Study on the Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technology in Black Soil Region in China: A Logistic-ISM Model Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data
2.1.1. Description of Study Area
2.1.2. Data Collection and Sample
2.1.3. Variables and Measure
2.2. Methods
3. Results
3.1. Logistic Regression
3.2. ISM Regression
4. Discussion
4.1. Significance Analysis of Influencing Factors on Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technology by Farmers
4.1.1. Personal and Family Characteristics
4.1.2. Cultivated Land Characteristics
4.1.3. Farming Cognition
4.1.4. External Factors
4.2. Analysis on the Mechanism of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technology by Farmers
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, S.; Liu, G.; Chen, S.; Rasmussen, C.; Liu, B. Assessing soil thickness in a black soil watershed in northeast China using random forest and field observations. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2021, 9, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerasimova, M.I. Chinese soil taxonomy: Between the American and the international classification systems. Eur. Soil Sci. 2010, 43, 945–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Lee Burras, C.; Kravchenko, Y.S.; Duran, A.; Huffman, T.; Morras, H.; Studdert, G.; Zhang, X.; Cruse, R.M.; Yuan, X. Overview of Mollisols in the world: Distribution, land use and management. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2012, 92, 383–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.Y.; Zhang, G.L.; Xie, Y.; Shen, B.; Gu, Z.J.; Ding, Y.Y. Delineating the black soil region and typical black soil region of northeastern China. Chin. Sci. B Chin. 2021, 66, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.B.; Zhang, X.Y.; Wang, Y.X.; Sui, Y.Y.; Zhang, S.L.; Herbert, S.J.; Ding, G. Soil degradation: A problem threatening the sustainable development of agriculture in Northeast China. Plant Soil Environ. 2010, 56, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duan, X.; Xie, Y.; Ou, T.; Lu, H. Effects of soil erosion on long-term soil productivity in the black soil region of northeastern China. Catena 2011, 87, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, J.-B.; Xiao, D.-N.; Zeng, H.; Fu, Y.-K. Spatial variability of soil properties in relation to land use and topography in a typical small watershed of the black soil region, northeastern China. Environ. Geol. 2008, 53, 1663–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, Y.; Lin, H.; Ye, Y.; Ren, X. Changes in soil erosion in cropland in northeastern China over the past 300 years. Catena 2019, 176, 410–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, M.; Cai, Q.; Zhu, A.; Fan, H. Soil erosion along a long slope in the gentle hilly areas of black soil region in Northeast China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2007, 17, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Q.-X.; Li, S.-K.; Xie, R.-Z.; Zhang, J.-X.; Ren, T.-Z.; Lin, T.; Gao, S.-J. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Crop Yield: A Case Study in the Part of Typical Ecological Zones in China. Agric. Sci. China 2011, 10, 860–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, M.; Siddique, K.H.M. Conservation Agriculture: Concepts, Brief History, and Impacts on Agricultural Systems. In Conservation Agriculture; Farooq, M., Siddique, K.H.M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- Holland, J.M.J.A. Ecosystems; Environment, the environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: Reviewing the evidence. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 103, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, P.S.; Bell, A.R.; Droppelmann, K.; Benton, T.G. Early adoption of conservation agriculture practices: Understanding partial compliance in programs with multiple adoption decisions. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harper, J.K.; Roth, G.W.; Garalejić, B.; Škrbić, N. Programs to promote adoption of conservation tillage: A Serbian case study. Land Use Policy 2018, 78, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derpsch, R.; Friedrich, T.; Kassam, A.; Li, H. Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2010, 3, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez-Sanchez, E.J.; Veroz-Gonzalez, O.; Blanco-Roldan, G.L.; Marquez-Garcia, F.; Carbonell-Bojollo, R. A renewed view of conservation agriculture and its evolution over the last decade in Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 146, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.Z.; Xu, Y.; Chen, S.C.; Xu, S.G.; Zhang, H.W. Soil loss and conservation in the black soil region of Northeast China: A retrospective study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Wang, H.; Hao, M.; Li, J. Effects of straw covering methods on runoff and soil erosion in summer maize field on the Loess Plateau of China. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cong, P.F.; Yin, G.H.; Gu, J. Effects of stubble and mulching on soil erosion by wind in semi-arid China. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holden, S.T.; Fisher, M.; Katengeza, S.P.; Thierfelder, C. Can lead farmers reveal the adoption potential of conservation agriculture? The case of Malawi. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unger, P.W.; Mccalla, T.M. Conservation Tillage Systems. Adv. Agron. 1980, 33, 1–58. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, K.; Zhang, C.E. Research on minimum tillage, no-tillage and mulching systems and its effects in China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 1996, 54, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbs, P.J. Conservation agriculture: What is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? J. Agric. Sci. 2007, 145, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reeves, D.W. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 1997, 43, 131–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobb, D.A.; Huffman, E.; Reicosky, D.C. Importance of information on tillage practices in the modelling of environmental processes and in the use of environmental indicators. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 82, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tellez-Rio, A.; García-Marco, S.; Navas, M.; López-Solanilla, E.; Tenorio, J.L.; Vallejo, A. N2O and CH4 emissions from a fallow–wheat rotation with low N input in conservation and conventional tillage under a Mediterranean agroecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 508, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Awada, L.; Lindwall, C.W.; Sonntag, B. The development and adoption of conservation tillage systems on the Canadian Prairies. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2014, 2, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christian, T.; William, B.; Walter, M.J.E. Evidence and Lessons Learned from Long-Term On-Farm Research on Conservation Agriculture Systems in Communities in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Environments 2015, 2, 317–337. [Google Scholar]
- Shao, Y.; Xie, Y.; Wang, C.; Yue, J.; Yao, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, W.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, T. Effects of different soil conservation tillage approaches on soil nutrients, water use and wheat-maize yield in rainfed dry-land regions of North China. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 81, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adesina, A.A.; Chianu, J. Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption and Adaptation of Alley Farming Technology in Nigeria. Agrofor. Syst. 2002, 55, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chianu, J.N.; Tsujii, H. Determinants of farmers’ decision to adopt or not adopt inorganic fertilizer in the savannas of northern Nigeria. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2004, 70, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prokopy, L.S.; Floress, K.; Klotthor-Weinkauf, D.; Baumgart-Getz, A. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 63, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Sun, F.; Pan, C.; Yang, B.; Li, Y. The Deviation of the Behaviors of Rice Farmers from Their Stated Willingness to Apply Biopesticides—A Study Carried Out in Jilin Province of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sheikh, A.D.; Rehman, T.; Yates, C.M. Logit models for identifying the factors that influence the uptake of new ‘no-tillage’ technologies by farmers in the rice-wheat and the cotton-wheat farming systems of Pakistan’s Punjab. Agric. Syst. 2003, 75, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Featherstone, A.M.; Goodwin, B.K. Factors influencing a farmers decision to invest in long-term conservation improvements. Land Econ. 1993, 69, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Emden, F.H.; Llewellyn, R.S.; Burton, M.P. Factors influencing adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 52, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greiner, R.; Gregg, D. Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekele, W.; Drake, L. Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: A case study of the Hunde-Lafto area. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 46, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Si, R.; Lu, Q.; Aziz, N. Does the stability of farmland rental contract & conservation tillage adoption improve family welfare? Empirical insights from Zhangye, China. Land Use Policy 2021, 107, 105486. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, W.; Jin, X.; Liu, J.; Zhou, Y. Analysis of influencing factors of cultivated land fragmentation based on hierarchical linear model: A case study of Jiangsu Province, China. Land Use Policy 2021, 101, 105119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Dingyi, S.; Xiaofang, L.; Zhide, J. Influence of peasant household differentiation and risk perception on soil and water conservation tillage technology adoption- an analysis of moderating effects based on government subsidies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 288, 125092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurkalova, L.; Kling, C.; Zhao, J. Green Subsidies in Agriculture: Estimating the Adoption Costs of Conservation Tillage from Observed Behavior. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2006, 54, 247–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Singh, C.; Dorward, P.; Osbahr, H. Developing a holistic approach to the analysis of farmer decision-making: Implications for adaptation policy and practice in developing countries. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, R.J.F.; Kuczera, C.; Schwarz, G. Exploring Farmers’ Cultural Resistance to Voluntary Agri-environmental Schemes. Soc. Rural. 2008, 48, 16–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stupak, N. Impact of Agricultural Transition on Soil Protection in Ukraine: The Role of Institutional Change. Land Use Policy 2016, 55, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, X.; Xie, Y.; Liu, B.; Liu, G.; Feng, Y.; Gao, X. Soil loss tolerance in the black soil region of Northeast China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2012, 22, 737–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, H.; Byres, T.J. From Peasant Studies to Agrarian Change. J. Agrar. Chang. 2001, 1, 1–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popkin, S. The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Peasant Society. Theory Soc. 1980, 9, 411–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foguesatto, C.R.; Mores, G.D.V.; Dalmutt Kruger, S.; Costa, C. Will I have a potential successor? Factors influencing family farming succession in Brazil. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, A.P.; Hansson, H.; Manevska-Tasevska, G.; Shrestha, S.S.; Thomson, S.G. The influence of diversification on long-term viability of the agricultural sector. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, H.; Nguyen, Q.; Kervyn, M. Factors influencing people’s knowledge, attitude, and practice in land use dynamics: A case study in Ca Mau province in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.X.; Halder, P.; Zhang, X.N.; Qu, M. Analyzing the deviation between farmers’ Land transfer intention and behavior in China’s impoverished mountainous Area: A Logistic-ISM model approach. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukeshimana, M.C.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Nshimiyimana, J.P. Evaluating strategies for renewable energy development in Rwanda: An integrated SWOT–ISM analysis. Renew. Energy 2021, 176, 402–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sushil, S. Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2012, 13, 87–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayalakshmi, B.; Pramod, V.R. Total Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM) of the Enablers of a Flexible Control System for Industry. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2015, 16, 63–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sushil. Incorporating polarity of relationships in ISM and TISM for theory building in information and organization management. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 43, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beikkhakhian, Y.; Javanmardi, M.; Karbasian, M.; Khayambashi, B. The application of ISM model in evaluating agile suppliers selection criteria and ranking suppliers using fuzzy TOPSIS-AHP methods. Exp. Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 6224–6236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nastis, S.A.; Mattas, K.; Baourakis, G. Understanding Farmers’ Behavior towards Sustainable Practices and Their Perceptions of Risk. Sustainability 2019, 11, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dearing, J.A.; Zhang, K.; Cao, W.D.; Dawson, T.P.; McKay, D.A.; Sillitoe, P.; Treves, R.; Yang, X.D. Who determines the trade-offs between agricultural production and environmental quality? An evolutionary perspective from rural eastern China. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2019, 17, 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.W.; Zhang, P.Y.; Marley, B.; Liu, W.X. The Factors Affecting Farmers’ Soybean Planting Behavior in Heilongjiang Province, China. Agriculture 2019, 9, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mkomwa, S.; Kaumbutho, P.; Makungu, P. Farm Machinery for Conservation Agriculture. In Conservation Agriculture; Farooq, M., Siddique, K.H.M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 109–131. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Variable Name | Variable Definition | Mean | S.D. | Expected Direction |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | Whether conservation tillage technology is adopted (Y) | Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.78 | 0.42 | |
Personal and family characteristics | Age | Actual age/age | 43.91 | 9.86 | + |
Gender | Male = 1; Female = 2 | 1.41 | 0.49 | + | |
Education level | illiteracy = 1, primary school = 2, junior high school = 3, High school or technical secondary school = 4, junior college = 5, Bachelor degree or above = 6 | 3.17 | 0.94 | + | |
Whether they have a part-time job or not | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.54 | 0.50 | + | |
Labor force | Actual household labor force population/person | 2.51 | 1.03 | ? | |
Years of planting | Years engaged in farming/year | 18.85 | 9.65 | − | |
Cultivated land characteristics | Planting area | Actual planting area/m2 | 12.60 | 31.07 | + |
Whether the cultivated land has slope | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.52 | 0.50 | − | |
Whether cultivated land is scattered | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.36 | 0.48 | − | |
Types of crops planted | corn = 1, soybean = 2, rice = 3, wheat = 4, other = 5 | 1.37 | 0.61 | ? | |
Farming cognition | Fertilizing measures | Chemical fertilizer = 1, organic fertilizer = 2, Straw crushing and returning to the field = 3 | 1.45 | 0.70 | + |
Whether they have received the technical service of conservation tillage | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.46 | 0.50 | + | |
Whether the following conservation tillage measures are known | Less tillage and no tillage = 1, Straw residue mulching = 2, Straw crushing and covering = 3, Deep turning or deep loosening = 4, Ridge farming = 5, Rotate with soybean = 6, No above behaviors = 0 | 2.44 | 1.13 | + | |
External factors | Whether the government publicity about conservation tillage is known | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.36 | 0.48 | + |
Whether the government’s subsidies for conservation tillage are known | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.50 | 0.50 | + | |
Whether they are satisfied with the local agricultural machinery service | Very satisfied = 1, satisfied = 2, general = 3, dissatisfied = 4, very dissatisfied = 5 | 2.38 | 0.93 | + |
Independent Variable | Coef. | Std. Err. | z | p > z | Odds Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.050 | 0.019 | 2.57 | 0.010 *** | 1.051 |
Gender | −0.170 | 0.303 | −0.56 | 0.575 | 0.844 |
Education level | 0.370 | 0.177 | 2.1 | 0.036 ** | 1.448 |
Whether they have a part-time job | 0.508 | 0.309 | 1.64 | 0.101 | 1.662 |
Labor force | −0.484 | 0.156 | −3.1 | 0.002 *** | 0.616 |
Years of planting | −0.027 | 0.018 | −1.48 | 0.140 | 0.974 |
Planting area | −0.029 | 0.009 | −3.34 | 0.001 *** | 0.971 |
Whether the cultivated land has a slope | 0.101 | 0.300 | 0.34 | 0.737 | 1.106 |
Whether the cultivated land is scattered | −0.879 | 0.304 | −2.89 | 0.004 *** | 0.415 |
Types of crops planted | 0.441 | 0.304 | 1.45 | 0.147 | 1.554 |
Fertilizing measures | −0.008 | 0.204 | −0.04 | 0.968 | 0.992 |
Whether they have received the technical service of conservation tillage | −0.122 | 0.123 | −0.99 | 0.321 | 0.885 |
Whether the following conservation tillage measures are known | 0.696 | 0.306 | 2.27 | 0.023 ** | 2.006 |
Whether the government publicity about conservation tillage is known | 0.735 | 0.334 | 2.2 | 0.028 ** | 2.086 |
Whether the government’s subsidies for conservation tillage are known | 0.851 | 0.303 | 2.81 | 0.005 *** | 2.342 |
Whether they are satisfied with the local agricultural machinery service | 0.182 | 0.173 | 1.05 | 0.295 | 1.199 |
constant | −3.088 | 1.690 | −1.83 | 0.068 | 0.046 |
—2 Log Likelihood | 317.991 | ||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.324 | ||||
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 |
A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | S0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | V | V | V | ||
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | V | 0 | |||
0 | 0 | 0 | A | V | ||||
0 | 0 | 0 | A | |||||
0 | V | 0 | ||||||
0 | V | |||||||
V | ||||||||
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
Guo, H.; Zhao, W.; Pan, C.; Qiu, G.; Xu, S.; Liu, S. Study on the Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technology in Black Soil Region in China: A Logistic-ISM Model Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7762. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137762
Guo H, Zhao W, Pan C, Qiu G, Xu S, Liu S. Study on the Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technology in Black Soil Region in China: A Logistic-ISM Model Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(13):7762. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137762
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Hongpeng, Wenkai Zhao, Chulin Pan, Guijie Qiu, Shuang Xu, and Shun Liu. 2022. "Study on the Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technology in Black Soil Region in China: A Logistic-ISM Model Approach" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13: 7762. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137762
APA StyleGuo, H., Zhao, W., Pan, C., Qiu, G., Xu, S., & Liu, S. (2022). Study on the Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technology in Black Soil Region in China: A Logistic-ISM Model Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), 7762. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137762