| Literature DB >> 36078647 |
Xiaojing Li1, Xianli Xia2, Jiazhen Ren1.
Abstract
The green production transition in agriculture is all about the quality of agricultural products at the source of production. Whether the product quality certification can accelerate the green production transition in agriculture is an issue of concern. We have measured the degree of green production transition of kiwifruit growers using a finite mixture model in this paper, and use research data from the main kiwifruit production areas in Shaanxi and Sichuan provinces to verify the impact of conducting product quality certification on the green production transition of kiwifruit growers. Besides, we use a multi-valued treatment effects model to verify the differences in the degree of green production transition among kiwifruit growers in the face of different certification types. Our findings are mainly as follows: the degree of green production transition among kiwifruit growers is not high, with an average of only 36.3%. Product quality certification can significantly promote the green production transition of kiwifruit growers, and the promotion effect of different certification methods in green production transition of kiwifruit growers significantly varies. The promotion effect of organic certification is greater than that of green certification and pollution-free certification. Further, the mechanism test analysis reveals that product quality certification can influence the green production transition of kiwifruit growers through three mechanisms: quality monitoring, market premium, and market access threshold. Based on this, this paper proposes policy recommendations to advance quality certification and green production transition among kiwifruit growers to increase the certification, enhance the willingness to green transition, and boost the differentiated certification system.Entities:
Keywords: finite mixture model; green production transition; kiwifruit growers; quality certification
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078647 PMCID: PMC9518143 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710910
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The pathway underlying the impact of product quality certification on the transition of green production.
Descriptive statistics for measuring the main variables of green agricultural production transition.
| Variables | Description | |
|---|---|---|
| Input-output variables | Output of kiwifruits | Annual income of kiwifruits per acre (yuan/mu a) |
| Capital input | Total physical capital and mechanical capital input per acre of kiwifruits (yuan/mu) | |
| Labor input | Total average labor input per mu for each production link of kiwifruits (yuan/mu) | |
| Covariates of the finite mixture model | Organic fertilizer application rate | Proportion of total fertilizer application costs for kiwifruit growers using organic fertilizers (%) |
| Biopesticide usage rate | Kiwifruit growers’ cost of using biopesticides as a percentage of total pesticide use (%) | |
| Water-saving irrigation equipment utilization rate | Proportion of kiwifruit growers using water-saving irrigation equipment such as drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation to total scale of operation (%) | |
| Input in physical control technology | Inputs per mu of physical control techniques used by kiwifruit growers in the production process of kiwifruits, including physical control techniques such as insect trap lights and insecticidal boards (yuan/mu) | |
| Packaging recycling rate | Recycling rate of pesticide and fertilizer packaging used in kiwifruit production by kiwifruit growers (%) |
a One yuan was equal to 0.15 US dollars in April 2022; one mu is equal to 0.067 hectares.
The results of determining the potential categories to which the production methods belong.
| Number of Categories | Log-Likelihood Value | Number of Parameters | BIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −78.930 | 7 | 260.031 |
| 2 | −36.892 | 15 | 177.004 |
| 3 | −25.630 | 23 | 209.532 |
Comparison of the main indicators of green production transition of potential categories.
| Variables | Class A | Class B | Difference | T-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Mean | Sample | Mean | |||
| Percentage of organic fertilizer | 206 | 54.204 | 768 | 50.141 | 4.064 ** | 2.154 |
| Biopesticide usage rate | 206 | 71.408 | 768 | 66.953 | 4.455 ** | 2.114 |
| Input in water-saving irrigation equipment | 206 | 42.379 | 768 | 36.484 | 5.894 ** | 2.062 |
| Input in physical control technology | 206 | 116.505 | 768 | 84.375 | 32.130 *** | 2.608 |
| Packaging recycling rate | 206 | 48.141 | 768 | 44.850 | 3.291 ** | 2.425 |
Note: ***, ** denote values significant at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
Estimation results of endogeneity tests.
| Variables | (1) CMP Model | (2) ESP Model | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product Quality Certification | Green Production Transition | Product Quality Certification | Is Green Production Transition Implemented? | ||
| Yes | No | ||||
| Product quality certification | 0.395 *** | ||||
| Average degree of certification | 7.193 *** | 7.243 *** | |||
| Constant | −4.160 *** | 0.061 | −4.240 *** | −0.027 | −2.758 *** |
| Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| atanhrho_12 | −0.765 *** (0.095) | ||||
| Residual correlation coefficient | |||||
| Wald test values | 101.77 *** | ||||
| LR test value | 134.58 | ||||
| Samples | 974 | 974 | |||
Note: *** indicates significant at the 1% level; robust standard errors are in parentheses.
Figure 2Conditional probability distribution of agricultural product quality certification.
Estimation results of the green production transition for kiwifruit grower’s certification types.
| Variable | Full Sample | No Certification | Pollution-Free Certification | Green Certification | Organic Certification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | −0.001 | −0.000 | −0.002 | −0.001 | 0.004 |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.002) | (0.003) | (0.003) | |
| Education | 0.007 ** | 0.006 ** | 0.000 | −0.006 | 0.012 |
| (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.005) | (0.007) | (0.009) | |
| Business scale | −0.015 *** | −0.002 | −0.014 *** | −0.027 *** | −0.016 ** |
| (0.003) | (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.006) | (0.008) | |
| Planting specialization | 0.006 *** | 0.002 ** | 0.006 *** | 0.004 ** | 0.009 *** |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.002) | (0.002) | |
| Number of training | 0.026 ** | 0.007 | 0.027 | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.020) | (0.030) | (0.034) | |
| Village cadres | 0.012 | −0.030 | −0.006 | 0.271 *** | 0.044 |
| (0.027) | (0.024) | (0.043) | (0.082) | (0.069) | |
| Personal expenses | 0.119 ** | −0.030 | 0.145* | 0.323 ** | 0.242 |
| (0.056) | (0.060) | (0.085) | (0.144) | (0.156) | |
| Distance to township | −0.006 | −0.009 | −0.029 | −0.008 | 0.039 |
| (0.014) | (0.013) | (0.027) | (0.044) | (0.049) | |
| Government green promotion | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| (0.006) | (0.007) | (0.012) | (0.017) | (0.016) | |
| Province | −0.031 | 0.052 ** | −0.044 | −0.018 | −0.137 *** |
| (0.022) | (0.023) | (0.041) | (0.050) | (0.050) | |
| Constant | 0.222 *** | 0.152 * | 0.298 * | 0.440 * | 0.096 |
| (0.077) | (0.079) | (0.154) | (0.238) | (0.213) | |
| Sample | 974 | 490 | 252 | 138 | 94 |
Note: *, ** and *** denote significant at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively; robust standard errors are in brackets.
Regression results for the channel test.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Monitoring | Green Production Transition | Product Premium | Green Production Transition | Market Access Threshold | Green Production Transition | |
| Product quality certification | 0.634 *** | 0.139 *** | 0.923 *** | 0.133 *** | 0.664 *** | 0.146 *** |
| (0.072) | (0.015) | (0.114) | (0.014) | (0.072) | (0.015) | |
| Quality monitoring | 0.031 *** | |||||
| (0.007) | ||||||
| Product premium | 0.025 *** | |||||
| (0.004) | ||||||
| Market access threshold | 0.016 ** | |||||
| (0.007) | ||||||
| Control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
| Constant | - | 0.049 | 4.486 *** | 0.045 | - | 0.107 |
| (0.078) | (0.603) | (0.076) | (0.076) | |||
| Iacobucci Test | 6.364 | 6.142 | 6.676 | |||
| R2 (Pseudo R2) | 0.042 | 0.207 | 0.329 | 0.226 | 0.046 | 0.198 |
| Sample | 974 | 974 | 974 | 974 | 974 | 974 |
Note: **, *** denote significant at the 5%, and 1% levels, respectively; robust standard errors are in brackets.