邻里效应能否促使稻农施用生物农药?——基于鄂、赣、浙三省农户调查数据的考察

doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20220311

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在构建邻里效应对农户生物农药施用行为影响的理论模型基础上,利用鄂、赣、浙三省农户的调研数据,实证检验了邻里效应对农户生物农药施用行为的影响,在此基础上,进一步讨论了邻里效应促使稻农施用生物农药的条件与内在作用机制。结果表明：第一,55.76%的样本农户施用过生物农药,且施用生物农药的农户有较强的邻里关系。第二,邻里效应对农户生物农药施用行为有显著的正向影响,且强邻里效应的农户生物农药平均施用量要显著高于弱邻里效应农户。第三,邻里效应对稻农生物农药施用行为的影响存在条件限制,对高收入农户和规模户而言,邻里效应的影响不显著。第四,邻里效应对农户生物农药施用行为有显著直接作用,也通过降低信息搜寻成本和有效规避农业生产风险两条路径间接影响农户生物农药施用行为。

关键词: 邻里效应, 生物农药, 农户行为, 风险规避, 成本节约

Abstract:

Based on the establishment of a theoretical model of the influence of neighborhood effect on farmers' biopesticide application behavior, this paper uses survey data of farmers in Hubei, Jiangxi and Zhejiang provinces to empirically test the impact of neighborhood effect on farmers' biopesticide application behavior. On this basis, the conditions and internal mechanism of neighbourhood effects for rice farmers to apply biological pesticides were further discussed. The results show that: first, 55.76% of the sample farmers have applied biological pesticides. The farmers who applied biological pesticides have a strong neighborhood relationship. Second, the neighborhood effect has a significant positive impact on farmers' biological pesticide application behavior. The average application amount of biological pesticides by farmers with strong neighborhood effects is significantly higher than that of farmers with weak neighborhood effects. Third, there are conditional restrictions on the influence of neighborhood effect on rice farmers' biological pesticide application behavior. For high-income farmers and large-scale households, the neighborhood effect is not significant. Fourth, the neighborhood effect has a significant direct effect on farmers' biological pesticide application behavior, and it also indirectly affects farmers' biological pesticide application behavior through two paths of reducing information search costs and effectively avoiding agricultural production risks.

Key words: neighborhood effect, biological pesticide, farmers behavior, risk aversion, cost saving

唐林, 罗小锋. 邻里效应能否促使稻农施用生物农药?——基于鄂、赣、浙三省农户调查数据的考察[J]. 自然资源学报, 2022, 37(3): 718-733.

TANG Lin, LUO Xiao-feng. Can the neighborhood effect encourage rice farmers to apply biological pesticides: Evidence from survey data of farmers in Hubei, Jiangxi and Zhejiang provinces[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2022, 37(3): 718-733.

图/表 8

表1

表2

变量含义及描述性统计结果

变量名称	变量含义及赋值	变量均值			均值差异 (t检验)
		总体	施用	未施用
		(n=764户)	(n=426户)	(n=338户)
施用行为	是否施用生物农药：施用=1,未施用=0	0.558	1	0	—
邻里效应	根据因子分析法计算而得：强邻里=1,弱邻里=0	0.629	0.833	0.373	0.460^***
性别	男性=1,女性=0	0.769	0.791	0.743	0.048
年龄	受访者实际年龄/岁	57.285	56.209	58.642	-2.433^***
健康状况	很差=1,较差=2,一般=3,较好=4,很好=5	3.941	4.035	3.822	0.213^***
受教育年限	受访者受教育年限/年	7.127	7.648	6.470	1.178^***
技术培训	是否接受了技术培训：是=1,否=0	0.476	0.709	0.183	0.526^***
农业劳动力人数	农户家庭农业劳动力人数/人	1.919	1.925	1.911	0.014
市场距离	农户住处到集市的距离/km	4.008	3.903	4.139	-0.236
耕地面积	农户家庭承包地面积/亩	57.828	64.225	49.765	14.46
土壤肥力	很差=1,较差=2,一般=3,较好=4,很好=5	3.342	3.371	3.305	0.066
地形	山地=1,丘陵=2,平原=3	2.232	2.275	2.177	0.098^***
环境意识	化学农药使用对生态环境的影响：很小=1,较小=2,一般=3,较大=4,很大=5	3.666	3.664	3.669	-0.005
健康意识	化学农药对人类健康的影响：很小=1,较小=2,一般=3,较大=4,很大=5	3.623	4.171	2.932	1.239^***
安全生产意识	农产品质量安全的重要性：不重要=1,比较不重要=2,一般=3,比较重要=4,很重要=5	4.408	4.378	4.447	-0.069
病虫害程度	病虫害严重程度：不严重=1,较不严重=2,一般=3,较严重=4,很严重=5	2.360	1.892	2.949	-1.057^***
种植收益	水稻种植的单位面积收益/(千元/亩)	1.319	1.297	1.346	-0.049^*
生产成本	水稻种植单位面积投入/(千元/亩)	0.452	0.446	0.459	-0.013
人情支出	家庭用于周边邻里的人情支出/万元	0.897	0.966	0.809	0.157^***
地区虚拟变量	以省份为单位设置虚拟变量	—	—	—	—

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

邻里效应影响农户施药行为的条件：门槛回归结果

变量	方程12	方程13	方程14	方程15
变量	低收入户(y $≤$ 7)	高收入户(y>7)	小农户(y $≤$ 36)	规模户(y>36)
邻里效应	0.251^***(0.041)	0.005(0.047)	0.211^***(0.034)	0.001(0.059)
其他控制变量	控制	控制	控制	控制
截距项	0.045(0.261)	0.046(0.252)	-0.052(0.227)	0.597^**(0.298)
观测值	399	365	556	208
调整的R²	0.545	0.549	0.509	0.675
LM值	41.536^***		47.164^***

表7

表8

参考文献 41

[1]	王建华, 马玉婷, 李俏. 农产品安全风险治理中政府行为选择及其路径优化: 以农产品生产过程中的农药施用为例. 中国农村经济, 2015, (11):54-62.
	[ WANG J H, MA Y T, LI Q. Government behavior selection and path optimization in the governance of agricultural product safety risks: Taking pesticide application in the production process of agricultural products as an example. Chinese Rural Economy, 2015, (11):54-62.]
[2]	黄祖辉, 钟颖琦, 王晓莉. 不同政策对农户农药施用行为的影响. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2016,26(8):148-155.
	[ HUANG Z H, ZHONG Y Q, WANG X L. Study on the impacts of government policy on farmers' pesticide application behavior. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2016,26(8):148-155.]
[3]	KHAN M, DAMALAS C A. Farmers' knowledge about common pests and pesticide safety in conventional cotton production in Pakistan. Crop Protection, 2015,77(11):45-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2015.07.014
[4]	王建华, 马玉婷, 王晓莉. 农产品安全生产: 农户农药施用知识与技能培训. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2014,24(4):54-63.
	[ WANG J H, MA Y T, WANG X L. Agricultural production safety: Farmers' pesticide application knowledge and technical training. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014,24(4):54-63.]
[5]	PRAY C E, NAGARAJAN L. Innovation and research by private agribusiness in India. IFPRI Discussion Papers, 2012,01181:43.
[6]	朱淀, 孔霞, 顾建平. 农户过量施用农药的非理性均衡: 来自中国苏南地区农户的证据. 中国农村经济, 2014, (8):17-29.
	[ ZHU D, KONG X, GU J P. Irrational equilibrium of farmers' overuse of pesticides: Evidence from farmers in Southern Jiangsu, China. Chinese Rural Economy, 2014, (8):17-29.]
[7]	ABHILASH P C, SINGH N. Pesticide use and application: An Indian scenario. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009,165(1):1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.061
[8]	郭利京, 王少飞. 基于调节聚焦理论的生物农药推广有效性研究. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2016,26(4):126-134.
	[ GUO L J, WANG S F. Promotion effectiveness of biological pesticide based on the regulation focusing theory. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2016,26(4):126-134.]
[9]	黄季焜, 齐亮, 陈瑞剑. 技术信息知识、风险偏好与农民施用农药. 管理世界, 2008, (5):71-76.
	[ HUANG J K, QI L, CHEN R J. Technical information knowledge, risk preference and farmers' application of pesticides. Management World, 2008, (5):71-76.]
[10]	LIU E M, HUANG J K. Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China. Journal of Development Economic, 2013,103:202-215. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.12.005
[11]	MANSKI C F. Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2000,14(3):115-136. doi: 10.1257/jep.14.3.115
[12]	杨唯一, 鞠晓峰. 基于博弈模型的农户技术采纳行为分析. 中国软科学, 2014, (11):42-49.
	[ YANG W Y, JU X F. Analysis of farmers' technology adoption behavior based on game model. China Soft Science, 2014, (11):42-49.]
[13]	李明月, 罗小锋, 余威震, 等. 代际效应与邻里效应对农户采纳绿色生产技术的影响分析. 中国农业大学学报, 2020,25(1):206-215.
	[ LI M Y, LUO X F, YU W Z, et al. Analysis of the influence of intergenerational effect and neighborhood effect on farmers' adoption of green production technology. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2020,25(1):206-215.]
[14]	杨志海. 老龄化、社会网络与农户绿色生产技术采纳行为: 来自长江流域六省农户数据的验证. 中国农村观察, 2018, (4):44-58.
	[ YANG Z H. Ageing, social network and the adoption of green production technology: Evidence from farm households in six provinces in the Yangtze River Basin. China Rural Survey, 2018, (4):44-58.]
[15]	刘可, 齐振宏, 杨彩艳, 等. 邻里效应与农技推广对农户稻虾共养技术采纳的影响分析: 互补效应与替代效应. 长江流域资源与环境, 2020,29(2):401-411.
	[ LIU K, QI Z H, YANG C Y, et al. Analysis on the influence of neighbourhood effect and agricultural technology diffusion on farmer's adoption of co-farming technology of rice and crayfish: Complementary effects and substitution effects. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2020,29(2):401-411.]
[16]	SAHA A. Expo-power utility: A flexible form for absolute and relative risk aversion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1993,75(4):905-913. doi: 10.2307/1243978
[17]	刘建民, 李海垒, 张文新. 行为决策中的描述—经验差距: 信息加工角度的解释. 心理科学进展, 2016,24(10):1623-1635.
	[ LIU J M, LI H L, ZHANG W X. The description-experience gap in behavioral decision making: Interpretations of information processing. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016,24(10):1623-1635.]
[18]	陈欢, 周宏, 孙顶强. 信息传递对农户施药行为及水稻产量的影响: 江西省水稻种植户的实证分析. 农业技术经济, 2017, (12):23-31.
	[ CHEN H, ZHOU H, SUN D Q. The impact of information transmission on farmers' application behavior and rice yield: An empirical analysis of rice growers in Jiangxi province. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2017, (12):23-31.]
[19]	姚瑞卿, 姜太碧. 农户行为与“邻里效应”的影响机制. 农村经济, 2015, (4):40-44.
	[ YAO R Q, JIANG T B. Farmers' behavior and the influence mechanism of "neighborhood effect". Rural Economy, 2015, (4):40-44.]
[20]	LAPPLE D, KELLEY H. Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers. Ecological Economics, 2013,88(4):11-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.025
[21]	王玉斌, 华静. 信息传递对农户转基因作物种植意愿的影响. 中国农村经济, 2016, (6):71-80.
	[ WANG Y B, HUA J. The influence of information transmission on farmers' willingness to plant genetically modified crops. Chinese Rural Economy, 2016, (6):71-80.]
[22]	余威震, 罗小锋, 唐林, 等. 土地细碎化视角下种粮目的对稻农生物农药施用行为的影响. 资源科学, 2019,41(12):2193-2204.
	[ YU W Z, LUO X F, TANG L, et al. Impact of grain growing objectives on the application of bio-pesticides of rice farmers from the perspective of land fragmentation. Resources Science, 2019,41(12):2193-2204.]
[23]	高杨, 牛子恒. 风险厌恶、信息获取能力与农户绿色防控技术采纳行为分析. 中国农村经济, 2019, (8):109-127.
	[ GAO Y, NIU Z H. Risk aversion, information acquisition ability and farmers' adoption behavior of green control techniques. Chinese Rural Economy, 2019, (8):109-127.]
[24]	ABADI-GHADIM A K, PANNELL D J, BURTON M P. Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Agricultural Economics, 2005,33(1):1-9. doi: 10.1111/agec.2005.33.issue-1
[25]	郭利京, 赵瑾. 认知冲突视角下农户生物农药施用意愿研究: 基于江苏639户稻农的实证. 南京农业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2017,17(2):123-133, 154.
	[ GUO L J, ZHAO J. A study on farmers willingness of biological pesticide application from the perspective of cognitive conflict: An empirical analysis based on 639 rice farmers in Jiangsu. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University: Social Sciences Edition, 2017,17(2):123-133, 154.]
[26]	钟甫宁, 宁满秀, 邢鹂, 等. 农业保险与农用化学品施用关系研究: 对新疆玛纳斯河流域农户的经验分析. 经济学(季刊), 2006,6(1):291-308.
	[ ZHONG F N, NING M X, XING P, et al. A study on the relationship between crop insurance and agrochemical uses: An empirical analysis of the Manas watershed, Xinjiang, China. China Economic Quarterly, 2006,6(1):291-308.]
[27]	黄炎忠, 罗小锋. 既吃又卖: 稻农的生物农药施用行为差异分析. 中国农村经济, 2018, (7):63-78.
	[ HUANG Y Z, LUO X F. "Both to eat and sell": An analysis of biological pesticides application behaviors of different rice farmers. Chinese Rural Economy, 2018, (7):63-78.]
[28]	唐林, 罗小锋, 张俊飚. 社会监督、群体认同与农户生活垃圾集中处理行为: 基于面子观念的中介和调节作用. 中国农村观察, 2019, (2):18-33.
	[ TANG L, LUO X F, ZHANG J B. Social supervision, group identity and farmers' domestic waste centralized disposal behavior: An analysis based on mediation effect and regulation effect of the face concept. China Rural Survey, 2019, (2):18-33.]
[29]	GONG Y Z, BAYLIS K, KOZAK R, et al. Farmers' risk preferences and pesticide use decisions: Evidence from field experiments in China. Agricultural Economics, 2016,47(4):411-421. doi: 10.1111/agec.2016.47.issue-4
[30]	赵丹丹, 周宏, 高富雄. 农户分化、技术约束与耕地保护技术选择差异: 基于不同约束条件下的农户技术采纳理论分析框架. 自然资源学报, 2020,35(12):2956-2967.
	[ ZHAO D D, ZHOU H, GAO F X. Differentiation of farmers, technical constraints and the differences of cultivated land protection technology selection: A theoretical analysis framework of farmer households' technological adoption based on different constraints. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020,35(12):2956-2967.]
[31]	KHONJE M G, MANDA J, MKANDAWIRE P, et al. Adoption and welfare impacts of multiple agricultural technologies: Evidence from Eastern Zambia. Agricultural Economics, 2018,49(5):599-609. doi: 10.1111/agec.2018.49.issue-5
[32]	BIAN Y J. Bringing strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review, 1997,62(3):366-385.
[33]	周广肃, 马光荣. 人情支出挤出了正常消费吗: 来自中国家户数据的证据. 浙江社会科学, 2015, (3):15-26.
	[ ZHOU G S, MA G R. Does gift expenditure reduce normal consumption: Evidence from CFPS 2010. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 2015, (3):15-26, 156.]
[34]	SAJAIA Z. Maximum likelihood estimation of a bivariate ordered probit model: Implementation and monte-carlo simulations. Stata Journal, 2008,2(2):1-18. doi: 10.1177/1536867X0200200101
[35]	何可, 张俊飚, 张露, 等. 人际信任、制度信任与农民环境治理参与意愿: 以农业废弃物资源化为例. 管理世界, 2015, (5):75-88.
	[ HE K, ZHANG J B, ZHANG L, et al. Interpersonal trust, institutional trust and farmers' willingness to participate in environmental governance: Taking agricultural waste resources as an example. Management World, 2015, (5):75-88.]
[36]	HANSEN B E. Sample splitting and threshold estimation. Econometrica, 2010,68(3):575-603. doi: 10.1111/ecta.2000.68.issue-3
[37]	王亚辉, 李秀彬, 辛良杰. 耕地地块细碎程度及其对山区农业生产成本的影响. 自然资源学报, 2019,34(12):2658-2672.
	[ WANG Y H, LI X B, XIN L J. Characteristics of cropland fragmentation and its impact on agricultural production costs in mountainous areas. Journal of Natural Resources, 2019,34(12):2658-2672.]
[38]	BARON R M, KENNY D A. The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986,51(6):1173-1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
[39]	周先波, 刘建广, 郑馨. 信息不完全、搜寻成本和均衡工资: 对广东省外来农民工劳动力市场信息不完全程度的测度. 经济学(季刊), 2015,15(1):149-172.
	[ ZHOU X B, LIU J G, ZHENG X. Incomplete information, search cost, and equilibrium wage: Evidence from the measurement for the incomplete information of rural immigrant labor market in Guangdong. China Economic Quarterly, 2015,15(1):149-172.]
[40]	IACOBUCCI D. Mediation analysis and categorical variables: The final frontier. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2012,4:582-594.
[41]	李成龙, 周宏. 劳动力禀赋、风险规避与病虫害统防统治技术采纳. 长江流域资源与环境, 2020,29(6):1454-1461.
	[ LI C L, ZHOU H. Labor endowment, risk avoidance and the adoption of integrated pest control technology. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2020,29(6):1454-1461.]

变量		样本量/户	比例/%	变量		样本量/户	比例/%
性别	男性	588	76.96	耕地面积/亩	<10	297	38.87
性别	女性	176	23.04		10~19	131	17.15
年龄/岁	<40	27	3.53		20~29	69	9.03
	40~59	428	56.02		≥ 30	267	34.95
	≥ 60	309	40.45	家庭年收入/万元	<5	256	33.51
受教育程度	小学及以下	370	48.43		5~10	215	28.14
	初中	274	35.86		10~15	103	13.48
	高中及以上	120	15.71		≥ 15	190	24.87

变量	施用行为				施用量/万元
	施用		未施用		施用量/万元
	样本量/户	比例/%	样本量/户	比例/%	均值
强邻里效应	355	73.81	126	26.19	0.231
弱邻里效应	212	74.91	71	25.09	0.028
Pearson相关系数	0.474^***				0.164^***
均值差异(t检验)	—				0.203^***

变量	方程1		方程2		方程3
变量	系数	标准误	系数	标准误	系数	标准误
邻里效应	0.423^***	0.020	0.211^***	0.023	0.211^***	0.023
性别	—	—	-0.008	0.031	-0.005	0.031
年龄	—	—	-0.001	0.002	-0.001	0.002
健康状况	—	—	0.018	0.015	0.015	0.015
受教育年限	—	—	0.008^**	0.004	0.007^*	0.004
技术培训	—	—	0.217^***	0.023	0.213^***	0.023
农业劳动力人数	—	—	0.005	0.018	0.014	0.018
市场距离	—	—	-0.004	0.004	-0.002	0.004
耕地面积	—	—	-0.001	0.001	-0.001	0.001
土壤肥力	—	—	-0.024	0.015	-0.030^**	0.015
地形	—	—	0.082^***	0.029	0.062^*	0.032
环境意识	—	—	-0.021^*	0.012	-0.019	0.012
健康意识	—	—	0.101^***	0.012	0.103^***	0.011
安全生产意识	—	—	-0.059^***	0.018	-0.055^***	0.018
病虫害程度	—	—	-0.062^***	0.011	-0.064^***	0.011
种植收益	—	—	-0.048	0.038	-0.014	0.043
生产成本	—	—	-0.049	0.066	-0.042	0.065
地区虚拟变量	未控制		未控制		控制
观测值数	764		764		764
卡方	176.900^***		503.450^***		511.840^***
伪R²	0.169		0.479		0.488