| Literature DB >> 34975688 |
Qi Yang1, Yueji Zhu1, Fang Wang1.
Abstract
Low-carbon agricultural practices (LAPs) can reduce carbon emissions in agricultural production for farmers in developing countries. However, the role of emerging social media has not received enough attention in the diffusion of LAPs among farmers. This study first attempts to examine the impact of farmers' social media participation on their adoption intensity of LAPs using the Zero-truncated Poisson model and specify the effect of each participation activity on social media by the endogenous-treatment Poisson regression model, then discuss the economic performance of LAPs using the quantile regression model, based on the primary data collected from banana farmers in Southern China. The results show that social media participation exerts a positive and significant effect on farmers' adoption intensity of LAPs. Specifically, the adoption intensity of LAPs in the treated group who participated in the short-video social media is about 1.1 times higher than that in the control group. The treatment effects of the five activities (watch, like, forward, comment, and release) on farmers' adoption intensity of LAPs are positive and significant. We also find that adoption of LAPs can increase household income of farmers, and the effect presents particularly significant for those at the higher income level. Whilst, Social media participation can significantly increase household income of farmers who are at the lower income level. Our findings underscore the important role of social media in the diffusion of LAPs among farmers and income growth of households in developing countries. Thus, supportive strategies can be designed by policymakers for encouraging farmers to participate the emerging social media platforms and adopt more LAPs in agricultural production.Entities:
Keywords: economic performance; endogenous-treatment Poisson regression; low-carbon agricultural practices; quantile regression; social media participation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34975688 PMCID: PMC8718450 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790808
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Description of sample distribution.
| County | Observations | Percentage (%) |
| Chengmai | 84 | 29.79 |
| Lingao | 96 | 34.04 |
| Changjiang | 102 | 36.17 |
Definition, measurement and descriptive statistics of the variables.
| Variables | Definition and measurement | Mean | SD |
|
| |||
| Adoption intensity | Numbers of Low-carbon agricultural practices (LAPs) used in banana cultivation (from 0 to 8) | 4.46 | 1.19 |
| Banana income | Total income from banana cultivation (10,000 CNY) | 7.04 | 9.81 |
|
| |||
| Watch | = 1 if the respondent watches agriculture-related short-videos; otherwise = 0 | 0.54 | 0.50 |
| Like | = 1 if the respondent likes agriculture-related short-videos; otherwise = 0 | 0.42 | 0.49 |
| Forward | = 1 if the respondent forward agriculture-related short-videos; otherwise = 0 | 0.30 | 0.46 |
| Comment | = 1 if the respondent makes comment on agriculture-related short-videos; otherwise = 0 | 0.27 | 0.44 |
| Release | = 1 if the respondent release agriculture-related short-videos; otherwise = 0 | 0.24 | 0.43 |
| Social media participation | Degree of the respondent’s participations in the short-video social media (from 0 to 5) | 1.77 | 1.83 |
| Age | Age of the respondent | 47.59 | 11.02 |
| Gender | = 1 if the respondent is male; otherwise = 0 | 0.80 | 0.40 |
| Education | Education years of the respondent | 8.00 | 3.44 |
| Marriage | = 1 if the respondent has a spouse; otherwise = 0 | 0.94 | 0.24 |
| Party membership | = 1 if the respondent is a member of the Communist Party of China; otherwise = 0 | 0.21 | 0.41 |
| Religion | = 1 if the respondent has a religion; otherwise = 0 | 0.06 | 0.23 |
| Risk preference | = 1 if the respondent prefers things with certainty; otherwise = 0 | 0.27 | 0.44 |
| Personality | = 1 if the respondent can be the first one to adopt innovations; = 2 if the respondent adopts innovations when others have adopted; = 3 if the respondent adopts innovations only when they see benefits | 2.26 | 0.91 |
| Off-farm work | = 1 if the respondent undertakes an off-farm work; otherwise = 0 | 0.48 | 0.50 |
| Farming experience | Years of engaging in agricultural activities | 25.40 | 12.54 |
| Household income | Total household income (10,000 CNY) | 11.98 | 14.12 |
| Labor | Numbers of family’s labor force in agriculture | 2.72 | 1.37 |
| Children | Numbers of family’s children in school | 1.43 | 1.27 |
| Farm size | Farm size of banana (mu | 12.41 | 13.61 |
| Land tenure stability | = 1 if the respondent owns farmland area more than 50% of the total cultivated area in banana cultivation; otherwise = 0 | 0.61 | 0.49 |
| Level farmland | = 1 if the farmland of banana cultivation is level; otherwise = 0 | 0.76 | 0.43 |
| Irrigation status | = 1 if the farmland of banana cultivation with good irrigation condition; otherwise = 0 | 0.51 | 0.50 |
| Soil degradation | = 1 if the respondent perceives that the land has deteriorated; otherwise = 0 | 0.41 | 0.49 |
| Threat perception | = 1 if the respondent is aware of the threat of climate change to agriculture; otherwise = 0 | 0.86 | 0.35 |
| Loan | = 1 if the household takes loan in 2021; otherwise =0 | 0.43 | 0.50 |
| Cooperative membership | = 1 if the respondent is a member of agricultural cooperatives; otherwise = 0 | 0.08 | 0.27 |
| Training | = 1 if the respondent takes any training about banana cultivation in 2021; otherwise = 0 | 0.32 | 0.47 |
| Distance to bus station | Distance to the nearest bus station (km) | 5.74 | 7.62 |
| Social ties | Numbers of close connected friends | 17.38 | 24.88 |
Descriptive statistics of LAPs.
| Components | Description | Mean | SD |
| Zero or minimum tillage | = 1 if adopted; otherwise = 0 | 0.35 | 0.48 |
| Fallow | = 1 if adopted; otherwise = 0 | 0.49 | 0.50 |
| Intercropping | = 1 if adopted; otherwise = 0 | 0.26 | 0.44 |
| Soil testing | = 1 if adopted; otherwise = 0 | 0.14 | 0.35 |
| Organic fertilizer | = 1 if adopted; otherwise = 0 | 0.99 | 0.10 |
| Biopesticide | = 1 if adopted; otherwise = 0 | 0.38 | 0.49 |
| Drip fertigation | = 1 if adopted; otherwise = 0 | 0.90 | 0.30 |
| Crop residue retention | = 1 if adopted; otherwise = 0 | 0.95 | 0.21 |
FIGURE 1Distribution of adoption intensity of LAPs.
The impact of social media participation on farmers’ adoption intensity of LAPs.
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Marginal effects |
| Social media participation | 0.041 (0.009) | 0.029 (0.010) | 0.127 (0.043) |
| Age | 0.003 (0.002) | 0.015 (0.007) | |
| Gender | 0.055 (0.045) | 0.241 (0.198) | |
| Education | −0.005 (0.005) | −0.021 (0.024) | |
| Marriage | 0.082 (0.081) | 0.361 (0.355) | |
| Party membership | 0.008 (0.041) | 0.037 (0.181) | |
| Religion | 0.094 (0.061) | 0.414 (0.269) | |
| Risk preference | 0.046 (0.036) | 0.204 (0.160) | |
| Personality | 0.035 (0.018) | 0.153 (0.078) | |
| Off−farm work | 0.125 (0.034) | 0.550 (0.149) | |
| Farming experience | −0.003 (0.002) | −0.012 (0.007) | |
| Household income | 0.001 (0.001) | 0.005 (0.006) | |
| Labor force | 0.002 (0.010) | 0.011 (0.044) | |
| Children | −0.004 (0.012) | −0.017 (0.054) | |
| Farm size | 0.000 (0.001) | 0.001 (0.007) | |
| Land tenure stability | 0.040 (0.035) | 0.177 (0.154) | |
| Level farmland | 0.064 (0.039) | 0.282 (0.173) | |
| Irrigation status | 0.048 (0.031) | 0.211 (0.137) | |
| Soil degradation | 0.077 (0.031) | 0.339 (0.136) | |
| Threat perception | 0.093 (0.049) | 0.409 (0.217) | |
| Loan | −0.017 (0.032) | −0.076 (0.142) | |
| Cooperative membership | 0.077 (0.046) | 0.341 (0.201) | |
| Training | −0.002 (0.037) | −0.008 (0.164) | |
| Distance to bus station | −0.004 (0.002) | −0.017 (0.010) | |
| Social ties | −0.001 (0.001) | −0.003 (0.003) | |
| Constant | 1.408 (0.023) | 0.902 (0.049) | |
| Observations | 282 | 282 | |
| Wald chi2 | 21.36 | 109.85 | |
| Prob>chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.007 | 0.021 | |
| Log pseudolikelihood | −508.660 | −487.268 |
Standard errors are in parentheses, and ***, **, * represent significance level at 1, 5, 10%, respectively.
The ratio of adoption intensity in the treated group to that in the control group.
| Coef. | ||
| Watch | 1.063 (0.036) | 1.80 |
| Like | 1.077 (0.388) | 2.07 |
| Forward | 1.110 (0.040) | 2.93 |
| Comment | 1.100 (0.041) | 2.53 |
| Release | 1.080 (0.042) | 2.01 |
Standard errors are in parentheses, and ***, **, * represent significance level at 1, 5, 10%, respectively.
Treatment effects of social media participations on farmers’ adoption intensity of LAPs.
| ATT | ||
| Watch | 0.276 (0.152) | 1.81 |
| Like | 0.341 (0.164) | 2.08 |
| Forward | 0.487 (0.168) | 2.90 |
| Comment | 0.447 (0.178) | 2.52 |
| Release | 0.359 (0.183) | 1.97 |
Standard errors are in parentheses, and ***, **, * represent significance level at 1, 5, 10%, respectively.
Robustness check by using PSM approach and IPWRA estimator.
| ATT (PSM) | ATE (IPWRA) | |||
| Watch | 0.128 (0.165) | 0.77 | 0.197 (0.154) | 1.27 |
| Like | 0.195 (0.238) | 0.82 | 0.266 (0.161) | 1.65 |
| Forward | 0.475 (0.166) | 2.86 | 0.436 (0.145) | 3.00 |
| Comment | 1.053 (0.206) | 5.12 | 0.616 (0.178) | 3.46 |
| Release | 0.457 (0.201) | 2.28 | 0.349 (0.172) | 2.02 |
Standard errors are in parentheses, and ***, **, * represent significance level at 1, 5, 10%, respectively.
Impact of social media participation and LAPs on farmers’ incomes.
| Banana income | Household income | |||||
| τ = 25th | τ = 50th | τ = 75th | τ = 25th | τ = 50th | τ = 75th | |
| Adoption intensity | 0.140 (0.168) | 0.182 (0.187) | 0.307 (0.269) | 0.306 (0.429) | 0.685 (0.500) | 1.060 (0.618) |
| Social media participation | 0.042 (0.108) | −0.076 (0.125) | −0.032 (0.200) | 0.410 (0.246) | 0.156 (0.308) | 0.406 (0.409) |
| Age | 0.019 (0.027) | −0.010 (0.027) | −0.022 (0.036) | −0.011 (0.066) | 0.031 (0.078) | 0.089 (0.109) |
| Gender | 0.169 (0.507) | 0.108 (0.531) | −0.066 (0.650) | 0.494 (1.064) | −1.070 (1.403) | −0.274 (1.749) |
| Education | −0.009 (0.057) | −0.053 (0.069) | 0.023 (0.092) | 0.036 (0.155) | −0.005 (0.189) | 0.163 (0.252) |
| Marriage | 0.117 (0.745) | 0.197 (0.786) | 0.143 (0.918) | 0.098 (1.474) | 0.790 (1.443) | 1.874 (2.427) |
| Party membership | 0.551 (0.436) | 0.280 (0.504) | 0.194 (0.678) | 0.476 (1.206) | −0.601 (1.261) | −2.497 (1.804) |
| Religion | 0.147 (0.741) | 0.168 (0.922) | 0.356 (1.967) | −0.018 (1.624) | 1.351 (2.712) | 2.794 (6.397) |
| Risk preference | 0.398 (0.395) | 0.232 (0.476) | −0.195 (0.635) | 0.430 (0.919) | −0.933 (1.079) | −0.372 (1.537) |
| Personality | −0.303 (0.213) | −0.142 (0.233) | −0.078 (0.287) | −0.690 (0.426) | −0.559 (0.541) | −1.484 (0.834) |
| Off−farm work | −0.177 (0.425) | 0.223 (0.420) | 0.243 (0.586) | −0.173 (0.966) | −0.760 (1.162) | 0.188 (1.474) |
| Farming experience | −0.009 (0.025) | −0.006 (0.026) | 0.009 (0.035) | 0.039 (0.051) | 0.026 (0.066) | 0.020 (0.097) |
| Labor force | 0.004 (0.150) | 0.123 (0.154) | −0.027 (0.216) | 0.065 (0.267) | 0.144 (0.336) | −0.038 (0.489) |
| Children | −0.113 (0.166) | −0.086 (0.153) | −0.129 (0.225) | −0.498 (0.355) | −0.797 (0.409) | −0.915 (0.573) |
| Farm size | 0.317 (0.049) | 0.541 (0.074) | 0.667 (0.054) | 0.366 (0.103) | 0.637 (0.084) | 0.679 (0.099) |
| Land tenure stability | −0.856 (0.477) | −0.779 (0.561) | −1.310 (0.744) | −2.150 (0.988) | −0.495 (1.052) | 0.589 (1.457) |
| Level farmland | 0.106 (0.445) | −0.320 (0.515) | −0.343 (0.920) | −1.705 (1.199) | −2.120 (1.294) | −0.622 (1.706) |
| Irrigation status | 0.386 (0.337) | 0.066 (0.388) | −0.453 (0.501) | 0.509 (0.900) | −0.398 (1.071) | 2.273 (1.576) |
| Soil degradation | −0.861 (0.339) | −0.756 (0.413) | −1.065 (0.615) | −1.619 (0.882) | −0.839 (0.996) | −1.280 (1.261) |
| Threat perception | 0.046 (0.402) | −0.250 (0.413) | −0.003 (1.075) | −0.837 (1.205) | −0.315 (1.343) | −0.198 (2.076) |
| Loan | −0.240 (0.444) | −0.304 (0.420) | −0.387 (0.606) | −0.722 (0.852) | −0.660 (1.012) | 0.339 (1.515) |
| Cooperative membership | 0.661 (0.587) | 0.730 (1.617) | 1.978 (4.144) | 1.910 (1.392) | 2.007 (2.208) | 4.097 (5.876) |
| Training | −0.331 (0.494) | 0.324 (0.508) | 0.868 (0.711) | −0.053 (1.026) | −0.508 (1.127) | −0.666 (1.647) |
| Distance to bus station | −0.020 (0.024) | −0.033 (0.028) | −0.045 (0.042) | −0.091 (0.055) | −0.097 (0.066) | 0.021 (0.089) |
| Social ties | 0.009 (0.007) | 0.003 (0.006) | −0.004 (0.009) | −0.002 (0.018) | 0.005 (0.028) | 0.038 (0.047) |
| Constant | 0.064 (1.548) | 1.225 (1.848) | 1.709 (2.266) | 5.385 (3.847) | 3.449 (4.737) | −2.567 (5.961) |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.304 | 0.424 | 0.552 | 0.236 | 0.291 | 0.355 |
Standard errors are in parentheses, and ***, **, * represent significance level at 1, 5, 10%, respectively.
FIGURE 2Quantile estimates: The impacts of factors on banana income. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence band for the quantile regression estimates. The black dotted lines denote the conventional 95% confidence intervals for the OLS.
FIGURE 3Quantile estimates: The impacts of factors on household income. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence band for the quantile regression estimates. The black dotted lines denote the conventional 95% confidence intervals for the OLS.