Factors affecting Farmers' Adoption of and Willingness to Pay for Biodegradable Mulch Films in China

Abstract

Biodegradable mulch films (BDMs) technology is an environmentally-friendly substitute to traditional plastic mulch films in agricultural production. Given the high price and it is new to the market, it is not easy for farmers to accept and adopt it. This paper aims to explore the key factors affecting farmers’ adoption of and willingness to pay for BDMs to understand the complex process of farmers’ decision-making. This paper employs a double hurdle model to explore the multi-stage decision-making process in the adoption of BDMs using the sample of 1247 observations from Yunnan province China, where two mechanisms of decision-making (i.e., direct rejection of technology and lack of resources) were used to capture zero willingness to pay (WTP) for BDMs. The results indicate the two-stage decision-making process, where the role of technology-specific characteristics is more important than adopter-specific characteristics in the adoption of BDMs in China – training for understanding and using the technology has a positive effect on both the adoption and willingness to pay. The paper is the first attempt that empirically analyses the determinants of farmers’ WTP for BDMs. It contributes to the literature on adoption analysis by 1) considering farmers’ adoption choices as a two-step process by using a hurdle model and 2) addressing the importance of technology-specific characteristics on farmers’ WTP for BDMs. Understanding the role of factors on different stages of farmers’ decision-making could assist policymakers in designing programs, specifically tackling difficulties confronting farmers at different stages of decision-making.

Does Construction of High-Standard Farmland Improve Recycle Behavior of Agricultural Film? Evidence from Sichuan, China

“…(1) CHSF improves the basic environment of farmland and reduces the cost through field consolidation, soil improvement, road construction, field management and protection, and other material forms [61,62]. On the one hand, a flat and wide farmland environment creates conditions for the relevant agricultural film recycling machinery and equipment services [63] and reduces the mechanical cost of agricultural film recycling. On the other hand, for farmers who take the decision of manual recycling of agricultural film, a good farmland environment improves the convenience of recycling agricultural film, reduces the labor cost, and thus promotes their willingness to take RBAF.…”

“…The purpose of this study is to discuss the impact of farmers' participation in CHSF on their RBAF. Therefore, referring to the research of Li et al [56] and Yang et al [63], 1 means that farmers have the RBAF, and 0 means that farmers do not have the RBAF. It can be seen from Table 1 that only 30% of the farmers in the survey sample have the RBAF, which indicates that the recovery rate of agricultural film is low.…”