Rice Farm Size and Productivity in China and India. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2015, 7, 484–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, H. Considering Technical and Allocative Efficiency in the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 66, 442–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carletto, C.; Savastano, S.; Zezza, A. Fact or Artifact: The Impact of Measurement Errors on the Farm Size–Productivity Relationship. J. Dev. Econ. 2013, 103, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noack, F.; Larsen, A. The Contrasting Effects of Farm Size on Farm Incomes and Food Production. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 084024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, D.A.; Deininger, K. Is There a Farm Size–Productivity Relationship in African Agriculture? Evidence from Rwanda. Land Econ. 2015, 91, 317–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deininger, K.; Jin, S.; Xia, F.; Huang, J. Moving Off the Farm: Land Institutions to Facilitate Structural Transformation and Agricultural Productivity Growth in China. World Dev. 2014, 59, 505–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, G.; Feng, Z.; You, L.; Fan, L. Re-Examining the Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Efficiency: The Empirical Evidence in China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2013, 5, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamopoulos, T.; Restuccia, D. The Size Distribution of Farms and International Productivity Differences. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 1667–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syp, A.; Faber, A.; Borzecka-Walker, M.; Osuch, D. Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Winter Wheat Farms Using Data Envelopment Analysis Approach. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2015, 24, 2197–2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kagin, J.; Taylor, J.E.; Yúnez-Naude, A. Inverse Productivity or Inverse Efficiency? Evidence from Mexico. J. Dev. Stud. 2016, 52, 396–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfand, S.; Levine, E. Farm Size and the Determinants of Productive Efficiency in the Brazilian Center-West. Agric. Econ. 2004, 31, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Restuccia, D.; Santaeulalia-Llopis, R. Land Misallocation and Productivity. SSRN Electron. J. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ferreira, M.D.P.; Féres, J.G. Farm Size and Land Use Efficiency in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mettepenningen, E.; Vandermeulen, V.; Delaet, K.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Wailes, E.J. Investigating the Influence of the Institutional Organisation of Agri-Environmental Schemes on Scheme Adoption. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kansanga, M.; Andersen, P.; Kpienbaareh, D.; Mason-Renton, S.; Atuoye, K.; Sano, Y.; Antabe, R.; Luginaah, I. Traditional Agriculture in Transition: Examining the Impacts of Agricultural Modernization on Smallholder Farming in Ghana under the New Green Revolution. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2019, 26, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, G.A.; Hart, K. Financial Imperative or Conservation Concern? EU Farmers’ Motivations for Participation in Voluntary Agri-Environmental Schemes. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space 2000, 32, 2161–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wynn, G.; Crabtree, B.; Potts, J. Modelling Farmer Entry into the Environmentally Sensitive Area Schemes in Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 52, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanslembrouck, I.; Huylenbroeck, G.; Verbeke, W. Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri-Environmental Measures. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 53, 489–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascucci, S.; de-Magistris, T.; Dries, L.; Adinolfi, F.; Capitanio, F. Participation of Italian Farmers in Rural Development Policy. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2013, 40, 605–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, S. Farm Size Growth and Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: A Configural Frequency Analysis of the Swiss Case. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 56, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Defrancesco, E.; Gatto, P.; Runge, F.; Trestini, S. Factors Affecting Farmers? Participation in Agri-Environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 59, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sattler, C.; Nagel, U.J. Factors Affecting Farmers’ Acceptance of Conservation Measures—A Case Study from North-Eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Xi, X.; Tang, X.; Luo, D.; Gu, B.; Lam, S.K.; Vitousek, P.M.; Chen, D. 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]
- Zhu, Y.; Waqas, M.A.; Li, Y.; Zou, X.; Jiang, D.; Wilkes, A.; Qin, X.; Gao, Q.; Wan, Y.; 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]
- Todde, G.; Murgia, L.; Caria, M.; Pazzona, A. A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements. Energies 2018, 11, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization: Geneve, Switzerland, 2006.
- Yang, X.; Sui, P.; Zhang, X.; Dai, H.; Yan, P.; Li, C.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y. Environmental and Economic Consequences Analysis of Cropping Systems from Fragmented to Concentrated Farmland in the North China Plain Based on a Joint Use of Life Cycle Assessment, Emergy and Economic Analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Li, X.; Gong, T.; Zhang, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Wheat-Maize Rotation System Emphasizing High Crop Yield and High Resource Use Efficiency in Quzhou County. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 68, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J. Ratoon Rice Production in Central China: Environmental Sustainability and Food Production. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 764, 142850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Thompson, M.; Moussavi, S.; Dvorak, B. Life Cycle and Economic Assessment of Corn Production Practices in the Western US Corn Belt. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1762–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-García, S.; Almeida, F.; Moreira, M.T.; Brandão, M. Evaluating the Environmental Profiles of Winter Wheat Rotation Systems under Different Management Strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 145270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skunca, D.; Tomasevic, I.; Nastasijevic, I.; Tomovic, V.; Djekic, I. Life Cycle Assessment of the Chicken Meat Chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zira, S.; Rydhmer, L.; Ivarsson, E.; Hoffmann, R.; Röös, E. A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Organic and Conventional Pork Supply Chains in Sweden. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gosalvitr, P.; Cuéllar-Franca, R.M.; Smith, R.; Azapagic, A. Integrating Process Modelling and Sustainability Assessment to Improve the Environmental and Economic Sustainability in the Cheese Industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 969–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordes, H.; Iriarte, A.; Villalobos, P. Evaluating the Carbon Footprint of Chilean Organic Blueberry Production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coltro, L.; Karaski, T.U. Environmental Indicators of Banana Production in Brazil: Cavendish and Prata Varieties. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 363–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svanes, E.; Johnsen, F.M. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Production, Processing, Distribution and Consumption of Apples, Sweet Cherries and Plums from Conventional Agriculture in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaphilippe, A.; Boissy, J.; Simon, S.; Godard, C. Environmental Impact of Intensive versus Semi-Extensive Apple Orchards: Use of a Specific Methodological Framework for Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) in Perennial Crops. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annaert, B.; Goossens, Y.; Geeraerd, A.; Mathijs, E.; Vranken, L. Calculating Environmental Cost Indicators of Apple Farm Practices Indicates Large Differences between Growers. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.; Jia, Z.; Peng, L.; Chen, Q.; He, L.; Jiang, Y.; Ge, S. Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Organic Apple Production Systems in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Che, X.; Li, N.; Tang, L. Has Cultivated Land Transfer and Scale Operation Improved the Agricultural Environment? An Empirical Test on Impact of Cultivated Land Use on Agricultural Environment Efficiency. Land Sci. China 2019, 33, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Xiao, H. The Impact of Farmland Management Scale and Fiscal Policy for Supporting Agriculture on Agricultural Carbon Emission. Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 1063–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, J.-F.; Pu, C.; Liu, S.-L.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, R.; Chen, F.; Xiao, X.-P.; Zhang, H.-L. Carbon and Nitrogen Footprint of Double Rice Production in Southern China. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 64, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, S.; Cassman, K.G.; Huang, J.; Peng, S.; Grassini, P. Can Ratoon Cropping Improve Resource Use Efficiencies and Profitability of Rice in Central China? Field Crops Res. 2019, 234, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saber, Z.; van Zelm, R.; Pirdashti, H.; Schipper, A.M.; Esmaeili, M.; Motevali, A.; Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Understanding Farm-Level Differences in Environmental Impact and Eco-Efficiency: The Case of Rice Production in Iran. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1021–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.; Zheng, H.; Yuan, P. Impacts of Cooperative Membership on Banana Yield and Risk Exposure: Insights from China. J. Agric. Econ. 2022, 73, 564–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, E.; Qaim, M. Linking Smallholders to Markets: Determinants and Impacts of Farmer Collective Action in Kenya. World Dev. 2012, 40, 1255–1268. [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]
- Zhong, Z.; Zhang, C.; Jia, F.; Bijman, J. Vertical Coordination and Cooperative Member Benefits: Case Studies of Four Dairy Farmers’ Cooperatives in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2266–2277. [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]
- 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] [PubMed]
- Feng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, S.; Wang, C.; Yin, X.; Chu, Q.; Chen, F. Sustainable Options for Reducing Carbon Inputs and Improving the Eco-Efficiency of Smallholder Wheat-Maize Cropping Systems in the Huanghuaihai Farming Region of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Luo, B. Agricultural Downsizing: The Logic of Scale in Farming and Its Evidence. Chinas Rural Econ. 2020, 2, 81–99. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, F.; Huo, M.; Song, X.; Wang, H. Spatial Clustering Analysis of Production Efficiency Based on SBM and Malmquist Index in Major Apple Producing Areas of China. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 5, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, C. The Analysis of Efficiency Measurement of Pesticide Application Forfruit Growers and the Driving Force to Reduce Misallocation: Empirical Analysis: Based on 524 Peach Farmers from 85 Production Counties in China. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2020, 20, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Lin, Y. Spatial Evolution and Its Drivers of Regional Agro-Ecological Efficiency in China’s from the Perspective of Water Footprint and Gray Water Footprint. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2021, 41, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, X.; Wang, S. Environmental Efficiency and Its Determinants Regarding China’s Grain Production. Resour. Sci. 2016, 38, 2106–2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, H. Evaluation of Environmental Efficiency of Maize Production in Northeast China Based on Dynamic DEA. J. Agric. Econ. 2016, 8, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Xiang, C.; Zhang, X. The Division of Labor in Chinese Agricultural: Based on Production Service Outsourcing Perspective. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2019, 33, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, X. Benefit Mechanism of Agricultural Service Scale Operation. Agric. Econ. Quest. 2019, 9, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Yan, S.; Liu, F.; Ji, P.; Wang, X.; Tong, Y. Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Combined with Organic Manure on Fuji Apple Quality, Yield and Soil Fertility in Apple Orchard on the Loess Plateau of China. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2014, 7, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Relationship | References |
---|---|---|
Crop yield | − | [22,23,24] |
Household income | + | [26] |
Unit costs | + | [8] |
Economic profit | − | [27] |
Labor efficiency | −/+ | [28,29]/[30] |
Technical efficiency | +/−/U-shaped/inverted U-shaped | [13,31]/[32]/[33]/[24] |
Allocated efficiency | Ambiguous | [15] |
Economic efficiency | + | [15] |
Land use efficiency | U-shaped | [35] |
Total factor productivity | +/−/U-shaped | [16]/[17]/[21] |
Agri-environmental measures | +/−/Ambiguous | [36,37,38]/[39,40,41]/[42,43] |
Agrochemical inputs | − | [44] |
Soil carbon storage | + | [45] |
CO2 emissions | − | [46] |
Environmental-impact index | − | [8] |
Items | Baishui County | Qingcheng County |
---|---|---|
Province | Shaanxi Province | Gansu Province |
Ranges | 109°16′–109°45′ E and 35°4′–35°27′ N | 107°16′–108°05′ E and 35°42′–36°17′ N |
Average annual temperature | 11.4 °C | 9.4 °C |
Average annual precipitation | 577.8 mm | 537.5 mm |
Total planting area | 36,700 hectares | 28,600 hectares |
Ultimate production | 530,000 tons | 200,000 tons |
Variable Category | Variable Name | Variable Definition | Mean | Std. Dev | Min. | Max. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | Environmental effects | Environmental-impact index calculated based on LCA method | 429.92 | 279.51 | 73.50 | 1800.00 |
Independent variables | Farm size | Actual area of apple orchards operated (ha) | 0.50 | 0.29 | 0.03 | 2.00 |
Intermediary variable | Fertilizer input intensity | Amount of fertilizer use (kg/ha) | 1599.67 | 1099.01 | 112.50 | 6592.50 |
Pesticide input intensity | Amount of pesticide use (kg/ha) | 20.03 | 15.71 | 0.00 | 150.00 | |
Machinery input intensity | Amount of diesel use (kg/ha) | 398.97 | 404.76 | 0.00 | 2645.63 | |
Control variables | Age | Actual age of household head (year) | 56.65 | 8.40 | 22.00 | 80.00 |
Education level | Actual years of education of household head (year) | 7.89 | 2.43 | 0.00 | 16.00 | |
Population size | Total number of family members (number) | 3.95 | 1.62 | 1.00 | 10.00 | |
Specialization level | Apple income as a share of total household income (%) | 0.56 | 0.26 | 0.10 | 1.00 | |
Number of training sessions | Total number of training sessions attended by principal operators (number) | 2.89 | 1.89 | 0.00 | 9.00 | |
Tree age | Actual age of apple trees (year) | 17.50 | 9.84 | 3.00 | 40.00 | |
Soil quality | Self-assessment of soil quality by major operators (1–5) | 3.02 | 1.02 | 1.00 | 5.00 | |
Land fragmentation | Actual number of apple orchard plots operated (plot) | 1.75 | 0.81 | 1.00 | 5.00 | |
Low carbon awareness | Low carbon awareness of major operators (1–5) | 3.54 | 1.23 | 1.00 | 5.00 | |
Distance | Distance of residence from the nearest county town (km) | 23.74 | 14.45 | 4.00 | 60.00 | |
Subgroup variable | Agricultural cooperative | Whether to join agricultural cooperatives (yes = 1/no = 0) | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Dependent Variable: Environmental Effects | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model (1) | Model (2) | |||
Coef. | Std. | Coef. | Std. | |
Farm size | −0.581 *** | 0.196 | −1.185 ** (0.527) | 0.527 |
Square of farm size | — | — | 0.025 (0.021) | 0.021 |
Age | 0.078 | 0.085 | 0.073 | 0.085 |
Education level | −0.818 *** | 0.307 | −0.827 *** | 0.307 |
Population size | −2.054 *** | 0.467 | −2.011 *** | 0.468 |
Specialization level | −14.957 *** | 3.112 | −14.505 *** | 3.130 |
Number of training sessions | −0.912 ** | 0.406 | −0.936 ** | 0.406 |
Tree age | 0.199 *** | 0.074 | 0.209 *** | 0.075 |
Soil quality | −3.377 *** | 0.764 | −3.321 *** | 0.764 |
Land fragmentation | 4.959 *** | 1.040 | 5.179 *** | 1.052 |
Low carbon awareness | −1.385 ** | 0.622 | −1.441 ** | 0.622 |
Distance | 0.036 | 0.048 | 0.035 | 0.048 |
Constant term | 61.353 *** | 7.843 | 63.833 *** | 8.080 |
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
Pseudo R2 | 0.061 | 0.061 | ||
Sample capacity | 313 | 313 |
Dependent Variable: Fertilizer Input Intensity | Dependent Variable: Environmental Effects | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model (3) | Model (4) | Model (5) | Model (6) | |
Farm size | −2.239 *** (0.810) | −4.716 ** (2.184) | −0.141 (0.119) | −0.255 (0.321) |
Square of farm size | — | 0.104(0.085) | — | 0.005 (0.013) |
Fertilizer input intensity | — | — | 0.181 *** (0.006) | 0.181 *** (0.006) |
Constants and control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Dependent Variable: Pesticide Input Intensity | Dependent Variable: Environmental Effects | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model (7) | Model (8) | Model (9) | Model (10) | |
Farm size | −0.010 (0.011) | −0.032 (0.031) | −0.525 *** (0.185) | −0.995 ** (0.501) |
Square of farm size | — | 0.001 (0.001) | — | 0.020 (0.020) |
Pesticide input intensity | — | — | 4.655 *** (0.675) | 4.626 *** (0.675) |
Constants and control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Dependent Variable: Machinery Input Intensity | Dependent Variable: Environmental Effects | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model (11) | Model (12) | Model (13) | Model (14) | |
Farm size | −0.866 *** (0.271) | −1.846 ** (0.728) | −0.437 ** (0.196) | −0.882 * (0.524) |
Square of farm size | — | 0.041 (0.028) | — | 0.019 (0.020) |
Machinery input intensity | — | — | 0.104 *** (0.026) | 0.102 *** (0.026) |
Constants and control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Intermediary Variable | Bootstrap Test Indicators | Observed Coef. | Normal-Based (95% Conf. Interval) | Intermediary Effect Type | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fertilizer input intensity | _bs_1 | −0.538 *** (0.178) | −0.886 | −0.190 | Full mediating effect |
_bs_2 | −0.150 * (0.091) | −0.328 | 0.028 | — | |
Pesticide input intensity | _bs_1 | −0.076 (0.067) | −0.208 | 0.056 | No mediating effect |
_bs_2 | −0.613 *** (0.177) | −0.960 | −0.266 | — | |
Machinery input intensity | _bs_1 | −0.174 ** (0.083) | −0.336 | −0.012 | Partial mediating effect |
_bs_2 | −0.514 ** (0.200) | −0.907 | −0.122 | — |
Dependent Variable: Environmental Effects | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Join An Agricultural Cooperative | Not Join An Agricultural Cooperative | |||
Model (15) | Model (16) | Model (17) | Model (18) | |
Farm size | −0.909 *** (0.345) | −2.337 *** (0.826) | −0.511 ** (0.234) | −0.856 (0.690) |
Square of farm size | — | 0.056 * (0.030) | — | 0.015 (0.028) |
Constants and control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Sample capacity | 97 | 97 | 216 | 216 |
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
Cheng, J.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, H.; Matsubara, T.; Yoshikawa, N.; Yu, J. Does Farm Size Expansion Improve the Agricultural Environment? Evidence from Apple Farmers in China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111800
Cheng J, Wang Q, Zhang H, Matsubara T, Yoshikawa N, Yu J. Does Farm Size Expansion Improve the Agricultural Environment? Evidence from Apple Farmers in China. Agriculture. 2022; 12(11):1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111800
Chicago/Turabian StyleCheng, Juanjuan, Qian Wang, Huanmin Zhang, Toyohiko Matsubara, Naoki Yoshikawa, and Jin Yu. 2022. "Does Farm Size Expansion Improve the Agricultural Environment? Evidence from Apple Farmers in China" Agriculture 12, no. 11: 1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111800