What are the driving factors of pesticide overuse in vegetable production? Evidence from Chinese farmers

Abstract

Purpose Pesticide overuse has caused a series of negative impacts on environment and human health. The purpose of this paper is to examine the farmers’ behavior of pesticide overuse and to identify the underlying determinants, based on the survey data from Shandong Province, China. Design/methodology/approach A two-stage semiparametric approach and the binary probit model were employed in this study to analyze the marginal pesticide productivity and investigate the determinants of the pesticide overuse. Findings Results suggest that the marginal pesticide productivity is negative, indicating a serious overuse of pesticides in the surveyed area. Both market factors and government regulation have impacts on farmers’ use of pesticides. Originality/value This study estimates marginal pesticide productivity with an innovative methodology, and explores the role of market factors and government regulation in regulating farmers’ behavior of pesticide use, especially in a typical vegetable growing area and targeting a specific type of vegetable.

Insect and insecticides in agricultural landscapes; socio-ecological challenges and patterns

“…Furthermore, a European scale study by Geiger et al (2010) showed that local pesticide application had persistent negative effects on biological pest control. found that increasing pesticide use decreased removal rates of moth eggs in vineyards, and Yang et al (2019) conclude that ladybeetle abundance in wheat fields decreased with increasing insecticide use at the local scale. The combination of negative effects of pesticides on-field, but no effects off-field, could imply that in landscapes with high land-use intensities (e.g.…”

“…There are several studies that report on interactions between pesticide use and landscape factors. Yang et al (2019) found that beneficial insect abundance were low in areas with a frequent insecticide sprays, regardless of the landscape context, while Ricci et al (2019) reported that negative effects of local pesticide use intensity on beneficial insects was only sometimes modified by landscape characteristics. Gagic et al (2019) showed that the recovery time of natural enemies after insecticide spraying in cotton fields was not compensated for by the presence of semi-natural field margins.…”

“…Other studies have also reported contrasting results. For example, Yang et al (2019) found mixed effects of landscape complexity and insecticide use on ladybeetle abundances, and found no support for the hypothesis that impacts of insecticide use on ladybeetle populations can be mitigated by increased landscape diversity. Gagic et al (2019) found that presence of semi-natural field margins was not enough to compensate for impacts of insecticide applications on natural enemy abundances.…”

“…Farm size may influence farmer's perceptions and potential pesticide use decision making as larger farms are more efficient in the use of inputs, possibly because they invest more in improving the technology of their inputs (Skevas and Oude Lansink, 2014). Other characteristics, such as age, education and previous knowledge (and experiences) on pesticide use may also influence farmer's attitude and behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2011;Burton, 2014;Yang, Zhao and Meng, 2019). In the Netherlands, all farmers that use pesticides have to comply with national regulations and need to obtain a spraying licence (LNV, 2020), and therefore we assumed that all respondents were knowledgeable on impacts of pesticides on the environment, and that variation in knowledge level was limited.…”

“…Furthermore, farm and farmer characteristics may also influence farmers' decision-making on pesticide use but are not explicitly considered in the RAA. Farm size, age, education and previous knowledge and experiences regarding pesticide use are characteristics that may influence a farmer's decisions on pest management (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2011;Burton, 2014;Yang, Zhao and Meng, 2019). In the survey as presented in Chapter 5, most of the respondents (66% of 681) were arable farmers.…”