IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i4p2989-d1060290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can the Application of Environmentally Friendly Fertilisers Reduce Agricultural Labour Input? Empirical Evidence from Peanut Farmers in China

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Shudong Zhou

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Guanghui Jiang

    (College of Finance, Anhui University of Finance and Economics, Bengbu 233030, China)

Abstract

Environmentally friendly fertilisers (EFFs) can improve the quality of cultivated land, purify the soil environment, and promote reduction in the amounts of fertiliser applied by improving efficiency. However, few studies have analysed the spillover effects of EFF applications on agricultural labour inputs. Hence, this study discusses the impact of EFFs on agricultural labour input, using the propensity score matching method based on the micro-survey data of peanut growers in the main producing areas in China. The results showed that EFFs have a labour-saving advantage, with a significant average reduction in the number of labourers’ input and labour days in agriculture production of 0.127 persons/mu and 0.601 days/mu at the 1% to 10% significance level. Additionally, EFFs improve yield and revenue but significantly raise production costs, ultimately increasing net revenue for farmers. The mechanism of the labour-saving effect is the capability of EFFs to reduce the amount and frequency of fertilisers applications, the amounts of pesticides applied, and irrigation water consumption by their technical characteristics and farmland’s ecological environment enhancement. Accordingly, the time effect strengthens the ecological regulation function and the application reduction effect of EFFs, further decreasing agricultural labour inputs. At the same time, the application of EFFs contributes to the adoption of mechanical deep tillage and fertilisation technology (MDTFT), thereby reducing fertiliser application and ultimately improving the labour-saving effect of EFFs. Heterogeneity analysis revealed that the labour-saving effect of EFFs is more obvious for farmers operating with a larger planting scale. To improve the labour-saving effect of EFFs, the findings imply that the application years of EFFs should be appropriately extended and the MDTFT should be promoted according to local conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Wang & Shudong Zhou & Guanghui Jiang, 2023. "Can the Application of Environmentally Friendly Fertilisers Reduce Agricultural Labour Input? Empirical Evidence from Peanut Farmers in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:2989-:d:1060290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/2989/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/2989/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teklewold, Hailemariam & Kassie, Menale & Shiferaw, Bekele & Köhlin, Gunnar, 2013. "Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 85-93.
    2. Babalola, Toju Esther & Adabembe, Bolaji Adelanke & Faloye, Oluwaseun Temitope, 2022. "Water use - yield relationship of maize as influenced by biochar and inorganic fertilizer applications in a tropical sandy clay loam soil," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    3. Brenneis, Karina & Irawan, Bambang & Wollni, Meike, 2023. "Promoting agricultural technologies with positive environmental effects: Evidence on tree planting in Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PB).
    4. Mao, Hui & Zhou, Li & Ying, RuiYao & Pan, Dan, 2021. "Time Preferences and green agricultural technology adoption: Field evidence from rice farmers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Samuel Bentolila & Claudio Michelacci & Javier Suarez, 2010. "Social Contacts and Occupational Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(305), pages 20-45, January.
    6. Zhen, Huayang & Qiao, Yuhui & Zhao, Haijun & Ju, Xuehai & Zanoli, Raffaele & Waqas, Muhammad Ahmed & Lun, Fei & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman, 2022. "Developing a conceptual model to quantify eco-compensation based on environmental and economic cost-benefit analysis for promoting the ecologically intensified agriculture," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    7. Addison, Monica & Ohene-Yankyera, Kwasi & Aidoo, Robert, 2020. "Quantifying the impact of agricultural technology usage on intra-household time allocation: Empirical evidence from rice farmers in Ghana," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    8. Fontes, Francisco Pereira, 2020. "Soil and Water Conservation technology adoption and labour allocation: Evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Abdul-Hanan Abdallah & Awal Abdul-Rahaman & Gazali Issahaku, 2021. "Sustainable agricultural practices, farm income and food security among rural households in Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 17668-17701, December.
    2. Ruishi Si & Yumeng Yao & Xueqian Zhang & Qian Lu & Noshaba Aziz, 2022. "Exploring the Role of Contiguous Farmland Cultivation and Adoption of No-Tillage Technology in Improving Transferees’ Income Structure: Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Repullo, Rafael & Elizalde, Abel, 2004. "Economic and Regulatory Capital: What is the Difference?," CEPR Discussion Papers 4770, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Bramoullé, Yann & Goyal, Sanjeev, 2016. "Favoritism," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 16-27.
    5. Tesfaye, Wondimagegn & Tirivayi, Nyasha, 2020. "Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    6. Momanyi, Denis & Lagat, Prof. Job K. & Ayuya, Dr. Oscar I., 2016. "Analysis of the Marketing Behaviour of African Indigenous Leafy Vegetables among Smallholder Farmers in Nyamira County, Kenya," MPRA Paper 69202, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 27 Jan 2016.
    7. Ponzo, Michela & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2008. "The Use of Informal Networks in Italian Labor Markets: Efficiency or Favoritisms?," MPRA Paper 11764, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Damm, Anna Piil, 2014. "Neighborhood quality and labor market outcomes: Evidence from quasi-random neighborhood assignment of immigrants," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 139-166.
    9. Qianchun Dai & Kequn Cheng, 2022. "What Drives the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies? An Extension of TAM in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    10. Fafchamps, Marcel & Islam, Asad & Malek, Mohammad Abdul & Pakrashi, Debayan, 2020. "Can referral improve targeting? Evidence from an agricultural training experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    11. Martina Rebien & Michael Stops & Anna Zaharieva, 2020. "Formal Search And Referrals From A Firm'S Perspective," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1679-1748, November.
    12. Longhi, Simonetta, 2017. "Spatial-Ethnic Inequalities: The Role of Location in the Estimation of Ethnic Wage Differentials," IZA Discussion Papers 11073, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Suarez, Javier & Ceron, Jose A., 2006. "Hot and Cold Housing Markets: International Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 5411, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Bart Cockx & Matteo Picchio, 2013. "Scarring effects of remaining unemployed for long-term unemployed school-leavers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(4), pages 951-980, October.
    15. Damiano Fiorillo & Nunzia Nappo, 2014. "Job satisfaction in Italy: individual characteristics and social relations," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(8), pages 683-704, August.
    16. David, Quentin & Janiak, Alexandre & Wasmer, Etienne, 2010. "Local social capital and geographical mobility," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 191-204, September.
    17. Marcelo Arbex & Dennis O'Dea & David Wiczer, 2019. "Network Search: Climbing The Job Ladder Faster," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 60(2), pages 693-720, May.
    18. Tiéfigué Pierrette Coulibaly & Jianguo Du & Daniel Diakité & Olivier Joseph Abban & Elvis Kouakou, 2021. "A Proposed Conceptual Framework on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: The Role of Network Contact Frequency and Institutional Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, February.
    19. Lena Hensvik & Oskar Nordström Skans, 2016. "Social Networks, Employee Selection, and Labor Market Outcomes," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(4), pages 825-867.
    20. Wang, Chunchao & Zhang, Chenglei & Ni, Jinlan & Zhang, Haifeng & Zhang, Junsen, 2019. "Family migration in China: Do migrant children affect parental settlement intention?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 416-428.

    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:15:y:2023:i:4:p:2989-:d:1060290. 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.