IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i10p1730-d934543.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Rising Farmland Costs Affect Fertilizer Use Efficiency? Evidence from Gansu and Jiangsu, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan Qi

    (College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Xin Chen

    (Department of Earth System Science, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Institute for Global Change Studies, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Jiaqing Zhang

    (College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Yaoyao Li

    (College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Daolin Zhu

    (College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
    Center for Land Policy and Law, Beijing 100193, China)

Abstract

As the farmland transfer market in China develops, moderate-scale operations increasingly grow but without much improvement in fertilizer use efficiency. This study theoretically analyzes the mechanism and effect of rising farmland costs on fertilizer use efficiency using multiple quadratic regression and mediating effects models. It empirically tests a micro-sample of 806 farmers in Gansu and Jiangsu provinces in China from two dimensions: the full samples and farmer heterogeneity. The results showed 0.544 as the average fertilizer use efficiency (hereinafter, fe ) of farmers in Gansu and Jiangsu, highlighting the severe loss of fe caused by excessive fertilizer inputs. The multiple quadratic regression model further revealed an inverted U-shaped relationship between farmland costs and fe , with the U-shaped curve showing a remarkable inflection point at the USD 708/mu mark. When farmland costs are excessive ( cost > CNY 708/mu), the increase in farmland costs inhibits the fe . An investigation of the corresponding impact mechanism for this scenario (i.e., cost > USD 708/mu) revealed that farmland costs directly suppress fe (−0.485) by distorting the fertilizer factor substitution effect and indirectly suppress fe (−0.037) by impeding the technology spillover effect of production specialization and production scale-up. We also found heterogeneity between two groups: ordinary farmers and new agricultural operators (e.g., large grain and family farmers), with the peak kernel density function of fe of new agricultural operators (0.85) being much higher than that of ordinary farmers (0.30). Moreover, the multiple quadratic regression between the groups revealed a lower inflection point for ordinary farmers (CNY 638/mu) than new agricultural operators (CNY 823/mu), highlighting that the fe of ordinary farmers was more likely to be inhibited by the excessive rise in farmland costs. To promote the sustainable development of China’s agricultural production, we propose reducing the cost of farmland, promoting service-scale operations, and fostering new agricultural operators.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan Qi & Xin Chen & Jiaqing Zhang & Yaoyao Li & Daolin Zhu, 2022. "How Do Rising Farmland Costs Affect Fertilizer Use Efficiency? Evidence from Gansu and Jiangsu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1730-:d:934543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1730/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1730/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xu, Yuting & Huang, Xianjin & Bao, Helen X.H. & Ju, Xiang & Zhong, Taiyang & Chen, Zhigang & Zhou, Yan, 2018. "Rural land rights reform and agro-environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 73-87.
    2. Jianqiang Wu & Chenyan Sha & Min Wang & Chunmei Ye & Peng Li & Shenfa Huang, 2021. "Effect of Organic Fertilizer on Soil Bacteria in Maize Fields," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Yanggen, David & Kelly, Valerie A. & Reardon, Thomas & Naseem, Anwar, 1998. "Incentives for Fertilizer Use in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review of Empirical Evidence on Fertilizer Response and Profitability," Food Security International Development Working Papers 54677, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    4. Li, Bowei & Shen, Yueqin, 2021. "Effects of land transfer quality on the application of organic fertilizer by large-scale farmers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Gao, Li & Zhang, Wendong & Mei, Yingdan & Sam, Abdoul G. & Song, Yu & Jin, Shuqin, 2018. "Do farmers adopt fewer conservation practices on rented land? Evidence from straw retention in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 609-621.
    6. Madhu Khanna, 2001. "Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and its Implications for Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(1), pages 35-51.
    7. Huarui Gong & Jing Li & Zhen Liu & Yitao Zhang & Ruixing Hou & Zhu Ouyang, 2022. "Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Cropping Systems by Organic Fertilizer and Tillage Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Lampach, Nicolas & To-The, Nguyen & Nguyen-Anh, Tuan, 2021. "Technical efficiency and the adoption of multiple agricultural technologies in the mountainous areas of Northern Vietnam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    9. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    10. Martey, Edward & Kuwornu, John K.M. & Adjebeng-Danquah, Joseph, 2019. "Estimating the effect of mineral fertilizer use on Land productivity and income: Evidence from Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 463-475.
    11. Zhang, Yingnan & Long, Hualou & Li, Yurui & Ge, Dazhuan & Tu, Shuangshuang, 2020. "How does off-farm work affect chemical fertilizer application? Evidence from China’s mountainous and plain areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Bambio, Yiriyibin & Bouayad Agha, Salima, 2018. "Land tenure security and investment: Does strength of land right really matter in rural Burkina Faso?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 130-147.
    13. Margarita Genius & Phoebe Koundouri & Céline Nauges & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2014. "Information Transmission in Irrigation Technology Adoption and Diffusion: Social Learning, Extension Services, and Spatial Effects," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(1), pages 328-344.
    14. T. Brunelle & P. Dumas & F. Souty & B. Dorin & F. Nadaud, 2015. "Evaluating the impact of rising fertilizer prices on crop yields," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(5), pages 653-666, September.
    15. Xie, Jinhua & Yang, Gangqiao & Wang, Ge & Song, Yan & Yang, Fan, 2021. "How do different rural-land-consolidation modes shape farmers’ ecological production behaviors?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yushi Chen & Xinhong Fu & Yuying Liu, 2022. "Effect of Farmland Scale on Farmers’ Application Behavior with Organic Fertilizer," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Gong, Maogang & Zhong, Yanan & Zhang, Yun & Elahi, Ehsan & Yang, Yuanxi, 2023. "Have the new round of agricultural land system reform improved farmers' agricultural inputs in China?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    3. Dan Qiao & Shuting Xu & Tao Xu & Qinchuan Hao & Zhen Zhong, 2022. "Gap between Willingness and Behaviors: Understanding the Consistency of Farmers’ Green Production in Hainan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Wenhao Song & Chunhui Ye, 2022. "Impact of the Cultivated-Land-Management Scale on Fertilizer Reduction—Empirical Evidence from the Countryside of China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Qianhui Ma & Shaofeng Zheng & Peng Deng, 2022. "Impact of Internet Use on Farmers’ Organic Fertilizer Application Behavior under the Climate Change Context: The Role of Social Network," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ying, RuiYao & Pan, Dan, 2021. "Time Preferences and green agricultural technology adoption: Field evidence from rice farmers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Qianchun Dai & Kequn Cheng, 2022. "What Drives the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies? An Extension of TAM in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Fafchamps, Marcel & Islam, Asad & Malek, Mohammad Abdul & Pakrashi, Debayan, 2020. "Can referral improve targeting? Evidence from an agricultural training experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    9. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    10. Elisabeth SADOULET, 2016. "Review of Theories of Learning for Adopting," Working Papers P163, FERDI.
    11. Mekonnen, Dawit K. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 2017. "Synergy and Learning Effects of Informal Labor-Sharing Arrangements," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-14.
    12. Zhang, Yuanxia & Halder, Pradipta & Zhang, Xiaoning & Qu, Mei, 2020. "Analyzing the deviation between farmers' Land transfer intention and behavior in China's impoverished mountainous Area: A Logistic-ISM model approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Haluk Gedikoglu & Sansel Tandogan & Joseph Parcell, 2023. "Neighbor effects on adoption of conservation practices: cases of grass filter systems and injecting manure," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 70(3), pages 723-756, June.
    14. Gabriel S. Sampson & Edward D. Perry, 2019. "Peer effects in the diffusion of water‐saving agricultural technologies," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(6), pages 693-706, November.
    15. Saule Burkitbayeva & Emma Janssen & Johan Swinnen, 2019. "Technology Adoption and Value Chains in Developing Countries: Panel Evidence from Dairy in Punjab," LICOS Discussion Papers 41019, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    16. Wu, Haixia & Ge, Yan & Li, Jianping, 2023. "Uncertainty, time preference and households’ adoption of rooftop photovoltaic technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    17. Gobillon, Laurent & Wolff, François-Charles, 2020. "The local effects of an innovation: Evidence from the French fish market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    18. Waters, James, 2013. "The influence of information sources on inter- and intra-firm diffusion: evidence from UK farming," MPRA Paper 50955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Yanbing Wang & Niklas Möhring & Robert Finger, 2023. "When my neighbors matter: Spillover effects in the adoption of large‐scale pesticide‐free wheat production," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 256-273, March.
    20. Min Zhao & Weijian Guo, 2022. "Does Land Certification Stimulate Farmers’ Entrepreneurial Enthusiasm? Evidence from Rural China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1730-:d:934543. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.