4.7 Article

Adoption of drip fertigation system and technical efficiency of cherry tomato farmers in Southern China

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 275, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123980

关键词

Social network; Technical efficiency; Drip fertigation system; Technology adoption

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71863006]
  2. Research fund of Hainan University [kyqd1615]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Drip Fertigation System (DFS) is a resource conservation technology for agricultural production. However, it has been rarely used in China. This study attempts to examine the impact of the DFS on the technical efficiency of cherry tomato farmers in southern China, and identify the factors affecting farmers' adoption of the DFS in their plantation practice. Primary data with 442 respondents of cherry tomato growers from villages in Lingshui County was collected through stratified random sampling. The Propensity Score Matching method (PSM) was used to eliminate the self-selection bias of sampling farmers, and two groups (adopters and non-adopters) of the DFS with 140 respondents in each group were matched. The technical efficiency of the two groups of farmers was estimated by the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) separately. We find that the average technical efficiency of the DFS adopters is significantly higher than that of non-adopters, highlighting the positive role of the DFS in promoting efficient usage of production inputs for cherry tomato farmers. Then the Logistic model was used to identify the determinants of farmers' adoption of the DFS in farming practices. The results show that farmers' age, education, farm size and perceived helpfulness of their social network had a positive impact on farmers' adoption of the DFS, whereas factors including farmers' planting experience, off-farm work, skillfulness of contact person and conformity to others affected it negatively. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据