IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p6269-d394244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ Adoption Preferences for Sustainable Agriculture Practices in Northwest China

Author

Listed:
  • Yixin Nong

    (Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan)

  • Changbin Yin

    (Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Xiaoyan Yi

    (Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Jing Ren

    (Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Hsiaoping Chien

    (Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, 1-1 Ohwashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8686, Japan)

Abstract

In the highest soil erosion regions of arid and semiarid northwest China, water resource deficits and farmland misuse have further exacerbated soil degradation. Therefore, understanding how farmers in diverse agroclimatic zones perceive and respond to different conservation practices is important to the implementation of sustainable agriculture practices (SAPs). To this end, this study uses a best–worst scaling approach to examine the adoption preferences for nine SAPs among grain and cash crop farmers and investigates the influence of farm and climatic characteristics on adoption preferences based on a face to face survey of 554 households in Gansu province, which is classified as an arid and semiarid area in northwest China. Both grain and cash crop farmers had stronger preferences for the practices of using organic instead of chemical fertilizers and of improving irrigation practices. In addition, while cash crop farmers also had strong preferences for cover crop-related practices, they preferred long-term fallows least. Household income, livestock, and precipitation influence the potential perceived importance of SAPs. The different perceived importance of these practices suggests new possible combinations or packages for a sustainable agriculture program during the cropping structure adjustment in Gansu.

Suggested Citation

  • Yixin Nong & Changbin Yin & Xiaoyan Yi & Jing Ren & Hsiaoping Chien, 2020. "Farmers’ Adoption Preferences for Sustainable Agriculture Practices in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6269-:d:394244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6269/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6269/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sackett, Hillary M. & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2013. "Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 275-290, August.
    2. Qingmeng Tong & Lu Zhang & Junbiao Zhang, 2017. "Evaluation of GHG Mitigation Measures in Rice Cropping and Effects of Farmer’s Characteristics: Evidence from Hubei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Glenka, Klaus & Eorya, Vera & Colombo, Sergio & Barnes, Andrew Peter, 2014. "Adoption of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture: an analysis of dairy farmers’ preferences and adoption behaviour," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170358, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. Cao, Shixiong & Wang, Xiuqing & Song, Yuezhen & Chen, Li & Feng, Qi, 2010. "Impacts of the Natural Forest Conservation Program on the livelihoods of residents of Northwestern China: Perceptions of residents affected by the program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1454-1462, May.
    5. Yue, Dongxia & Xu, Xiaofeng & Li, Zizhen & Hui, Cang & Li, Wenlong & Yang, Hequn & Ge, Jianping, 2006. "Spatiotemporal analysis of ecological footprint and biological capacity of Gansu, China 1991-2015: Down from the environmental cliff," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 393-406, June.
    6. Glenk, Klaus & Eory, Vera & Colombo, Sergio & Barnes, Andrew, 2014. "Adoption of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture: An analysis of dairy farmers' perceptions and adoption behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 49-58.
    7. Zhang, Wan-Shou & Li, Feng-Min & Xiong, You-Cai & Xia, Qing, 2012. "Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of raising sheep in folds by farmers in the semiarid Loess Plateau of China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 145-152.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lelde Timma & Elina Dace & Troels Kristensen & Marie Trydeman Knudsen, 2020. "Dynamic Sustainability Assessment Tool: Case Study of Green Biorefineries in Danish Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Dickson Mgangathweni Mazibuko & Hiroko Gono & Sarvesh Maskey & Hiromu Okazawa & Lameck Fiwa & Hidehiko Kikuno & Tetsu Sato, 2023. "The Sustainable Niche for Vegetable Production within the Contentious Sustainable Agriculture Discourse: Barriers, Opportunities and Future Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Irma Yeny & Raden Garsetiasih & Sri Suharti & Hendra Gunawan & Reny Sawitri & Endang Karlina & Budi Hadi Narendra & Surati & Sulistya Ekawati & Deden Djaenudin & Dony Rachmanadi & Nur Muhammad Heriyan, 2022. "Examining the Socio-Economic and Natural Resource Risks of Food Estate Development on Peatlands: A Strategy for Economic Recovery and Natural Resource Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Nong, Yixin & Yin, Changbin & Yi, Xiaoyan & Ren, Jing & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2021. "Smallholder farmer preferences for diversifying farming with cover crops of sustainable farm management: A discrete choice experiment in Northwest China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    5. Abd Hair Awang & Iskandar Zainuddin Rela & Azlan Abas & Mohamad Arfan Johari & Mohammad Effendi Marzuki & Mohd Noor Ramdan Mohd Faudzi & Adri Musa, 2021. "Peat Land Oil Palm Farmers’ Direct and Indirect Benefits from Good Agriculture Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Ibrahim A. Elshaer & Alaa M. S. Azazz & Salah S. Hassan & Sameh Fayyad, 2023. "Farm-to-Fork and Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Perceived Economic Benefit as a Moderator and Environmental Sustainability as a Mediator," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-16, July.

    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. Mansaray, B. & Jin, S. & Yuan, R. & Li, H., 2018. "Farmers Preferences for Attributes of Seed Rice in Sierra Leone: A Best-Worst Scaling Approach," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277552, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Chen, Jiandong & Cheng, Shulei & Song, Malin, 2018. "Changes in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions of the agricultural sector in China from 2005 to 2013," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 748-761.
    3. Worden, David & Hailu, Getu, 2020. "Do genomic innovations enable an economic and environmental win-win in dairy production?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    4. Eory, Vera & Topp, Cairistiona F. E. & Butler, Adam & Bond, Clare E., 2018. "Experts’ estimates of future uptake of low-carbon agricultural practices," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273483, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Xuan, Bui Bich & Ngoc, Quach Thi Khanh & Börger, Tobias, 2022. "Fisher preferences for marine litter interventions in Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. Traxler, Emilia & Li, Tongzhe, 2020. "Agricultural Best Management Practices, A summary of adoption behaviour," Working Papers 305271, University of Guelph, Institute for the Advanced Study of Food and Agricultural Policy.
    7. Jiaxing Pang & Xiang Li & Xue Li & Xingpeng Chen & Huiyu Wang, 2021. "Research on the Relationship between Prices of Agricultural Production Factors, Food Consumption Prices, and Agricultural Carbon Emissions: Evidence from China’s Provincial Panel Data," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-11, May.
    8. Ashton, Lisa, 2022. "A framework for promoting natural climate solutions in the agriculture sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    9. Kapica, Jacek & Pawlak, Halina & Ścibisz, Marek, 2015. "Carbon dioxide emission reduction by heating poultry houses from renewable energy sources in Central Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 238-249.
    10. Jiake Li & Wei Wang & Meng Li & Qiao Li & Zeming Liu & Wei Chen & Yanan Wang, 2022. "Impact of Land Management Scale on the Carbon Emissions of the Planting Industry in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Rosanna Salvia & Rosaria Simone & Luca Salvati & Giovanni Quaranta, 2018. "Soil Conservation Practices and Stakeholder’s Participation in Research Projects—Empirical Evidence from Southern Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-20, June.
    12. Barnes, A.P. & McMillan, J. & Sutherland, L.-A. & Hopkins, J. & Thomson, S.G., 2022. "Farmer intentional pathways for net zero carbon: Exploring the lock-in effects of forestry and renewables," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Kilcline, Kevin & Daly, Karen & Fenton, Owen & Heanue, Kevin & Kingston, Suzanne & Sherry, Jenny Mac & Murphy, Pat & O’Hora, Denis, 2018. "The Agri-Environmental Knowledge Innovation System for Water Quality Improvement," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276232, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Soltani, Arezoo & Angelsen, Arild & Eid, Tron & Naieni, Mohammad Saeid Noori & Shamekhi, Taghi, 2012. "Poverty, sustainability, and household livelihood strategies in Zagros, Iran," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 60-70.
    15. Gao, Yuan & Yu, Lu, 2024. "Understanding the impacts of ecological compensation policies on energy poverty: insights from forest communities in Zhejiang, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    16. Hua Liu & Dan-Yang Li & Rong Ma & Ming Ma, 2022. "Assessing the Ecological Risks Based on the Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model in Gansu Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Xianghua Zhang & Lingbo Dong & Yingli Huang & Yanli Xu & Huiyan Qin & Zhenhua Qiao, 2021. "Equilibrium Relationship between Ecosystem Service Supply and Consumption Driven by Economic Development and Ecological Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, February.
    18. White, Thomas J., 2007. "Sharing resources: The global distribution of the Ecological Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 402-410, December.
    19. Sackett, Hillary & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2016. "Differentiating “Sustainable” From “Organic” And “Local” Food Choices: Does Information About Certification Criteria Help Consumers?," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 4(3), pages 1-15, July.
    20. Almojtaba M. H. Hassabo∗, 2019. "Geographic Information System as a Tool for Rural Livelihoods Enhancement Planning (Case Study of Alosylat Region -Shareg Alnil-Sudan)," International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Dr. Mohammad Hamad Al-khresheh, vol. 5(5), pages 196-207.

    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:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6269-:d:394244. 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.