IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p5770-d812539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Small-Scale Farmers’ Preference Heterogeneity for Green Agriculture Policy Incentives Identified by Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Yaying Zhu

    (School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China)

  • Juan Chen

    (School of Business Administration, Anhui University of Finance and Economics, Bengbu 233030, China)

Abstract

This study addresses differentiation among small-scale farmers’ preferences for green agriculture policy incentive mixes. Transforming modern agriculture to ecological fertilization and pest extermination practices is paramount in developing green agriculture, but policy incentives aimed at stimulating small-scale farmers’ adoption of ecological fertilization and deinsectization techniques are often challenged by those farmers’ heterogeneous characteristics and their consequent mixed incentive preferences. We establish a model examining the interplay between small-scale farmers’ characteristics (e.g., age, education level, family size, participation in agricultural organization) and combinations of incentive policies (i.e., green subsidy, technical support, environmental propaganda, agricultural insurance) in farmers’ willingness to participate in ecological fertilization/deinsectization, using a sample of 1032 Chinese farmers. By applying a mixed logit model and latent class model regressions, we find that farmers’ age, education level, family size, and farming organization participation are the most important characteristics influencing farmers’ preferences. Specifically, senior farmers tend to accept an incentive policy combination of green subsidy and technical support; farmers with higher education levels prefer an incentive policy combination of technical support and environmental propaganda; and larger families prefer an incentive policy combination of technical support and agricultural insurance. Additionally, participation in any agricultural organization reduces the household’s preference for incentive policy combinations of technical support, agricultural insurance, and green subsidy. Based on these findings, a typology of small farmers’ green agriculture incentive preferences (including security, monetary, and autonomy orientations) is proposed, offering suggestions for future green agriculture policy optimization.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaying Zhu & Juan Chen, 2022. "Small-Scale Farmers’ Preference Heterogeneity for Green Agriculture Policy Incentives Identified by Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5770-:d:812539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5770/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5770/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lyubov Kurkalova & Catherine Kling & Jinhua Zhao, 2006. "Green Subsidies in Agriculture: Estimating the Adoption Costs of Conservation Tillage from Observed Behavior," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(2), pages 247-267, June.
    2. Aniceto C. Orbeta, 2006. "Poverty, Vulnerability and Family Size: Evidence from the Philippines," Chapters, in: John Weiss & Haider A. Khan (ed.), Poverty Strategies in Asia, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Leblois, Antoine & Quirion, Philippe, 2010. "Agricultural Insurances Based on Meteorological Indices: Realizations, Methods and Research Agenda," Sustainable Development Papers 91004, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    5. Yingchao Li & Zhiyuan Fan & Guanghui Jiang & Zhuo Quan, 2021. "Addressing the Differences in Farmers’ Willingness and Behavior Regarding Developing Green Agriculture—A Case Study in Xichuan County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    6. Glenn Davis Stone & Dominic Glover, 2017. "Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(1), pages 87-102, March.
    7. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    8. Larson, Donald W. & Jones, Eugene & Pannu, R. S. & Sheokand, R. S., 2004. "Instability in Indian agriculture--a challenge to the Green Revolution technology," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 257-273, June.
    9. Olivier Mahul & Charles J. Stutley, 2010. "Government Support to Agricultural Insurance : Challenges and Options for Developing Countries," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2432, December.
    10. Grovermann, Christian & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Riwthong, Suthathip & Berger, Thomas, 2017. "‘Smart’ policies to reduce pesticide use and avoid income trade-offs: An agent-based model applied to Thai agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 91-103.
    11. Munasib, Abdul B.A. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 2011. "The Effect of Social Capital on the Choice to Use Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 213-227, May.
    12. Andre Croppenstedt & Mulat Demeke & Meloria M. Meschi, 2003. "Technology Adoption in the Presence of Constraints: the Case of Fertilizer Demand in Ethiopia," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 58-70, February.
    13. Leblois, Antoine & Quirion, Philippe, 2010. "Agricultural Insurances Based on Meteorological Indices: Realizations, Methods and Research Agenda," Sustainable Development Papers 91004, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Harriet Friedmann, 2007. "Scaling up: Bringing public institutions and food service corporations into the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 389-398, September.
    15. Alison Alkon, 2008. "From value to values: sustainable consumption at farmers markets," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(4), pages 487-498, December.
    16. Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & Maria Espinosa-Goded & Pierre Dupraz, 2010. "Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(7), pages 891-905.
    17. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    18. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    19. Liberalesso, Tiago & Oliveira Cruz, Carlos & Matos Silva, Cristina & Manso, Maria, 2020. "Green infrastructure and public policies: An international review of green roofs and green walls incentives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    20. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    21. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    22. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    23. Oluyede Clifford Ajayi & Festus K. Akinnifesi & Gudeta Sileshi & Sebastian Chakeredza, 2007. "Adoption of renewable soil fertility replenishment technologies in the southern African region: Lessons learnt and the way forward," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 31(4), pages 306-317, November.
    24. Sukallaya Kasem & Gopal B. Thapa, 2012. "Sustainable development policies and achievements in the context of the agriculture sector in Thailand," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 98-114, March.
    25. Bashiru Mansaray & Shaosheng Jin & Godwin S. Agbemavor Horlu, 2019. "Do Land Ownership and Agro-Ecological Location of Farmland Influence Adoption of Improved Rice Varieties? Evidence from Sierra Leone," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
    26. Vikram S. Negi & Ravi Pathak & K. Chandra Sekar & R.S. Rawal & I.D. Bhatt & S.K. Nandi & P.P. Dhyani, 2018. "Traditional knowledge and biodiversity conservation: a case study from Byans Valley in Kailash Sacred Landscape, India," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(10), pages 1722-1743, August.
    27. Yurong Yang & Zhaoliang Li & Yan Zhang, 2021. "Incentives or restrictions: policy choices in farmers’ chemical fertilizer reduction and substitution behaviors [A theory of social custom, of which unemployment may be one consequence]," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 351-360.
    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. Lipeng Li & Apurbo Sarkar & Xi Zhou & Xiuling Ding & Hua Li, 2022. "Influence and Action Mechanisms of Governmental Relations Embeddedness for Fostering Green Production Demonstration Household: Evidence from Shaanxi, Sichuan, and Anhui Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-25, September.
    2. Kexiao Xie & Yuerui Zhu & Yongqiang Ma & Youcheng Chen & Shuiji Chen & Zhidan Chen, 2022. "Willingness of Tea Farmers to Adopt Ecological Agriculture Techniques Based on the UTAUT Extended Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-14, November.

    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. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    2. Liuyang Yao & Minjuan Zhao & Yu Cai & Zhaowei Yin, 2018. "Public Preferences for the Design of a Farmland Retirement Project: Using Choice Experiments in Urban and Rural Areas of Wuwei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    4. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    5. Benoît Chèze & Maia M. David & Vincent Martinet, 2017. "Farmers' motivations to reduce their use of pesticides: a choice experiment analysis in France," Post-Print hal-01800261, HAL.
    6. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    10. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    11. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    13. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    14. Zandersen, Marianne & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Nainggolan, Doan & Gyldenkærne, Steen & Winding, Anne & Greve, Mogens Humlekrog & Termansen, Mette, 2016. "Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 14-22.
    15. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    16. Aslam, Uzma & Termansen, Mette & Fleskens, Luuk, 2017. "Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 103-112.
    17. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    18. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    19. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Lienhoop, Nele & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2018. "Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 181-188.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5770-:d:812539. 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.