Policy Intervention Effect Research on Pesticide Packaging Waste Recycling: Evidence From Jiangsu, China

Abstract

Large quantities of pesticide packaging wastes have been thrown and abandoned in farmlands and surrounding environments, which is not only difficult to degrade but also posing a potential pollution threat to agricultural produce and the ecological environment due to the high concentration residues of pesticide. The Chinese government has formulated a series of policies and measures and established some recycling pilot provinces. However, the intervention effects of different kinds of policies on pesticide packaging waste recycling by farmers’ and its mechanism were still unknown. This study took the pilot province Jiangsu Province as the example, by using the game theory and propensity score matching (PSM) model to analyze and compare the intervention effects of three kinds of pesticide packaging waste recycling policies, that is, punish, subsidy and reward, and mortgage return. The results showed that the three kinds of policies all positively affected farmers’ recycling behaviors in the pilot area. The incentive effect of the punishment policy was the weakest, and the mortgage return policy was prominent with the recycling probability increasing 44.8% under a single policy. Based on these results, some policy suggestions were put forward as follows: improving farmers’ cognition of environmental pollution caused by pesticide packaging waste and their awareness of environmental protection, establishing the necessary administrative punishment policy, increasing financial support and improving the standard of recycling subsidies, and vigorously promoting the mortgage return recovery policy in areas where conditions permit. So as to stimulate the willingness of pesticide users to recover independently, the government should reduce the cost of administrative law enforcement and contribute to the construction of rural ecological civilization.

The deviation of farmers’ willingness and behavior of domestic waste separation: a study on neighborhood effects and policy interventions

“…A number of studies confirm that farmers act as economic agents and that economic subsidies can increase private marginal benefits and have an incentive effect on DWS (Owusu et al, 2013;Boonrod et al, 2015;Xu et al, 2018). Penalty policies have regulatory constraints and warning effects that can also incentivize pro-environmental behavior among farmers (Loan et al, 2017;Hu et al, 2022). From the perspective of environmental advocacy, information advocacy has a direct positive impact on residents' willingness to separate waste (Wang et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2019).…”

A Study on the Recycling Classification Behavior of Express Packaging Based on UTAUT under “Dual Carbon” Targets

“…Xiao, L et al [22] developed a two-stage model to discuss production and recycling strategies under three policies (subsidies, penalties and tax breaks) from a manufacturer's perspective, providing guidance for governments to improve policies related to the pro-motion of express packaging recycling. Hu, NJ et al [23] analyzed and compared the intervention effects of three pesticide packaging waste recycling policies, namely, penalties, subsidies and incentives, and collateral rebates. Xu, QY et al [24] explored how platforms' different delivery strategies affect packaging recycling, platform profits and the environment, as well as optimal pricing and subsidy strategies under three typical delivery models.…”

Effect of Ecoliteracy on Farmers’ Participation in Pesticide Packaging Waste Governance Behavior: Evidence from Rural North China

“…It is urgent, then, to improve PPW management to support green agricultural development 9,10 .As important participants in PPW treatment, farmers are the main link for improving its e ciency 11 . China has contractually cooperated with farmers through project-based policies and public service outsourcing to standardize the performance of farmers' duties 12,13 . Although regulations have produced some achievements in PPW treatment, farmers' enthusiasm for PPW participation is generally low 14 , and the recovery rate is less than 15% 15 .…”