Impact of Agricultural Labor Transfer on Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Case Study of Jiangxi, China

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.03.005

Abstract

Abstract:

A large proportion of the rural labor force in China will continue to transfer to non-agricultural sectors in the near future, which will inevitably lead to the transformation of the agricultural production mode and the structure of the farmers’ livelihood. The Chinese government is making great efforts to govern agricultural nonpoint source pollution (ANSP), and farmers' environmental behavior is a key factor that must be considered in the formulation of agricultural environmental policies. Based on a set of micro survey data on farmers in the study area and econometric methods, this study investigates the impact of agricultural labor transfer on ANSP by considering the substitution effect of agricultural factors and the effect of agricultural economies of scale. The results show that the increase of the agricultural labor force will not be conducive to reducing ANSP, while the income increase brought by agricultural labor transfer will improve the input structure of agricultural factors and have a positive impact on ANSP reduction. Government departments should provide subsidies or incentive measures to help agricultural social service organizations to expand their coverage and increase the frequency of socialized agricultural services, in order to guide farmers in the use of environment-friendly agricultural technology to reduce the ANSP caused by agricultural factors at the source. Furthermore, it is necessary to facilitate the development of small-sized agricultural machinery suitable for small-area land cultivation.

Key words: agricultural nonpoint source pollution, environmental management, agricultural labor transfer, excess nitrogen

ZHANG Peiwen, LU Hua, CHEN Yijing, SHU Cheng. Impact of Agricultural Labor Transfer on Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Case Study of Jiangxi, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(3): 358-366.

Figures/Tables 4

References 36

1	Abdoulaye T, Sanders J H . 2005. Stages and determinants of fertilizer use in semiarid African agriculture: The Niger experience. Agricultural Economics, 32(2):167-179. DOI URL
2	Calhoun C . 1989. Estimating the distribution of desired family size and excess fertility. The Journal of Human Resources, 24(4):709-724. DOI URL
3	Chang H H, Mishra A K . 2012. Chemical usage in production agriculture: Do crop insurance and off-farm work play a part? Journal of Environmental Management, 105:76-82. DOI URL
4	Colman D . 1994. Ethics and externalities: Agricultural stewardship and other behaviour: Presidential address. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 45(3): 299‒311. DOI URL
5	Corse R H . 1959. The federal communications commission. The Journal of Law and Economics, 2(1): 1‒40. DOI URL
6	Corse R H . 1960. The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1): 1‒44. DOI URL
7	Ebenstein A . 2012. The consequences of industrialization: Evidence from water pollution and digestive cancers in China. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(1):186-201. DOI URL
8	Ebenstein A, Zhang J, McMillan M C , et al. 2011. Chemical fertilizer and migration in China. National Bureau of Economic Research, 17245:1-33.
9	Gong Q W, Mu X L, Tian Z H . 2010. Analysis of factors affecting farmers’ risk assessment and evasion ability of excessive fertilization—Based on questionnaire survey of 284 farmers in Jianghan Plain. Chinese Rural Economy, (10):66-76. (in Chinese)
10	Greiner R, Gregg D . 2011. Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy, 28(1):257-265. DOI URL
11	He H R, Zhang L X, Li Q . 2006. Study on fertilization behavior of farmers and agricultural non-point source pollution. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, (6): 2‒10. (in Chinese)
12	Horowitz J K, Lichtenberg E . 1993. Insurance, moral hazard, and chemical use in agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(4):926-935. DOI URL
13	Hu H, Yang Y B . 2015. Study on farmers’ fertilizer application from the perspective of factor substitution—Based on the National Rural Fixed Observation Point Farmers Data. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, ( 3):84-90. (in Chinese)
14	Hu W . 1997. Household land tenure reform in China: Its impact on farming land use and agro-environment. Land Use Policy, 14(3): 175‒186. DOI URL
15	Huang J, Hu R, Cao J , et al. 2008. Training programs and in-the-field guidance to reduce China’s overuse of fertilizer without hurting profitability. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(5): 165‒167.
16	Jepson W . 2005. A disappearing biome? Reconsidering land-cover change in the Brazilian savanna. The Geographical Journal, 171(2):99-111. DOI URL
17	Lu H, Xie H L . 2018. Impact of changes in labor resources and transfers of land use rights on agricultural non-point source pollution in Jiangsu Province, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 207:134-140. DOI URL
18	Lu H, Zhang P W, Hu H , et al. 2019. Effect of the grain-growing purpose and farm size on the ability of stable land property rights to encourage farmers to apply organic fertilizers. Journal of Environmental Management, 251:109621. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109621. DOI URL
19	Lu H, Hu L X, Zheng W W , et al. 2020. Impact of household land endowment and environmental cognition on the willingness to implement straw incorporation in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262:121479. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121479. DOI URL
20	Luo S X, He K, Zhang J B . 2020. The more grain production, the more fertilizers pollution? Empirical evidence from major grain-producing areas in China. Chinese Rural Economy, (1): 108‒131. (in Chinese)
21	Pan D . 2014. The spatial-temporal difference of driving effects for fertilizer use intensity changes and its determinants in China. Economic Geography, 34(3): 121‒126, 136. (in Chinese)
22	Peng H Y, Shi Z T, Liu X Y , et al. 2008. Analysis of infection in environment and farmers’ economical income with the change of growing structure of crops. Environmental Science and Management, (2): 44‒48. (in Chinese)
23	Pretty J, Frank B R . 2000. Participation and social capital formation in natural resource management: Achievements and lessons. Plenary paper for International Landcare 2000 Conference, March 2nd-5th 2000, Melbourne, Australia: The Tasmanian Landcare Association.
24	Qiu H G, Luan H, Li J , et al. 2014. The impact of risk aversion on farmers’ excessive fertilizer application behavior. Chinese Rural Economy, (3): 85‒96. (in Chinese)
25	Shao S, Li B L . 2020. Effects of rural labor transfer on rural environmental pollution in China: An empirical investigation based on spatial panel model. Journal of China University of Geosciences (Social Sciences Edition), 20(1): 39‒55. (in Chinese)
26	Shi C L, Guo Y, Zhu J F . 2016. Evaluation of over fertilization in China and its influencing factors. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 37(4): 671‒679. (in Chinese)
27	Singh I, Squire L, Strauss J. 1986. Agricultural household models: Extensions, applications, and policy. Washington DC, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28	Tan J F. 2011. Principles and techniques of crop fertilization. Beijing, China: China Agricultural University Press. (in Chinese)
29	Tian H Y, Zhu Z Y . 2018. Rural labor migration, scale of operation and environmental technical efficiency of grain production. Journal of South China Agricultural University (Social Science Edition), 17(5): 69‒81. (in Chinese)
30	Vanslembrouck I, Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W . 2002. Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(3): 489‒511. DOI URL
31	Wang Y S . 1999. Household responsibility system, behavior of farmers and environmental problems in China’s agriculture. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 36(3): 44‒51. (in Chinese)
32	Wei X, Li S P, Zhang Z C , et al. 2012. Analysis of agricultural non-point source pollution behavior based on farmland property rights system. Rural Economy, (5): 108‒112. (in Chinese)
33	Xin L J, Li X B, Tan M H . 2012. Temporal and regional variations of China’s fertilizer consumption by crops during 1998‒2008. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 22(4): 643‒652. DOI URL
34	Yao Z F, Tang H J, Liu X . 2017. Scale management behavior, externality and agricultural environmental efficiency. Finance and Economics, (12): 69‒83. (in Chinese)
35	Zhang F S. 2008. China fertilizer industry and scientific fertilization strategy research report. Beijing, China: China Agricultural University Press. (in Chinese)
36	Zhong F N, Lu W Y, Xu Z G . 2016. Does rural labor force go out for work go against grain production? Analysis of the behavior and constraint conditions of the substitution of factors and the adjustment of planting structure. Chinese Rural Economy, (7): 36‒47. (in Chinese)

Variables	Assignment	Mean	Std. Dev.
Excess nitrogen	The amount of nitrogen input minus the amount of crop nutrients required	105.9	193.87
Number of agricultural laborers	Person	1.93	0.85
Health of the head of household	1 = very good; 2 = good; 3 = general; 4 = bad	2.11	1.00
Non-agricultural income ratio	Proportions of non-agricultural income in total income	0.52	0.36
Are irrigation conditions suitable for cultivated land?	0 = no; 1 = yes	0.56	0.50
Education of the head of household	0 = 0; 1 = primary school; 2 = junior high school; 3 = high school; 4 = university and above	1.40	0.82
Age of head of the household	Years	52.28	11.62
Terrain conditions	1= plain; 2= mountain; 3 =hill	2.33	0.88
Farm size	ha	0.37	0.92
Purpose of agricultural production	Proportions of agricultural production for sale at market	0.42	0.40
Is there an agricultural fertilization service organization in or near the village?	0= no; 1= yes	0.16	0.37
Number of times participating in agricultural techniques training	Per year	0.19	0.59

Variables	Assignment	Mean	Std. Dev.
Excess nitrogen	The amount of nitrogen input minus the amount of crop nutrients required	105.9	193.87
Number of agricultural laborers	Person	1.93	0.85
Health of the head of household	1 = very good; 2 = good; 3 = general; 4 = bad	2.11	1.00
Non-agricultural income ratio	Proportions of non-agricultural income in total income	0.52	0.36
Are irrigation conditions suitable for cultivated land?	0 = no; 1 = yes	0.56	0.50
Education of the head of household	0 = 0; 1 = primary school; 2 = junior high school; 3 = high school; 4 = university and above	1.40	0.82
Age of head of the household	Years	52.28	11.62
Terrain conditions	1= plain; 2= mountain; 3 =hill	2.33	0.88
Farm size	ha	0.37	0.92
Purpose of agricultural production	Proportions of agricultural production for sale at market	0.42	0.40
Is there an agricultural fertilization service organization in or near the village?	0= no; 1= yes	0.16	0.37
Number of times participating in agricultural techniques training	Per year	0.19	0.59

Variables	Coef.	Std. Dev.	Spearman
Number of agricultural laborers	6.49	7.517	0.035
Health of the head of household	6.67	9.043	0.090^*
Non-agricultural income ratio	‒90.08^***	25.751	‒0.116^**
Are irrigation conditions suitable for cultivated land?	‒18.87	18.635	‒0.036
Education of the head of household	5.88	9.777	0.036
Age of the head of household	0.08	0.651	0.045
Terrain conditions	29.85^***	9.618	0.155^***
Farm size	0.62	1.627	0.2669^***
Purpose of agricultural production	80.00^***	24.711	0.037
Is there an agricultural fertilization service organization in or near the villages?	‒119.81^***	17.528	‒0.309^***
Number of times per year participating in agricultural techniques training	‒3.54	20.830	‒0.149^***
Constant	35.84	57.135	‒
Observations	436		‒
R²	0.125		‒
VIF	1.11		‒

Variables	Coef.	Std. Dev.	Spearman
Number of agricultural laborers	6.49	7.517	0.035
Health of the head of household	6.67	9.043	0.090^*
Non-agricultural income ratio	‒90.08^***	25.751	‒0.116^**
Are irrigation conditions suitable for cultivated land?	‒18.87	18.635	‒0.036
Education of the head of household	5.88	9.777	0.036
Age of the head of household	0.08	0.651	0.045
Terrain conditions	29.85^***	9.618	0.155^***
Farm size	0.62	1.627	0.2669^***
Purpose of agricultural production	80.00^***	24.711	0.037
Is there an agricultural fertilization service organization in or near the villages?	‒119.81^***	17.528	‒0.309^***
Number of times per year participating in agricultural techniques training	‒3.54	20.830	‒0.149^***
Constant	35.84	57.135	‒
Observations	436		‒
R²	0.125		‒
VIF	1.11		‒