Accepted Manuscript

What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers?

Yan Wang, Yuchun Zhu, Shuoxin Zhang, Yongqiang Wang

PII: S0959-6526(18)32211-X

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.222

Reference: JCLP 13676

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 20 October 2017

Accepted Date: 23 July 2018

Please cite this article as: Yan Wang, Yuchun Zhu, Shuoxin Zhang, Yongqiang Wang, What could
promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers?, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.222

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers?

Yan Wanga,b, Yuchun Zhuc, Shuoxin Zhanga*, Yongqiang Wang c*

a. College of Forestry, Northwest A& F University, Yangling, 712100, Shaanxi, PR China

b. College of Science, Northwest A& F University, Yangling, 712100, Shaanxi, PR China

C. College of Economics & Management, Northwest A& F University, Yangling, 712100, Shaanxi, PR
China

Abstract: To lessen the negative environmental impact of chemical fertilizers, replacing chemical
fertilizers with more organic fertilizers for famers is a good choice. However, most of the farmers would
like to use chemical fertilizers instead of organic fertilizers in developing countries, mainly because they
fear that they may lose income if they use organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers. From this
point, policy makers need to find strategies to incentivize farmers to use organic fertilizers instead of
chemical fertilizers. Therefore, a randomly selected household survey on the use of chemical and
organic fertilizers by apple growers in China was conducted from July 2016 to October 2016. Its aim is to
find out what could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers partially or
completely. We have analyzed farmers’ choices involving prospect utility, risk, and environment based
on Kahneman’s prospect theory and Lewin's field theory. Twelve psychological and socio-economic
variables were included in a tobit regression model to explain farmers’ choice between organic
fertilizers and chemical fertilizers. We find that membership in agriculture cooperatives, subsidies on
organic fertilizers, and farm size play positive roles in influencing farmers' choice of organic fertilizers
instead of chemical fertilizers. The results will be helpful to update extension policy of organic fertilizers.

Key words: chemical and organic fertilizers; apple growers; choice; tobit model regression; prospect
theory; field theory

Page | 1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

What could promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers?

1. Introduction

Globally, crop yields have increased steadily and food security has been improved due to increasing
inputs of chemical fertilizers and the adoption of new technologies (Tilman, D., et al., 2002; Boli Ni, et
al., 2011; Yinghua Duan, et al., 2016). However, increasing chemical fertilizers not only contributes to
food security, but also causes soil deterioration, greenhouse gas emissions, and water contamination
(Wen-yuan Huang and Rhona,1992; Tilman et al., 2001; Johanna Link et al., 2006 ; Han and Zhao, 2009;
Ju et al., 2009; Wauters et al., 2010; Liu, X. J. et al,2013.; Stuart et al., 2014; Wei-feng Zhang, et al,2014;
Sierra et al., 2015; Smith, L. E. D. & Siciliano, G. 2015; Norman Uphoff, Frank B. Dazzo,2016). Studies
have shown that crops can take up only 30 to 50% of chemical fertilizers, thus a great amount of the
applied components is lost in the soil where it pollutes groundwater (Norse, 2005; MEP, 2010; Zsófia
Mózner, et al, 2012). For example, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) has decreased during the past two
decades, with much of this excess nitrogen fertilizer being lost to the environment (MOA, 2009; NBSC,
2013). The efficiency of chemical fertilizer use has decreased because of fertilizer saturation (Zsófia
Mózner, et al, 2012; Carter et al., 2012). To ensure food security for nearly one fifth of world population,
China uses more chemical fertilizers than any other country (FAOSTAT, 2014). Since the 1970s, Chinese
farmers have paid 50 to 75% less for urea fertilizer than the world market price (Li et al., 2013). Some
authors assert that this has contributed to excessive chemical fertilizer use (Sun et al., 2012; Li et al.,
2013). More chemical fertilizers were used on high value horticultural crops than cereal crops in China
(Zhang and Powlson, 2010; Rahn, 2010), and apples rank in the top 2 in acreage and yield in fruit crops
(NBSC, 2013-2016). Therefore, we have focused on ways to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers in
apple orchards in Shaanxi, which has the largest apple planting area in China.
Thus, we face a challenge in the increasing use of chemical fertilizers, and it is essential to develop
related strategies for sustainable agriculture (Yinghua Duan, et al., 2016). There are several ways to
control the increasing use of chemical fertilizers, which mainly include technical and policy solutions. On
the one hand, technical solutions can be used to reduce chemical fertilizer use, including soil testing and
fertilizer application, controlled-release fertilizers, crop rotation or intercropping, organic–inorganic
compound fertilizers, organic fertilizers, and recycled agriculture (Sun and Huang, 2012; Garnet and
Wilkes, 2014; Ji X H, et al, 2007; Boli Ni et al, 2011; Wen-Yuan Huang and Noel D. Uri, 1992; Szumigalski
and Van Acker, 2006; Amanullah, et al., 2010; Wipawee K., et al, 2006; Jun Zhao, et al., 2016; Bronick
and Lal, 2005; Masto et al., 2006; Ge et al., 2010; Jannoura et al., 2014; Insam et al., 2015; Jian XIE, et al,
2010). The use of organic fertilizer has contributed significantly to environmental sustainability and

Page | 2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

increasing agricultural production (Dick and Gregorich, 2004; Conway and Barbier, 2013; Li Hui, et al,
2017). While soil testing, fertilizer application, and controlled release fertilizers reduce excessive
chemical fertilizer use and nutrient loss in agriculture (Boli Ni, et al, 2011), their effects on
environmental sustainability are not superior to organic fertilizer solution. Although crop rotation has
positive environmental impacts, results have shown that very low harvest in plots without fertilizer use
in long-term crop rotation (Rutunga, et al, 2006). South American countries have shown relatively
positive development in organic fertilizer use (Nadia Adnan, et al, 2017). The incorporation of organic
fertilizers with chemical fertilizers is a viable alternative to standard chemical fertilizers and is helpful to
reduce the environmental impact of chemical fertilizers (Wipawee K., et al, 2006; Yinghua Duan, et al,
2016). Application of organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers is economically feasible and is one
of the environmentally sound long-term approaches to sustainable agriculture (Li Hui, et al, 2017; Ning
Chuanchuan,et al, 2017). However, the effect of organic fertilizers on crop yield is slow and variable in
the short term (Khaliq et al., 2006). The use of organic fertilizers needs more labor and monetary input
to compare with the use of chemical fertilizers (Maggio A,2008; Wang Shanshan, Zhang
Guangsheng,2013; Hu Hao,Yang Yongbing,2015). Thus, most of the farmers prefer to use chemical
fertilizers rather than organic fertilizers to preserve crop yield (Smith et al., 2007), especially with the
labor cost increasing rapidly in China. There is no widespread use of green fertilizer technology
throughout developing countries (Pingali, 2012; D., Chadwick et al., 2015). On the other hand, the policy
solutions to reduce chemical fertilizer use include providing subsidies for reducing chemical fertilizers or
using organic fertilizers, tax increases on chemical fertilizers, and extension services of reducing
chemical fertilizers or using organic fertilizers (Mark Brady,2003; Sun et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013; Garnet
and Wilkes, 2014). To extend the use of organic fertilizers, national policies, including subsidies, are
needed to establish the infrastructure necessary to collect, store, treat, distribute, and apply organic
wastes to smallholder farms (Li et al., 2013; Luo et al. 2014; Jaza Folefack 2015; Lim et al., 2016).

To combat the overuse of chemical fertilizers, China has launched a scheme of no further increase in
chemical fertilizers since 2015. Some counties are carrying out an experiment with subsidies on organic
fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers. These sample counties are required by the Ministry of
Agriculture to have a large growing area of fruits, vegetables, or tea. Large-scale farms, organic fertilizer
factories, and agricultural cooperatives in the experiment counties can apply for subsidies on organic
fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers. The number of sample counties reached 100 in 2017. However,
detailed incentive policies are still in exploration in these sample areas and have not been widely
implemented. To develop effective incentive policies, we need to understand why farmers would like to

Page | 3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

use organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers, that is to say, the driving forces of the farmers’
behavior change need to be explored.

Different theories from psychology, social science, and economics are used to analyze individual
behavior change. Socio-psychological methods are widely used to identify farmers' behavior change of
adopting improved technology and environmental conservation behavior (Wauters and Mathijs, 2012;
Poppenborg and Koellner, 2013; Borges et al., 2014; Yazdanpanah et al., 2014; Truelove et al., 2015; Jian
Deng et al., 2017). The typical socio-psychological methods analyze farmers' intention and behavior
change based on the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975;
Ajzen ,1991). These methods analyze farmers’ behavior change according to psychological variables,
such as attitudes, intention, and subjective norms. They do not analyze farmers’ behavior change
according to economic variables. While economic methods show that economic risk aversion influences
farmers’ decisions on replacement of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers (Sri Ramaratnam et al.,
1987; Babcock, 1992; Morris and Potter, 1995; Aimin, 2010; Yang et al., 2012; Bowman and Zilberman,
2013; Stuart et al., 2014), farmers' risk preference to avoid yield loss is one of the key factors that lead
to farmers’ overuse of chemical fertilizer instead of organic fertilizers (Smith et al., 2007; Luan Hao, Qiu
Huanguang,2013). These studies do not consider the psychological variables or social environment
variables. The prospect theory analyzes individual decisions considering both psychology and economics
(Kahneman &Tversky,1979; Tversky & K ahneman,1992). It tries to model real-life choices of farmers,
rather than optimal decisions or other sole psychological models. This paper attempts to analyze
farmers’ behavior change based on prospect theory. On the other hand, the replacement of chemical
fertilizers with organic fertilizers is only possible when farmer’s economic and non-economic goals are
satisfied (Reimer et al., 2012). Some researchers suggest that farmers’ behavior can not only be changed
by economic incentive, but also by external environment incentive, such as legal regulations, provision
of advice and voluntary collective actions (Wondolleck and Yaffee,2000; K.L. Blackstock et al, 2010).
Therefore, this paper also considers the environmental effect on farmer’s behavior change, which is
emphasized in Lewin's field theory (Lewin, K. ,1943; Muuss, R. E. 1988). Prior studies conducted on the
reduction of chemical fertilizers or farmers’ behavior change have focused on technological studies,
policy studies, psychology and social studies, and economic studies. However, few studies have been
conducted to evaluate farmers’ choices based on theories combining economics, psychology and social
studies. Here, we have combined the prospect theory with field theory to analyze what could promote
farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers. Based on Kahneman’s prospect theory and
Lewin's field theory, this research mainly considers the comprehensive effect of prospect utility,
farmers’ risk preference, environment, and farmers’ traits on their behavior change. It provides a

Page | 4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

different theoretical framework to analyze what could promote farmers' use of organic fertilizers
instead of chemical fertilizers. The results will be helpful to create and modify incentive policies to
promote sustainable agriculture development in developing countries.

2. Methods

2.1 Theoretical Foundation

Prospect theory describes that individuals’ behavior is the choice between different prospect utilities
that involve risk. The prospect theory (Kahneman &Tversky,1979; Tversky & K ahneman,1992;Tanaka,
Camerer, and Nguyen,2010; Wang Y., et al,2015) can be expressed by a formula
v( y )   ( p )[v( x)  v( y )], x  y  0 or x y0
U ( x, p; y, p )  { .
 ( p)v( x)   (q)v( y ), x  0  y

where

x1 , x  0
v( x)  {
  ( x)1 , x  0 , and w( p )  exp[( ln p ) ]

v denotes expected utility of the outcomes to the individual making the decision, x and p denote the
potential outcomes and their respective probabilities,  denotes degree of risk aversion,  measures
the sensitivity to loss versus gain, w( p ) is the probability weighting function. The theory contains two
decision stages. In the initial phase, termed editing, the individual often uses heuristics to quickly make
decisions, which is called "cognitive bias". This is a mental shortcut that usually focuses on one aspect of
a complex problem and ignores others. It works well under most circumstances. The risk preference will
affect individual’s choice in the second evaluation phase. Here, we used  to denote farmers’ risk
preference. When farmers decide which fertilizer is chosen, they will simplify the prospect output
change and price change according to their experience when they consider using organic fertilizers
instead of chemical fertilizers. According to the heuristic bias in prospect theory, we have simplified the
prospect utility of replacing chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers, namely the prospect output
change of agriculture products, price change of agriculture products, and farmer’s risk preference in our
econometric model.

Field theory claims that an individual’s behavior is the interaction between the individual’s personality
and the environment (Lewin's,1943; Muuss,1988). It can be expressed in a function
Behavior  function( Personality, Environment ) . In this formula, individual personality includes age,
farming years, risk preference, and acreages of farm. The environment includes the natural
environment, market environment, and policy environment (Yongqiang Wang, Yuchun Zhu, 2012). The

Page | 5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

natural environment here mainly refers to the soil fertility of the farm. We have denoted market
environment by sale modes of agriculture products. The sale modes of agriculture products can be
expressed in signing sale contracts, serving as members of agriculture cooperatives, or owning traceable
code. For policy environment, we use subsidies for organic fertilizers, quality certification of apple
production area, and extension guidance of organic fertilizers.

2.2. Econometric Model

To understand the influence of the external environment and inner incentive factors on choice of
organic fertilizers, we have detailed our econometric model and propose the following assumptions to
estimate what could promote farmers to use organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers.

OFi  f ( Nei , Pril , Somim , Pein , Fcij ,  i )

Where OFi represents different organic fertilizers, organic fertilizers mainly include waste of animals and
humans, plant waste, and organic fertilizers made by factory. The dependent variable should be
measured as the cumulative amount of different organic fertilizers. However, different organic fertilizers
have different nutrients, and different farmers have different farm sizes, so the cumulative amount of
organic fertilizers is not comparable among different farms; therefore, we used the weight ratio of
organic fertilizers (ROF) to total fertilizers to measure the dependent variables. Because some farmers
do not use organic fertilizers, the ratio value of organic fertilizers (ROF) to total fertilizers is from 0 to 1,
the tobit model is suitable, and the dependent variable is a choice variable as follows:

 ROF * if ROF *  0
ROFi   *
 , where ROF is a latent variable:
 0 if ROF  0 
*

ROF *  xi   i ,

xi denotes detailed independent variables in the following paragraph. Nei denotes the natural
environment. As soil fertility of different farm plots is hard to quantify, we have eliminated this variable
in our model. Where Pril denotes the prospect revenue change of agriculture products, which can be
measured by yield change, price change, and farmer’s risk attitude when a farmer replaces chemical
fertilizers with organic fertilizers, here l represents different variables of revenue change (simplified
yield, price, and risk separately in model). Where Somim denotes sale modes of agriculture products,
which include signing sale contract, serving as a member of an agriculture cooperative, and traceable
code (simplified contract, cooperatives, and code separately in model), here m represents different

Page | 6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

variables of sale modes stated above. Where Pein denotes policy environment, which includes
subsidies on organic fertilizers, quality certification of apple growing area, and extension guidance of
organic fertilizers (simplified subsidies, certification and extension in model), here n represents

different variables of policy environment stated above. Where Fcij denotes farmer’s characteristics,

here j represents different characteristics, which include acreage of farm, years of planting, education,
and ratio of apple income to family income (simplified acreage, years, education, and income separately
in model). Hence, we have detailed our econometric model as follows:

ROFi  f ( yield i , pricei , risk i , contract i , cooperativesi , codei , subsidesi , certificationi , extensioni ,
acreagei , yearsi , educationi , incomei ,  i )

Hypothesis 1. Where the dependent variable ratio of organic fertilizers to total fertilizers for farmer i is
affected by prospect revenue variables, namely change of apple yield, change of apple price, and
farmer’s risk attitudes due to using organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers. On the one hand, if
the apple grower thinks that use of organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers could increase the
yield of apples or promote the price increase, the farmer would like to choose organic fertilizers.
Otherwise, he would choose chemical fertilizers. Therefore, we assume yield increase and price increase
are positive to farmer’s use of organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers. On the other hand, if the
apple grower uses organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers, the farmer’s judgement on prospect
revenue change of apple relies on his risk preference. We assume that the more risk aversion the farmer
shows, the more likely he is to choose chemical fertilizers or otherwise.

Hypothesis 2. Where the dependent variable ratio of organic fertilizers to total fertilizers for farmer i, is
also affected by sale modes of apple variables, which are denoted by signing sale contract, serving as a
member of an agriculture cooperative, and traceable code. We suppose the sale modes of apple
variables are positive to the apple grower’s choice of organic fertilizers.

Hypothesis 3. Where the dependent variable ratio of organic fertilizers to total fertilizers for farmer i, is
also affected by policy environment variables, which are denoted by subsidies on organic fertilizers,
quality certification of apple production area, and extension guidance of organic fertilizers. We assume
these policy variables are positive to farmer’s choice of organic fertilizers.

Hypothesis 4. Where the dependent variable ratio of organic fertilizer to total fertilizers for farmer i, is
also affected by farmer’s characteristic variables, which are denoted by the acreage of apple orchards,

Page | 7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

years of apple planting, and education. We assume the farmer’s characteristics variables are positive to
farmer’s choice of organic fertilizers.

Table 1. Variable description, dimension, and expected relationship with ROF

Variables Detailed variables (abbreviation) Dimension Expected
relationship

ratio of organic fertilizer to total fertilizers (ROF) 0-1

Yield change (Yield) Ordinal Positive

Prospect revenue Price change (Price) Ordinal Positive

Farmers' risk aversion (Risk) Ordinal Negative

Sale modes Signing sale contract (Contract) 1 = Yes,0 = No Positive

Member of apple cooperatives (Cooperatives) 1 = Yes,0 = No Positive

Traceable code (Code) 1 = Yes,0 = No Positive

Policy 1 = Yes,0 = No
environment Subsidies on organic fertilizers (Subsidies) Positive

Certification of apple production area Ordinal

Positive
(Certification)
Extension of organic fertilizers (Extension) Ordinal Positive
Farmer’s traits Acreage of farm (Acreage) Acre Positive
Years of planting (Years) Year Positive

Farmers' education (Education) Year Positive

Ratio of apple income to family income (Income) 0-1 Positive

According to preceding assumption, the dependent and independent variables to construct the
econometric model are summarized in Table 1.

3. Data Collection

To analyze what drives farmer’s choice of organic fertilizers instead of organic fertilizers, a semi-
structured questionnaire with three sections was designed. The first section is general information of
farmer’s household and farm. The second section relates main information of chemical fertilizers and
organic fertilizers used on farms, how farmers choose between organic fertilizers and chemical
fertilizers, and what factors affect their choice. The third section is an experiment game to measure
farmer’s risk preference according to prospect theory. To ensure that the questionnaire was consistent

Page | 8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

with the actual conditions, we asked for the advice of five professors who research apple production or
agriculture economics and conducted a pre-survey with 15 apple growers to perfect the questionnaire.

After the questionnaire was finalized, we collected multi-stage sampling. In the first stage, primary
sample units were selected according to the following three criteria: (1) apple is the major cash crop in
the local area; (2) different apple planting areas are selected according to different certified apple
growing areas by the Ministry of Agriculture, including non-certified apple growing area, certified
harmless apple growing area, certified green apple growing area, and certified organic apple growing
area. There are approximately 30 counties which meet these requirements. (3) We used systematic
sampling and determined the sample size 15% of 30 counties as the primary sample units according to
the apple growing area of the 30 counties. According to the three selection principles, five counties were
selected: Baota, Ansai, Luochuan, Baishui, and Changwu. In the second stage, number of secondary units
(farmer) in the ith primary unit (county) was determined by simple random sampling.

u v 2
nij  [ ] . Where u represents critical value that corresponds to a 95% confidence level, 
1 A
represents the estimated coefficient of variation, which is no more than 0.4 here and A represents range
of estimated error, which is no more than 10%. We estimated the least number of secondary units
(farmer) in each primary unit sample (county), which reached 62. When we changed the 95% confidence
level to a 99% confidence level, the least number of secondary units (farmer) in each primary unit
sample (county) reached 106.

2 2
1.96  0.4   2.58  0.4 
n   62 , n    106
 0.1   0.1 

The proportion sample of missing data was 10%; therefore, we determined that the number of
secondary units (farmer) in each primary unit sample (county) was 120, and the total sample size
reached 600. In every county, we used systematic sampling and selected three villages per county
according to different certified apple growing areas and surveyed 40 farmers randomly per village. We
investigated a total of 600 farmers. Then, an in-person survey was performed between July 2016 and
October 2016. The survey was carried out by eight trained postgraduates and four trained senior college
students. To make sure the data collected is in accord with the reality, the interviewers were required to
interview the farm labors who are responsible for the use of fertilizers. Based on data collected in five
typical apple planting counties in northwest China, there are 359 interviewees who completed the
questionnaires finally.

4. Results and Discussion

Page | 9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.1. Descriptive statistical analysis

4.1.1. Fertilizer classification and organic fertilizers used

Table 2 shows the classification of fertilizers used. Chemical fertilizers were used by 30.92% of farmers,
while 69.08% of farmers applied organic fertilizers. The average amounts of chemical fertilizers applied
by farmers reached 1,099.05,kg/acre. The chemical fertilizers used are mainly compound fertilizers.
More than half of the farmers who used both chemical fertilizers and organic fertilizers, which account
for 61.56% of farmers. The average amounts of chemical fertilizer and organic fertilizer applied both by
farmers reached 3,139.37 kg/acre. Data show that only 7.52% of farmers used organic fertilizers
thoroughly. The average amounts of organic fertilizer used by farmers reached 2,974.75 kg/acre. The
average amounts of fertilizer, including organic fertilizers and chemical fertilizers, applied by farmers
reached 2,496.14 kg/acre.

Table 2. Classification of fertilizers used by apple growers

Number
Classifications of fertilizers Kg/acre Percentage
of farmers
Chemical fertilizers 1,099.05 111 30.92

Chemical fertilizers, organic fertilizers 3,139.37 221 61.56

Organic fertilizers 2,974.75 27 7.52

Total fertilizers 2,496.14 359 100.00

As shown in Figure 1, the organic fertilizers used by apple growers were sheep manure, organic
fertilizers produced by factory, chicken manure, pig manure, human manure, cattle manure, residue of
oilseed, biogas slurry, and other organic fertilizers. The top two organic fertilizers used by farmers were
sheep manure and organic fertilizer produced by factory, which account for 34.54 and 22.56% of the
farmers, respectively. It should be noted that approximately 20 famers applied unfermented manure in

Page | 10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the orchards.

Note: Some farmers used more than one kind of organic fertilizer
Figure 1. Organic fertilizers used by apple growers
4.1.2. Prospect revenue variables

As shown in Table 3, farmers are asked to judge the effect on the yield if they replace chemical fertilizers
with organic fertilizers. Ninety-one percent of farmers thought it would reduce the yield of their farms,
and these farmers applied less organic fertilizers than that of the farmers who thought it would not
affect the yield of their farms. However, evidence shows that chemical fertilizers could be partially or
completely replaced by manure to maintain high yield (Anwar, M, et al, 2005;Bark, A. K. , et al, 2008;
Abedi, Tayebeh , et al, 2010; Liu, Chang-An, et al, 2013; Ros, Amarilis Beraldo, et al, 2014; Herencia, J. F.,
Maqueda, C.,2016; Li Hui , et al, 2017). Therefore, to increase the use of organic fertilizers used more
popularly, we must show the farmers the yield effect of replacing chemical fertilizers with organic
fertilizers and instruct them in the correct use of organic fertilizers. As far as the prospect price change is
concerned, 66.3% of farmers thought their apple prices would increase if they replace chemical
fertilizers with organic fertilizers, but in fact these farmers did not apply more organic fertilizers because
a traceable

Page | 11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Organic fertilizers used by farmers according to variable group

Variable Number Percentage
Variable group (average, interval) Kg/acre
of farmers
Yield 1. No yields reduce (0, 0-0) 32 8.91 2,991.20
A few yields reduce (2.7, 1-3) 54 15.04 2,231.58
Significant yields reduce (4.5, 4-5) 273 76.04 1,131.84
Price 2. No price rise (0, 0-0) 121 33.70 1,710.38
A few price rise (2.4, 1-3) 146 40.67 1,691.53
Significant price rise (4.2, 4-5) 92 25.63 1,369.45
Risk 3. Farmers' risk preference (-0.25, -0.5-0) 78 21.73 1,471.85
Farmers' risk neutral (0.25, 0-0.5) 59 16.16 1,591.93
Farmers' risk aversion (0.75, 0.5-1) 222 62.11 1,672.01
Contract 4. Signing sale contract (0, 0-0) 121 33.70 2,060.11
Signing sale contract (1, 1-1) 238 62.30 1,389.25
Cooperation 5. Member of apple cooperatives (0, 0-0) 322 89.69 1,535.55
Member of apple cooperatives (1, 1-1) 37 10.31 2,309.92
Code 6. Traceable code (0, 0-0) 359 100.00 1,615.36
Traceable code (1, 1-1) 0 0.00 0.00
Subsidies 8. Subsidies on organic fertilizer (0, 0-0) 311 86.63 1,580.20
Subsidies on organic fertilizer (1, 1-1) 48 13.37 1,843.23
Certification 9. Non-Certification of apple area (0, 0-0) 202 56.27 1,380.69
Certification of harmless apple area (1, 1-1) 101 28.13 1,922.72
Certification of green apple area (2, 2-2) 43 11.98 1,798.74
Certification of organic apple area (3, 3-3) 13 3.62 2,267.36
Extension 10. Extension of fertilizers (1, 1-1) 204 35.38 1,336.76
Extension of fertilizers (0, 0-0) 155 64.62 1,982.04
Acreage 11. The acres of orchards(0.68, 0-1) 87 24.23 2,020.50
The acres of orchards(2.76, 1-13.18) 272 75.77 1,485.78
Planting 12. years of planting (12.38, 0-20) 283 78.83 1,575.10
years of planting (27.38, 21-40) 76 21.17 1,761.24
Education 13. Farmers' education (4.5, 0-9) 208 57.94 1,614.70

Page | 12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Farmers' education (12, 10-15) 151 42.06 1,612.28

Income 14. Ratio of apple income (0.18, 0-0.5) 150 41.78 1,912.92
Ratio of apple income (0.94, 0.5-1) 209 58.22 1,401.80
system of apples of different origins is not implemented in most of the sample area, their apples did not
get higher price in market even if they used organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers.

As for the farmers’ risk preference, we conducted a choice experiment to derive the risk parameter
（（（（ designed by TCN and Wang (Tanaka, Camerer, and Nguyen, 2010; Wang Y., et al, 2015), in
which is included in the related references. Farmers were proposed to face the different prospect
payoffs involving different probabilities from series 1 to series 3. In every series, their choice between
options A and B decided their risk parameters in the formula of prospect theory. According to the
experiment result, we divided the farmers into three groups based on the risk preference parameter  ,
as shown in Table 4. The value of  equal to -0.5 to 0 belong to the risk preference group, which
accounts for 21.73% of sample farmers. Data show that farmers in the risk aversion group (62.11%)
applied a little more organic fertilizer than that of risk neutral and risk preference groups.

4.1.3. Sale mode variables

According to the data in Table 3, 62.3% of sample farmers signed the sale contract with dealers before
they sold their apples, and these farmers applied less organic fertilizers than those of the group who did
not sign the sale contract with the dealers. In the apple sale contract, most of the dealers usually require
the apple size, apple shape, supplying amount, price, and supplying time. The dealers usually do not
require the specified fertilizers and pesticides or the certification of green apples or organic apples in the
contract. Therefore, it is reasonable that the farmers of the group who signed the sale contract did not
apply more organic fertilizers than those of the group who did not sign the sale contract. Although data
show that signing a sale contract or not does not affect the use of organic fertilizers, being a member of
an apple cooperative or not was found to affect the use of organic fertilizers. As shown in Table 3, the
farmers of the group who joined the agriculture cooperatives applied 774.37 kg/acre more organic
fertilizers than that of the group farmers who did not join the agriculture cooperatives. Theoretically
speaking, the traceable code should affect the use of organic fertilizers or chemical fertilizers if the
traceable system of green apples or organic apples is established. Unfortunately, no farmers knew
whether their apples were traceable or not when they sold their apples to the dealers.

4.1.4. Policy environment variables

Page | 13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Since 2015, subsidies on organic fertilizers have been explored in selected counties, which include part
of the sample areas. In 2015subsidies were $136.68/acre for the farmers who used organic fertilizers
produced by fertilizer factories in large-scale orchards of Luochuan County and Baishui County. As
shown in Table 3, 13.37% of sample farmers got subsidies on organic fertilizers. These farmers applied
260.04 kg/acre more than that of the farmers who did not get subsidies on organic fertilizers. We can
see that subsidies on organic fertilizers do affect the use of organic fertilizers. Other than subsidies on
organic fertilizers, the certification of apple planting areas should also affect the use of organic fertilizers.
According to the data in Table 3, the farmers of the group whose apple orchards were certified applied
more organic fertilizers than those of the group whose apple orchards were not certified. Among the
farmers whose orchards were certified, the farmers whose apple orchards were certified organic applied
more organic fertilizers. Lastly, the farmers of the group who got extension service of fertilizers applied
less organic fertilizers than those of the farmers who did not get extension service of fertilizers. The
reason for this is that the extension service of fertilizers on apple orchards in recent years has mainly
focused on chemical fertilizers through soil testing and formula fertilization, integration of water and
chemical fertilizers, or how to apply chemical fertilizer precisely.

4.1.5 Farmer’s traits variables

As shown in Table 3, farmers in the group whose apple orchards were larger applied less organic
fertilizers than those of the farmers whose apple orchards were smaller. The reason may be that the
organic fertilizers require more human labor to apply and cost more time than chemical fertilizers.
Secondly, the farmers in the group who had more apple planting years applied more organic fertilizers
farmers with fewer apple planting years. This means that farmers who grow apples for longer are more
likely to realize the positive effect of organic fertilizers compared to chemical fertilizers. Thirdly, data
show that there is almost no difference in organic fertilizer use between the more educated group and
the less educated group. Lastly, the farmers who received more apple income applied slightly more
organic fertilizers than farmers who received less apple income.

4.2. Econometric estimation

According to the previous model, the dependent variable involves continuous choice data, and the value
of the dependent variable is 0 and above 0 to 1. The tobit model regression is a suitable analysis.
Therefore, we estimated the econometric model by tobit regression. Parameters  were estimated
using Eviews version 8.0.

Table 4 presents the results from the tobit model regression. Comparing Hypothesis 1 with regression
results, the three sub-variables in prospect revenue variables were rejected at the 10% level according
to the Z-statistic test. This means that prospect revenue does not affect farmer’s choice of organic

Page | 14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers significantly. Comparing Hypothesis 2 with regression results,
the sub-variable cooperatives in sale mode variables has been confirmed at the 5% level according to
the Z-statistic test, while the other sub-variable contracts in sale mode variables were rejected at the
10% level according to the Z-statistic test. Comparing Hypothesis 3 with regression results, the sub-
variable subsidies in policy environment variables were confirmed at the 5% level according to Z-statistic
test, while the other two sub-variables in policy environment variables were rejected at the 10% level
according to the Z-statistic test. Comparing Hypothesis 4 with regression results, the sub-variable acre in
farmer’s traits was confirmed at the 5% level according to the Z-statistic test, while the other three sub-
variables in farmer’s traits variables were rejected at the 10% level according to the Z-statistic test. This
means that being a member of an agriculture cooperative, subsidies on organic fertilizers for farmers,
and size of the farm significantly affect choice of organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers, while
the other nine estimated coefficients of variables have an insignificant effect on farmers’ choice of
organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers.
Table 4. Tobit regression of organic fertilizer choice (QML)
Method: ML - Censored Normal (Tobit) (Quadratic hill climbing)
Variable Sub-Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.
C 0.410449 0.156683 2.619606 0.0088
Yield -0.023851 0.020232 -1.178850 0.2385
Prospect revenue Price -0.023261 0.016990 -1.369086 0.1710
Risk -0.148782 0.094036 -1.582186 0.1136
Sale modes Contract 0.013507 0.013743 0.982882 0.3257
Cooperatives** 0.222229 0.092089 2.413204 0.0158
Policy environment Certification 0.051178 0.033418 1.531452 0.1257
Subsidies** 0.181560 0.085865 2.114475 0.0345
Extension 0.078616 0.058064 1.353954 0.1758
Farmer’s traits Acreage** 0.042785 0.018271 2.341665 0.0192
Years -0.003428 0.003669 -0.934321 0.3501
Education -0.000296 0.007982 -0.037037 0.9705
Income -9.60E-07 1.25E-06 -0.769138 0.4418
Note: ** indicates 5% significance level

The positive sign on the cooperative coefficient indicates that farmers who joined the agriculture
cooperatives were more likely to choose organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers. Specifically,
the positive coefficient regarding membership in an apple cooperative (cooperation) of 0.2222 indicates
that the probability of an apple grower choosing organic fertilizers increased if he was a member of the
apple cooperation, in other words, showing that the apple cooperatives organized by farmers does
some work of promoting the use of organic fertilizers. This result implies that we could encourage more
apple growers to join the apple cooperatives to promote the use of organic fertilizers instead of
chemical fertilizers. From this point, the government should develop incentive policies to promote

Page | 15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

farmers to join the agriculture cooperatives and strengthen the function of agriculture cooperation to
extend the use of organic fertilizers.

The positive coefficient of subsidies on organic fertilizers (subsidies) of 0.1816 indicates that the
probability of using organic fertilizers would increase if a farmer received subsidies. Therefore, the
government should explore practical methods of providing subsidies on organic fertilizers for more
farmers. Subsidies on organic fertilizers should not be limited to organic fertilizers produced by fertilizer
factories for large-scale farms. They should be implemented for all kinds of organic fertilizers for all
farms, so that the use organic fertilizers could be expanded. Subsidies on organic fertilizers should be
given in the form of organic fertilizers instead of money for farmers, or subsidies on organic fertilizers
could be given to farmers to make manure or compost for themselves. Because different subsidies on
organic fertilizers for farmers have different costs, policy makers should choose the least cost of
subsidies to promote the use of organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers.

The positive coefficient on acreage of the apple orchards (acre) of 0.0428 indicates that the probability
of an apple grower using organic fertilizers would increase if he owned a larger apple orchard. From this
point, the government should strengthen the policy of land circulation to incentivize farmers to own
bigger farms. Therefore, related larger farm incentive policies should be made to promote the use of the
organic fertilizers. In China, it should be noted that an increasing number of young rural laborers have
migrated to cities in search of work in recent years, while elderly laborers and women laborers are left in
the rural villages to run the farms. Most of the elderly and women laborers left in the village are not
capable of running larger farms. Thus, the policy makers should consider the current rural situation to
develop policies to attract potential farmers who are capable of running larger farms. Otherwise, the
current policy of land circulation may not work to make more farms larger.

5. Conclusion

The use of a tobit regression model based on Kahneman’s prospect theory and Lewin's field theory was
very helpful to explain farmers’ choice of organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers. We found that
prospect revenue did not significantly affect farmer’s choice of organic fertilizers instead of chemical
fertilizers. However, being a member of an agriculture cooperative, subsidies on organic fertilizers, and
acreages of the farms are helpful to significantly promote a farmer’s use of organic fertilizers instead of
chemical fertilizers. Therefore, first, the government should develop incentive policies to promote
farmers to join agriculture cooperatives and strengthen the function of agriculture cooperatives to
extend the use of organic fertilizers. Secondly, the government should explore how to provide practical
subsidies on organic fertilizers for more farmers . Subsidies on organic fertilizers should be provided in
the form of organic fertilizers instead of money for farmers, or subsidies on organic fertilizers could be
given for farmers to make manure or compost themselves. Policy makers should choose the least cost of

Page | 16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

subsidies to promote the use of organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers. Thirdly, the
government should perfect the current policy of rural land circulation to incentivize more farmers to run
larger farms. The policy of attracting potential farmers who are capable of running larger farms must be
made.
5. Acknowledgment

This research was funded by the Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No.16BGL135). The authors
thank our colleague Mr. Lu Qian, Mrs. Zhao Minjuan, Mr. Huo Xuexi for their comments on the paper.
The authors thank graduate students Zhang Ci, Deng Jianfeng, Xu Baoshi, Wang Taiyun, Li Yanfang, He
Yamei, Zhang Huili, and Xingyan and undergraduate students Liang Yingying, Li Jiaojie, Wang Xinhao, and
Kuang Xiaoyu for their data collection at farmers’ homes or on their farms. The authors particularly
appreciate the amending advice of the editor and four anonymous reviewers on the refinement of the
paper.

Reference

Abedi, Tayebeh , et al, 2010. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on grain yield and protein banding
pattern of wheat, Australian Journal of Crop Science, 4: 384-389

Anwar, M, et al, 2005. Effect of organic manures and inorganic fertilizer on growth, herb and oil yield,
nutrient accumulation, and oil quality of French basil, Communications in Soil Science and Plant
Analysis,36: 1737-1746

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50,
179-211.
Amanullah K. E. Z., et al,2010. Residual Effects of Compost and Green Manure of Pea with Other Organic
Wastes on Nutrient-Use Efficiency of Successive Rice after Wheat. Communications in Soil Science and
Plant Analysis, 41:2154–2169

Aimin, H., 2010. Uncertainty, risk aversion and risk management in agriculture. Agriculture and
Agricultural Science Procedia,1: 152–156.

Babcock, B.A., 1992. The effects of uncertainty on optimal nitrogen application. Review of Agricultural
Economics. 14(2):271–280.

Bark, A. K. , et al, 2008. Yield performance, economics and soil fertility through organic sources
(vermicompost) of nitrogen as substitute to chemical fertilizers in wet season rice, Crop Research,36: 4-7

Boli Ni, et al,2011. Environmentally Friendly Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizer. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 59: 10169–10175.

Page | 17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Borges, J.A.R., et al, 2014. Understanding farmers' intention to adopt improved natural grassland using
the theory of planned behavior. Livestock Science. 169: 163-174.
Bowman, M.S., Zilberman, D., 2013. Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology and
Society. 18 (1): 33.

Bronick, C.J., Lal, R., 2005. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma, 124: 3–22.

Carter, C., Zhong, F., Zhu, J., 2012. Advances in Chinese agriculture and its global implications. Applied
Economic Perspectives and Policy. 34:1–36.

Conway, G.R., Barbier, E.B., 2013. After the Green Revolution: Sustainable Agriculture for Development.
Routledge

D., Chadwick, et al, 2015. Improving manure nutrient management towards sustainable intensification in
China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 209: 34–46.

Dick and Gregorich,2004.Developing and Maintaining Soil Organic Matter Levels, in P. Schonning, S.
Elmbolt and B.T. Christensen,(Eds.)(2004),Managing Soil Quality: Challenges in Modern Agriculture, CAB
International, Wallingford, U.K.,103-200.

FAOSTAT, 2014. Statistics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAOSTAT Database. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare, (accessed 26.7.17).

Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Garnet, T., Wilkes, A., 2014. Appetite for Change: Social, Economic and Environmental Transformations
in China's Food System. Food Climate Research Network, Environmental Change Institute – Oxford
Martin School, University of Oxford.

Ge, G., et al, 2010. Soil biological activity and their seasonal variations in response to long-term
application of organic and inorganic fertilizers. Plant Soil. 326:31–44.

Han, H., Zhao, L., 2009. Farmers' character and behavior of fertilizer application evidence from a survey
of Xinxiang County Henan Province, China. Agricultural Sciences in China .8(10): 1238–1245.

Herencia, J. F., Maqueda, C., 2016. Effects of time and dose of organic fertilizers on soil fertility, nutrient
content and yield of vegetables. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 11: 1343-1361

Hu Hao,Yang Yongbing,2015. Research on farmers’ chemical fertilizers use based on resources

substitution. Journal of Agro-technical Economics, 3: 84-91

Page | 18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Jannoura, R., Joergensen, R.G., Bruns, C., 2014. Organic fertilizer effects on growth, crop yield, and soil
microbial biomass indices in sole and intercropped peas and oats under organic farming conditions.
European Journal of Agronomy. Part B, 52: 259–270.

Jaza Folefack, A., 2015. The determinants for the adoption of compost from household waste for crop
production by farmers living nearby Yaounde, Cameroon: descriptive and logit model approaches of
analysis. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences. 9: 308-328.

Ji X H, et al, 2007. Study of dynamics of floodwater nitrogen and regulation of its runoff loss in paddy
field-based on two-cropping rice with urea and controlled release nitrogen fertilizer application.
Agricultural Sciences in China. 6: 189–99

Jian Deng, et al, 2016. Analysis of the ecological conservation behavior of farmers in payment for
ecosystem service programs in eco-environmentally fragile areas using social psychology models.
Science of the Total Environment. 550:382-390
Jian XIE, et al,2010. Chemical fertilizer reduction and soil fertility maintenance in rice–fish coculture
system. Frontiers of Agriculture in China. 4(4): 422–429

Johanna Link ,et al, 2006. Evaluating the economic and environmental impact of environmental
compensation payment policy under uniform and variable-rate nitrogen management. Agricultural
Systems. 91: 135–153

Ju, X., et al, 2009. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese
agricultural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.106 (9): 3041–3046.

Jun Zhao, et al,2016. Effects of organic–inorganic compound fertilizer with reduced chemical fertilizer
application on crop yields, soil biological activity and bacterial community structure in a rice–wheat
cropping system. Applied Soil Ecology. 99:1–12

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A, 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica.
47:263–291.

Kassie, M., et al, 2009. Adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: evidence from a semi-arid region of
Ethiopia. Natural Resources Forum. 33: 189-198.

Khaliq, A., Abbasi, M.K., Hussain, T., 2006. Effects of integrated use of organic and inorganic nutrient
sources with effective microorganisms (EM) on seed cotton yield in Pakistan. Bioresource Technology.
97: 967–972.

K.L. Blackstock, et al,2010. Understanding and influencing behavior change by farmers to improve water
quality. Science of the Total Environment. 408:5631–5638

Page | 19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lewin, K. 1943. Defining the “Field at a given time”. Psychological Review. 50(3): 292-310.
Li, Y., et al, 2013. An analysis of China's fertilizer policies: impacts on the industry food security, and the
environment. Journal of Environmental Quality. 42: 972-981.

Li Hui, et al, 2017. Chemical fertilizers could be completely replaced by manure to maintain high maize
yield and soil organic carbon (SOC) when SOC reaches a threshold in the Northeast China Plain. Journal
of Integrative Agriculture. 16(4): 937–946
Lim S.L., Lee L.H., Wu T.Y., 2016. Sustainability of using composting and vermicomposting technologies
for organic solid waste biotransformation: recent overview, greenhouse gases emissions and economic
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 111: 262-278.

Liu, Chang-An, et al, 2013. Effect of organic manure and fertilizer on soil water and crop yields in newly-
built terraces with loess soils in a semi-arid environment, Agriculture water management, 117:123-132

Liu, X. J. et al,2013. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature. 494: 459-462

Luan, Hao, Qiu, Huanguang,2013. Fertilizer Overuse in China and its Relationship with
Farmer's Risk Preference. 4th International Conference on Environmental Science and Information
Application Technology. Advances in Biomedical Engineering. 14:107-112.

Luo, L., Wang, Y., Qin, L., 2014. Incentives for promoting agricultural clean production technologies in
China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 74: 54-61.

Maggio A, et al.,2008. Potato yield and metabolic profiling under conventional and organic farming.
European Journal of Agronomy.28: 343-350.

Mark Brady,2003. The relative cost-efficiency of arable nitrogen management in Sweden. Ecological
Economics. 47: 53–70

Masto, R.E., et al, 2006. Changes in soil biological and biochemical characteristics in a long-term field
trial on a sub-tropical inceptisol. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 38: 1577–1582.

MEP, 2010. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Bulletin of National Environmental Statistics 2009.
MEP, Beijing

MOA, 2007. Ministry of Agriculture. National Rural biogas construction plan (2006-2010). Beijing, China.

Morris, C., Potter, C., 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers' adoption of agri-
environmental schemes in the U.K. Journal of Rural Studies. 11(1): 51–63.

Muuss, R. E. 1988. Theories of adolescence. New York: Crown Publishing Group/Random House.

Page | 20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mustafa-Msukwa, A.K., Mutimba, J.K., Masangano, C., Edriss, A.K., 2011. An assessment of the adoption
of compost manure by smallholder farmers in Balaka District, Malawi. South African Journal of
Agricultural Extension. 39: 17-25.

Nadia Adnan, et al, 2017. Adoption of green fertilizer technology among paddy farmers: A possible
solution for Malaysian food security. Land Use Policy. 63: 38-52

National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2013-2016. China Statistical Yearbook of 2013-2016.China

Statistics Press, Beijing.

Nielsen, E. and L. Lee,1987. The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural
Chemicals: A National Perspective. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, ECRS,
AER- 576, October 1987.

Ning Chuanchuan,et al, 2017. Impacts of chemical fertilizer reduction and organic amendments
supplementation on soil nutrient, enzyme activity and heavy metal content. Journal of Integrative
Agriculture. 16(8): 1819–1831
Norman Uphoff, Frank B. Dazzo,2016. Making Rice Production More Environmentally-Friendly.
Environments. 3(12):1-7

Norse, D., 2005. Non-point pollution from crop production: global, regional and national issues.
Pedosphere. 15 (4): 1–10.

Pingali, P.L., 2012. Green Revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. 109 (31): 12302-12308.

Poppenborg, P., Koellner, T., 2013. Do attitudes toward ecosystem services determine agricultural
land use practices? An analysis of farmers' decision-making in a South Korean watershed. Land Use
Policy. 31: 422-429.
Rahn, C.R., 2010. Environmental Challenges of Greenhouse Vegetable Production in China. In: Cai, X.,
Xue, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of First International Seminar of Chinese Agriculture-Saint Culture, China
Agricultural Science and Technology Press, pp. 22–32.

Reimer, A.P., Thompson, A.W., Prokopy, L.S., 2012. The multi-dimensional nature of environmental
attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption. Agriculture and Human
Values.29 (1): 29–40.

Ros, Amarilis Beraldo, et al, 2014. Sweet potato yield and physical and chemical properties of soil in
function of organic and mineral fertilizers. Semina-ciencias agrarias. 1:205-214

Page | 21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Rutunga et al, 2006. Yield trends in the long-term crop rotation with organic and inorganic fertilisers on
Alisols in Mata (Rwanda), Biotechnology Agronomy Society & Environment. 10:217-228

Smith, L. E. D. & Siciliano, G. 2015. A comprehensive review of constraints to improved management of

fertilizers in China and mitigation of diffuse water pollution from agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment. 209: 15–25.

Smith, R.G., Menalled, F.D., Robertson, G.P., 2007. Temporal yield variability under conventional and
alternative management systems. Agronomy Journal. 1629–1634.

Sierra, J., et al, 2015. Observed and predicted changes in soil carbon stocks under export and diversified
agriculture in the Caribbean. The case study of Guadeloupe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.
213: 252-264.

SriRamaratnam S., et al, 1987. Fertilization under uncertainty: an analysis based on producer yield
expectations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 69(2): 349–357.

Stuart, D., Schewe, R.L., McDermott, M., 2014. Reducing nitrogen fertilizer application as a climate
change mitigation strategy: understanding farmer decision-making potential barriers to change in the
US. Land Use Policy. 36:210–218.

Sun, B., et al, 2012. Agricultural non-point source pollution in China: causes, mitigation measures. Ambio.
41: 370–379.

Sun, W., Huang, Y., 2012. Synthetic fertilizer management for China's cereal crops has reduced N2O
emissions since the early 2000. Environmental pollution. 160: 24–27.

Supaporn, P., Kobayashi, T., Supawadee, C., 2013. Factors affecting farmers' decisions on utilization of
rice straw compost in Northeastern Thailand. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the
Tropics and Subtropics. 114: 21-27

Szumigalski A R, Van Acker R C,2006. Nitrogen Yield and land use efficiency in annual sole crops and
intercrops. Agronomy Journal. 98(4):1030–1040

Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q., 2010. Risk and time preferences: linking experimental and
household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review. 100(1): 557-571.

Tilman, D., et al, 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science. 292: 281–
284.

Tilman, D., et al,2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature. 418: 671–
677

Page | 22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Truelove, H.B., Carrico, A.R., Thabrew, L., 2015. A socio-psychological model for analyzing climate
change adaptation: A case study of Sri Lankan paddy farmers. Globle Environment Change. 31: 85-97.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D, 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representations of
uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5: 297-323.

Wang Shanshan, Zhang Guangsheng,2013. The Impact of Off-Farm Employment on the Agricultural

Carbon Emission Behavior of Farmers. Resources Science. 9:1855-1862

Wauters, E., et al, 2010. Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: an examination of the
theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy. 27(1): 86-94.

Wauters, E., Mathijs, E., 2012. An investigation into the socio-psychological determinants of farmers'
conservation decisions: method and implications for policy, extension and research. J. Agriculture
Education Extension. 19: 53-72.
Wei-feng Zhang,et al,2013. New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous
fertilizer in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110(21): 8375-8380

Wen-Yuan Huang and Noel D. Uri.1992. An assessment of alternative agricultural policies to reduce
nitrogen fertilizer use. Ecological Economics. 5: 213-234

Wen-yuan Huang and Rhona, 1993. A Comparison of Farmers' Compliance Costs to Reduce Excess
Nitrogen Fertilizer Use under Alternative Policy Options. Review of Agricultural Economics, 15(1), 51-62

Wipawee K., Wipada S. and Sompop S.,2006. Study of Environmental Impacts before and after using the
Organic-Chemical Fertilizer in Rice Paddy Fields. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology. 3(1): 51-68

Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL,2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource
management. Washington DC: Island Press.
Yazdanpanah M., et al, 2014. Understanding farmers' intention and behavior regarding water
conservation in the Middle-East and North Africa: a case study in Iran. J. Environment Management. 135:
63-72.
Yang, X., et al, 2012. Over-fertilization in the economically developed and ecologically critical Lake Tai
region China. Human Ecology. 40: 957–964.

Yinghua Duan,et al,2016. Long-term incorporation of manure with chemical fertilizers reduced total
nitrogen loss in rain-fed cropping systems. Scientific Reports, 6:33611
Yongqiang Wang, Yuchun Zhu, 2012. Pesticide Use Behaviour of Apple Growers and How to Control It,
Germany: Golden Light Academic Publishing
Wang Y., et al, 2015. Why some restricted pesticides are still chosen by some farmers in China?
Empirical evidence from a survey of vegetable and apple growers. Food Control . 51: 417-424

Page | 23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Zsófia Mózner, Andrea Tabi, Mária Csutora,2012. Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use
of fertilizer-The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices. Ecological
Indicators. 16: 58–66.

Page | 24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights (for review)

Membership in agriculture cooperatives plays an important positive role on farmer's use of organic
fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers;

Subsides on organic fertilizers play a minor positive role on farmer's use of organic fertilizers instead of
chemical fertilizers;

Enlarging the acreage of the farm plays a minor positive role on farmer's use of organic fertilizers instead
of chemical fertilizers.