Advertisement

Adoption of IPM by Farmland Owners and Non-owners: Application of Endogenous Switching Copula Approach

  • Sahar AbediEmail author
  • Pariya Bagheri
  • Esmaeil Pishbahar
Chapter
  • 6 Downloads
Part of the Perspectives on Development in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region book series (PDMENA)

Abstract

Khuzestan Province is one of the largest hubs of agricultural production, and consequently is one of the largest consumers of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in the country. Integrated pest management can be an effective step toward reducing pesticide use, protect human health, and the environment. Due to the fact that owner and non-owner have different economical–social conditions, it is expected that they have two different sets of priorities in implementing of the operation. To study the effective factors on willingness to pay to reduce risks of environmental pesticides for two groups, endogenous switching method leads to better results. The problem with this method is incorrect normal distribution assumption for residuals. Therefore, in this study to cope with this problem, we applied endogenous switching copula approach which allows us to use different marginal distributions and leads to accurate results. The results showed that the logistic distribution for decision equation’s residual and Student’s t-distribution for willingness to pay equation’s residual are better than normal distribution. In addition, the average treatment effect results showed that owners have more willingness to pay than non-owners; hence, different factors effect on willingness to pay for two groups. The knowledge factor has a positive effect on the willingness to pay in the two groups; thus, giving information about the harmful effects of chemical pesticides and visiting the control farms can be effective. The income factor is insignificant in owners’ equation and has less effect in non-owners; it shows that the two groups are unaware of the benefits of such operation; hence, by raising awareness of the utility and demand of organic agricultural products, the policymakers can encourage the farmers to reduce the pesticides use. Owners have more motivation for this kind of operation, because they can utilize the long-run benefit. Hence, legislation about long-run rental contract and utilization of tax punishment for excessive use of pesticides can encourage non-owner to implement this operation.

Keywords

Distribution of residuals Endogenous switching copula Khuzestan province Ownership Willingness to pay 

References

  1. Adeli M, Khodaverdizadeh M, Hayati B (2017) Application of ordered logit model to determine factors affecting adoption of integrated pest management practices among greenhouse owners in Jiroft county. J Sci Technol Greenhouse Cult 8(3):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alwang J, Norton G, Larochelle C (2019) Obstacles to widespread diffusion of IPM in developing countries: lessons from the field. J Integr Pest Manage 10(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2007) Point of views agricultural organizations in reducing consume of pesticide and implementation biological control project. Reported the Second Gathering of Head of Agricultural Organizations Provinces of IranGoogle Scholar
  4. Babendreier D, Wan M, Tang R, Gu R, Tambo J, Liu Z, Grossrieder M, Kansiime M, Wood A, Zhang F, Romney D (2019) Impact assessment of biological control-based integrated pest management in rice and maize in the greater Mekong subregion. Insects 10(226):2–16Google Scholar
  5. Beckmann V, Wesseler J (2003) How labor organization may affect technology adoption: an analytical framework analyzing the case of integrated pest management. Environ Dev Econ 8(3):437–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birungi PB (2007) The linkage between land degradation, poverty and social capital in Uganda. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, University of Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlberg E, Kostandini G, Dankyi A (2012) The effects of integrated pest management techniques (IPM) farmer field schools on groundnut productivity: evidence from Ghana. Selected Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhawan AK, Singh S, Kumar S (2009) Integrated pest management (IPM) helps reduce pesticide load in cotton. J Agric Sci Technol 11(5):599–611Google Scholar
  9. Farid S, Pourkhaton M, Lori Z (2015) Integrated pest management in greenhouses. Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad Agriculture Organization of Kerman Province, Kerman Agricultural Promotion Coordination Management, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017) Integrated pest management of major pests and diseases in Eastern Europe and the CaucasusGoogle Scholar
  11. Gajanana TM, Krishna Moorthy PN, Anupama HL, Raghunatha R, Prasanna Kumar GT (2006) Integrated pest and disease management in tomato: an economic analysis. Agric Econ Res Rev 19:269–280Google Scholar
  12. Gallardo R, Wang Q (2013) Willingness to pay for pesticides’ environmental features and social desirability bias: the case of apple and pear growers. J Agric Resource Econ 38(1):124–139Google Scholar
  13. Gautam S, Schreinemachers P, Uddin MN, Srinivasan R (2017) Impact of training vegetable farmers in Bangladesh in integrated pest management (IPM). Crop Protect 102:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasebe T (2013) Copula-based maximum-likelihood estimation of sample-selection models. Stata J 13(3):547–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hasebe T, Vijverberg W (2012) A Flexible sample selection model: a GTL-copula approach. IZA Discussion Paper No. 7003Google Scholar
  16. Hossein Zad J, Shorafa S, Dashti GH, Hayati B, Kazemiyeh F (2010) An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticides reduction program in Khuzestan province. J Agric Sci Sustain 20(4):101–112Google Scholar
  17. Humayun Kabir M, Rainis R (2015) Adoption and intensity of integrated pest management (IPM) vegetable farming in Bangladesh: an approach to sustainable agricultural development. Environ Dev Sustain 17(6):1413–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leanne M, Mullen J, Stevens M (2008) An evaluation of the economic, environmental and social impact of investments in IPM research in invertebrate rice pests. Economic Research Report No. 41. https://www.ageconsearch.umn.edu
  19. Lee LF (1983) Generalized econometric models with selectivity. Econometrical 51:507–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Agriculture-Jihad Statistic Information, Agricultural Statistical Yearbook (2018) Available at https://www.maj.ir
  21. National pesticide information center (NPIC) (2019) Preharvest interval (PHI). Available at https://www.npic.orst.edu
  22. Neill SP, Lee DR (1999) Explaining the adoption and disadoption of sustainable agriculture: the case of cover crops in northern Honduras. Department of agriculture resource and managerial economics, Cornell University working paper 31Google Scholar
  23. Nelson RB (1998) An introduction to copulas. Lecture Notes in Statistics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Pimentel D (1991) CRC handbook of pest management in agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 784Google Scholar
  25. Pishbahar E, Hosseinzad J, Abedi S, Bageri P (2019) Willingness to pay for IPM: an application of the Heckman-Copula approach. In: Rashidghalam M (eds) Sustainable agriculture and agribusiness in Iran. Perspectives on development in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  26. Pretty J, Bharucha Z (2015) Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6(1):152–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahman M, Norton G, Rashid M (2018) Economic impacts of integrated pest management on vegetables production in Bangladesh. J Crop Protect 113:6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rasul G, Thapa G (2004) Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agric Syst 79:327–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith MD (2003) Modelling sample selection using archimedean copulas. Econometrics J 6:99–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Surangsri W, Suraphol C, Nunta B (2005) Factors affecting the adoption and non-adoption of sloping land conservation farming practices by small-scale farmers in Thailand. Report the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) Bankok, TailandGoogle Scholar
  31. Tatlidil FF, Boz I, Tatlidil H (2009) Farmer’s perception of sustainable agriculture and its determinants: a case study in Kahramanmaras province of Turkey. Environ Dev Sustain 11:1091–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trivedi PK, Zimmer DM (2005) Copula modeling: an introduction for practitioners. Found Trends Econometrics 1(1): Now PublishersGoogle Scholar
  33. Wandji N, Juliusa L, Gockowskia J, Isaacb T (2006) Socio-economic impact of a cocoa integrated crop and pest management diffusion knowledge through a farmer field school approach in southern Cameroon. In: Presentation at the international association of agricultural economists conference, Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  34. Wichian A, Sriboonchitta S (2014) Econometric analysis of private and public wage determination for older workers using a copula and switching regression. Thai J Math 111–128Google Scholar
  35. Yazdi Z, Sarreshtedari M, Zohal MA (2010) Respiratory disease in workers exposed to organophosphate materials. J School Med 53(4):206–213Google Scholar
  36. Zahangeer Alam M, Crump AR, Haque M, Islam S, Hossain E, Hasan S, Hasan SH, Hossain S (2016) Components in a rice agro-ecosystem in the Barisal Region of Bangladesh. Front Environ Sci 4:1–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sahar Abedi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pariya Bagheri
    • 1
  • Esmaeil Pishbahar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations