IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p10920-d1542677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Digital Technology Application on Agricultural Low-Carbon Transformation—A Case Study of the Pesticide Reduction Effect of Plant Protection Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

Author

Listed:
  • Qian Deng

    (School of Economics and Management, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
    School of Foreign Languages, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.)

  • Yuhan Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.)

  • Zhuyu Lin

    (School of Economics and Management, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China)

  • Xueping Gao

    (School of Economics and Management, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China)

  • Zhenlin Weng

    (School of Economics and Management, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
    Jiangxi Rural Revitalization Strategy Research Institute, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China)

Abstract

Reducing pesticide use is a crucial step toward achieving the green and low-carbon transformation of agriculture. Analyzing the role and mechanisms of agricultural digital technologies—particularly plant protection unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for aerial spraying—is essential for identifying viable strategies to reduce pesticide application intensity among farming households. This analysis is critical for facilitating the low-carbon transformation of rice production and advancing sustainable agricultural development. This study, using survey data from 455 farming households in Jiangxi Province, China, employs Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Propensity Score Matching (PSM) methods to investigate the relationship between plant protection UAVs and pesticide application intensity. The findings reveal that adopting plant protection UAVs significantly reduces pesticide application intensity in rice production by 24.9%. Further analysis indicates that the reduction effect is more pronounced among non-aged, large-scale, and part-time farming households. To achieve the low-carbon transformation of rice production, it is vital to enhance agricultural support policies and develop effective market promotion and application mechanisms to encourage the adoption of UAV-based aerial spraying and other digital agricultural technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Qian Deng & Yuhan Zhang & Zhuyu Lin & Xueping Gao & Zhenlin Weng, 2024. "The Impact of Digital Technology Application on Agricultural Low-Carbon Transformation—A Case Study of the Pesticide Reduction Effect of Plant Protection Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10920-:d:1542677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10920/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10920/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuna Seo & Shotaro Umeda, 2021. "Evaluating Farm Management Performance by the Choice of Pest-Control Sprayers in Rice Farming in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-10, March.
    2. Yishao Shi & Qianqian Yang & Liangliang Zhou & Shouzheng Shi, 2022. "Can Moderate Agricultural Scale Operations Be Developed against the Background of Plot Fragmentation and Land Dispersion? Evidence from the Suburbs of Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2013. "Risk Aversion, Subjective Beliefs, and Farmer Risk Management Strategies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 384-389.
    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. Charlotte Fabri & Sam Vermeulen & Steven Van Passel & Sergei Schaub, 2024. "Crop diversification and the effect of weather shocks on Italian farmers' income and income risk," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 955-980, September.
    2. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, "undated". "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    3. Abdulai, Issaka & Hoffmann, Munir P. & Jassogne, Laurence & Asare, Richard & Graefe, Sophie & Tao, Hsiao-Hang & Muilerman, Sander & Vaast, Philippe & Van Asten, Piet & Läderach, Peter & Rötter, Reimun, 2020. "Variations in yield gaps of smallholder cocoa systems and the main determining factors along a climate gradient in Ghana," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    4. Roussy, Caroline & Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim, 2014. "A methodological proposal to approach farmers’ adoption behavior: stated preferences and perceptions of the innovation," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182983, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    6. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Marianne Lefebvre & Estelle Midler & Philippe Bontems, 2020. "Adoption of Environment-Friendly Agricultural Practices with Background Risk: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 405-428, July.
    8. Rohrig, Maren B.K. & Hardeweg, Bernd & Lentz, Wolfgang, 2018. "Efficient farming options for German apple growers under risk – a stochastic dominance approach," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(01).
    9. Finbarr G. Horgan & Quynh Vu & Enrique A. Mundaca & Shweta Dabholkar & Mark Davis & Josef Settele & Eduardo Crisol-Martínez, 2023. "Escaping the Lock-in to Pesticide Use: Do Vietnamese Farmers Respond to Flower Strips as a Restoration Practice or Pest Management Action?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-25, August.
    10. Zack Guido & Sara Lopus & Kurt Waldman & Corrie Hannah & Andrew Zimmer & Natasha Krell & Chris Knudson & Lyndon Estes & Kelly Caylor & Tom Evans, 2021. "Perceived links between climate change and weather forecast accuracy: new barriers to tools for agricultural decision-making," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Hanna Freudenreich & Sindu W. Kebede, 2022. "Experience of shocks, household wealth and expectation formation: Evidence from smallholder farmers in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(5), pages 756-774, September.
    12. Adong, Annet & Ambler, Kate & Bloem, Jeffrey R. & de Brauw, Alan & Herskowitz, Sylvan & Islam, A.H.M. Saiful & Wagner, Julia, 2025. "The unmet financial needs of intermediary firms within agri-food value chains in Uganda and Bangladesh," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    13. Xiaotuan Li & Panfei Yang & Yuntao Zou, 2023. "An Empirical Investigation of the “Mezzogiorno Trap” in China’s Agricultural Economy: Insights from Data Envelopment Analysis (2015–2021)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-30, September.
    14. Ladina Knapp & David Wuepper & Robert Finger, 2021. "Preferences, personality, aspirations, and farmer behavior," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 901-913, November.
    15. Raghavendra Kushawaha & Naresh Kumar Sharma, 2025. "Risk behavior among farmers: examining expected utility and prospect theory approach," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 27(1), pages 20-46, April.
    16. Giampietri, Elisa & Yu, Xiaohua & Trestini, Samuele, . "The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(01).
    17. Freudenreich, H., 2018. "Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277410, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Nordmeyer, Eike Florenz, 2023. "German farmers' perceived usefulness of satellite-based index insurance - Insights from a transtheoretical model," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334557, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    19. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Matter? Evidence from Rural Uganda," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 158146, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    20. Chai, Yuan & J. Pannell, David & G. Pardey, Philip, 2023. "Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10920-:d:1542677. 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.