IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i11p1800-d957258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Farm Size Expansion Improve the Agricultural Environment? Evidence from Apple Farmers in China

Author

Listed:
  • Juanjuan Cheng

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling District, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Qian Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling District, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Huanmin Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling District, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Toyohiko Matsubara

    (College of Gastronomy Management, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1 Noji-higashi, Kusatsu 525-8577, Shiga, Japan)

  • Naoki Yoshikawa

    (School of Environmental Science, The University of Shiga Prefecture, 2500 Hassaka-cho, Hikone 522-8533, Shiga, Japan)

  • Jin Yu

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling District, Xianyang 712100, China)

Abstract

Farmland environmental pollution has put greater pressure on the sustainability of agricultural production systems. Exploring the relationship between farm size and environmental pollution in agriculture can help provide realistic guidance for stakeholders. In this study, the research data from apple farmers in China were used to measure the environmental pollutant emissions caused by apple production using the life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The mediating effect model was used to examine the mechanisms and pathways by which farm size affects the environmental effects of apple production and to identify the mediating effects of fertilizer, pesticide, and machinery input intensity. Finally, a heterogeneity analysis was conducted to illustrate the impact of participation in agricultural cooperatives on the environmental performance of apple production for smallholder farmers. The results showed that the apple production system’s negative environmental impacts from the agricultural material production phase were more significant compared to the farming phase, with a contribution potential of 56.50%. Farm size directly impacts the environmental effects of apple production, and there is a U-shaped trend between the two, implying that from the perspective of environmental effects, larger farm size is not better. There were some mediating effects in the paths of farm size on the environmental effects, and the largest effect was fertilizer input intensity with a full mediating effect; the second largest effect was machinery input intensity with a partial mediating effect, and the mediating effect accounted for 15.50–15.89% of the total effect; the mediating effect of pesticide input intensity was not significant. In addition, the study also found that joining agricultural cooperatives was beneficial in promoting the improvement of the negative environmental impact caused by apple production. These findings provide insights into optimizing farm inputs for apple production and identifying the appropriate farm size to alleviate multiple environmental impacts, intending to make a marginal contribution to promoting sustainable development of the apple industry in China also providing the research evidence for the comparative study of the environmental burdens of apple production in China and other countries in the world.

Suggested Citation

  • Juanjuan Cheng & Qian Wang & Huanmin Zhang & Toyohiko Matsubara & Naoki Yoshikawa & Jin Yu, 2022. "Does Farm Size Expansion Improve the Agricultural Environment? Evidence from Apple Farmers in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-23, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:11:p:1800-:d:957258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/11/1800/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/11/1800/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2014. "The Size Distribution of Farms and International Productivity Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1667-1697, June.
    2. Helfand, Steven M. & Levine, Edward S., 2004. "Farm size and the determinants of productive efficiency in the Brazilian Center-West," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 241-249, December.
    3. Barrett, Christopher B. & Bellemare, Marc F. & Hou, Janet Y., 2010. "Reconsidering Conventional Explanations of the Inverse Productivity-Size Relationship," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 88-97, January.
    4. Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara & Zezza, Alberto, 2013. "Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size–productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    5. Justin Kagin & J. Edward Taylor & Antonio Yúnez-Naude, 2016. "Inverse Productivity or Inverse Efficiency? Evidence from Mexico," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(3), pages 396-411, March.
    6. Rada, Nicholas E. & Fuglie, Keith O., 2019. "New perspectives on farm size and productivity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 147-152.
    7. Key, Nigel, 2019. "Farm size and productivity growth in the United States Corn Belt," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 186-195.
    8. Ma, Wanglin & Abdulai, Awudu, 2016. "Does cooperative membership improve household welfare? Evidence from apple farmers in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 94-102.
    9. Fischer, Elisabeth & Qaim, Matin, 2012. "Linking Smallholders to Markets: Determinants and Impacts of Farmer Collective Action in Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1255-1268.
    10. Giuseppe Todde & Lelia Murgia & Maria Caria & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    11. Velandia, Margarita & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Knight, Thomas O. & Sherrick, Bruce J., 2009. "Factors Affecting Farmers' Utilization of Agricultural Risk Management Tools: The Case of Crop Insurance, Forward Contracting, and Spreading Sales," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 107-123, April.
    12. Qian Wang & Fan Li & Jin Yu & Luuk Fleskens & Coen J. Ritsema, 2020. "Price decline, land rental markets and grain production in the North China Plain," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 13(1), pages 124-149, October.
    13. Lu, Hua & Xie, Hualin & Lv, Tiangui & Yao, Guanrong, 2019. "Determinants of cultivated land recuperation in ecologically damaged areas in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 160-166.
    14. Štefan Bojnec & Imre Fertő, 2013. "Farm income sources, farm size and farm technical efficiency in Slovenia," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, September.
    15. Heath Henderson, 2015. "Considering Technical and Allocative Efficiency in the Inverse Farm Size–Productivity Relationship," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 442-469, June.
    16. Wanglin Ma & Hongyun Zheng & Peng Yuan, 2022. "Impacts of cooperative membership on banana yield and risk exposure: Insights from China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 564-579, June.
    17. Wang, Xiaolong & Chen, Yuanquan & Sui, Peng & Yan, Peng & Yang, Xiaolei & Gao, Wangsheng, 2017. "Preliminary analysis on economic and environmental consequences of grain production on different farm sizes in North China Plain," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-189.
    18. Abebaw, Degnet & Haile, Mekbib G., 2013. "The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 82-91.
    19. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing & Xia, Fang & Huang, Jikun, 2014. "Moving Off the Farm: Land Institutions to Facilitate Structural Transformation and Agricultural Productivity Growth in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 505-520.
    20. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri‐environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511, November.
    21. Stefan Mann, 2005. "Farm Size Growth and Participation in Agri‐environmental Schemes: A Configural Frequency Analysis of the Swiss Case," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 373-384, December.
    22. Julien, Jacques C. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Rada, Nicholas E., 2019. "Assessing farm performance by size in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 153-164.
    23. Geoff A Wilson & Kaley Hart, 2000. "Financial Imperative or Conservation Concern? EU Farmers' Motivations for Participation in Voluntary Agri-Environmental Schemes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(12), pages 2161-2185, December.
    24. Juanjuan Cheng & Qian Wang & Dongjian Li & Jin Yu, 2022. "Comparative Analysis of Environmental and Economic Performance of Agricultural Cooperatives and Smallholder Farmers for Apple Production in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-22, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Florentina-Cristina Merciu & Camelia Teodorescu, 2023. "Agricultural Citizen Science and Sustainable Regional Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-4, June.

    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. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    3. Chiarella, Cristina & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Abeygunawardane, Dilini & Conforti, Piero, 2023. "Balancing the trade-offs between land productivity, labor productivity and labor intensity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 52(10), pages 1618-1634.
    4. Taylor, Matthew P.H. & Helfand, Steven M., 2021. "The Farm Size – Productivity Relationship in the Wake of Market Reform: An Analysis of Mexican Family Farms," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315138, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Julien, Jacques C. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Rada, Nicholas E., 2019. "Assessing farm performance by size in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 153-164.
    6. Eliška Svobodová & Radka Redlichová & Gabriela Chmelíková & Ivana Blažková, 2022. "Are the Agricultural Subsidies Based on the Farm Size Justified? Empirical Evidence from the Czech Republic," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Wanglin Ma & Sanghyun Hong & W. Robert Reed & Jianhua Duan & Phong Luu, 2023. "Yield effects of agricultural cooperative membership in developing countries: A meta‐analysis," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(3), pages 761-780, September.
    8. Keijiro Otsuka, 2021. "Changing Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity and Its Implications for Philippine Agriculture," Discussion Papers 2102, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
    9. Omotilewa, Oluwatoba J. & Jayne, T.S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo B. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus, 2021. "A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    10. Shichao Yuan & Jian Wang, 2022. "Involution Effect: Does China’s Rural Land Transfer Market Still Have Efficiency?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Gourlay, Sydney & Kilic, Talip & Lobell, David B., 2019. "A new spin on an old debate: Errors in farmer-reported production and their implications for inverse scale - Productivity relationship in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    12. Ferreira, Marcelo Dias Paes & Féres, José Gustavo, 2020. "Farm size and Land use efficiency in the Brazilian Amazon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    13. Lowder, Sarah K. & Sánchez, Marco V. & Bertini, Raffaele, 2021. "Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    14. Ateka, Josiah & Onono-Okelo, Perez Ayieko & Etyang, Martin, 2021. "Does the inverse farm size productivity hypothesis hold for perennial monocrop systems in developing countries? Evidence from Kenya," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(3), September.
    15. Steven Helfand & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "The Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Refocusing the Debate," Working Papers 201811, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    16. Wang, Sun Ling & Rada, Nicholas E. & Williams, Ryan C., 2021. "Potential Climatic Effects on the U.S. Crop Farm Productivity," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 314088, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Kifle T. Sebhatu & Fatemeh Taheri & Tekeste Berhanu & Miet Maertens & Steven Van Passel & Marijke D'Haese, 2021. "Beyond focus: Exploring variability of service provision of agricultural cooperatives," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(2), pages 207-231, June.
    18. Klaus Deininger & Denys Nizalov & Sudhir K Singh, 2013. "Are mega-farms the future of global agriculture? Exploring the farm size-productivity relationship for large commercial farms in Ukraine," Discussion Papers 49, Kyiv School of Economics.
    19. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Yanyan Liu & Sudhir K. Singh, 2018. "Can Labor-Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size–Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(2), pages 239-258.
    20. Hao, Jinghui & Heerink, Nico & Heijman, Wim & Bijman, Jos, 2017. "Cooperatives Membership And Smallholder Farmers’ Welfare - Evidence From Shaanxi And Shandong Provinces, China," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260914, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:11:p:1800-:d:957258. 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.