agriculture

Article
A Study of the Income Effect of Continuous Adoption of
Rice–Crayfish Co-Culture Technology: Based on the Moderating
Effect of Non-Farm Employment
Zhuoya Tian 1,2 , Xicong Wang 1,2 , Zekui Lei 3, *, Zhenhong Qi 1,2 and Zhe Liu 1,2

1 College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China;
xicongwang0705@[Link] (X.W.); qizhh@[Link] (Z.Q.); lz255699@[Link] (Z.L.)
2 Hubei Rural Development Research Center, Wuhan 430070, China
3 School of Economic Management and Law, Hubei Noraml University, Huangshi 435000, China
* Correspondence: lzk1413690333@[Link]

Abstract: The income effect of rice–crayfish co-culture technology (RCT) is directly related to rate
of adoption of farmers and the process of China’s green development of agriculture. The aim of
this study is to explore the income effect and income growth mechanism of rice–crayfish co-culture
technology from the perspective of continuous adoption. With the treatment effect model (TEM), this
paper empirically analyzes the income effect and income-generating mechanisms of RCT using field
survey data from 736 farmers in the Jianghan Plain. As a result of this study, it was discovered that
RCT will increase farmers’ net agricultural income by RMB 83,430 if they continue to adopt it. Further
examinations indicate that the optimal adoption period for RCT is four and a half years. Additionally,
it has also been shown that non-farm employment positively moderates the relationship between
continuous adoption of RCT and net agricultural income. Farmers who participate in non-farm
employment and continue to adopt the RCT will experience an increase in net agricultural income by
RMB 104,510. Therefore, our results suggest that it is necessary to encourage farmers to continuously
adopt RCT and actively participate in non-farm employment to enhance the income effect of RCT.

Keywords: continuous adoption; non-farm employment; income effect; rice–crayfish co-culture technology

Citation: Tian, Z.; Wang, X.; Lei, Z.;

Qi, Z.; Liu, Z. A Study of the Income
Effect of Continuous Adoption of 1. Introduction
Rice–Crayfish Co-Culture Technology: Since the 1970s, farmers have increased the amount of pesticides and chemical fer-
Based on the Moderating Effect of
tilizers they use under the traditional extensive agricultural production mode to boost
Non-Farm Employment. Agriculture
production and income. This has caused severe negative externalities to the environ-
2024, 14, 1224. [Link]
ment [1,2]. For the Chinese government, there is an urgent need to promote the green
10.3390/agriculture14081224
development of agriculture. Over the past three years (2015–2017), the No. 1 Central
Received: 22 May 2024 Document has made critical arrangements, emphasizing the vigorous promotion of paddy
Revised: 22 July 2024 field co-culture as part of ecological circular agriculture. In 2021, the General Office of
Accepted: 23 July 2024 Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the General Office of Finance issued a circular on the pilot
Published: 25 July 2024 work of green farming and recycling agriculture. This initiative advocates green farming
and recycled agriculture to address China’s challenges in achieving green development
of agriculture. It was within this context that rice–crayfish co-culture technology (RCT)
was developed.
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
As a typical ecological co-culture technology, RCT represents an innovative solution
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
for the green development of Chinese agriculture. RCT fully leverages the principle of
This article is an open access article
ecological coupling symbiosis. Microorganisms in the rice paddies bait crayfish, whose ex-
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
crement then fertilizes the rice plants. This process not only reduces the need for pesticides
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
and fertilizer application but also achieves “double harvest in one field and dual use of one
[Link]/licenses/by/ water”, thereby effectively improving farmland utilization efficiency [3]. The Ministry of
4.0/). Agriculture and Rural Affairs has praised RCT as a “successful model and revolution in

Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224. [Link] [Link]

Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 2 of 15

modern agriculture”, making it a significant starting point for promoting China’s green
transformation of agriculture.
Farmers form the backbone of the RCT. The adoption of RCT by farmers is directly
linked to the sustainable green development capability of Chinese agriculture. However,
farmers are rational economic beings, and their decision to adopt RCT is closely tied to
the relationship between adoption and income. Therefore, assessing whether RCT can
effectively address China’s green development challenges in agriculture is urgently needed
from an income effect perspective.
Scholars have paid limited attention to the income effect of continuous technology
adoption among farmers. However, much attention has always been paid to the income
effect of farmers’ technology adoption. To date, the income effect of technology adoption
remains a traditional yet contentious issue in agricultural economics. The existing studies
are divided on whether adopting agricultural technology ensures increased income for
farmers. One perspective asserts that the adoption of agricultural technology significantly
boosts farmers’ income. For instance, Yang and Lin found that the adoption of agricultural
technology had a notably positive impact on income, simultaneously enhancing crop and
wage earnings [4]. Similarly, Sang et al. observed that agricultural technology adoption
directly increases agricultural income and indirectly promotes non-agricultural income
through labor transfer [5]. Furthermore, several scholars have shown that certain agricul-
tural technologies—such as fertilizer reduction, green pest management, and conservation
tillage—provide both environmental benefits and income enhancement for farmers. For
example, the use of organic fertilizer and green pest management effectively increases
the income of tea farmers [6,7]. No-tillage techniques also contribute to higher income by
increasing crop yield, with noticeable generational and scale-specific effects [8,9]. Likewise,
water-efficient irrigation techniques reduce time and labor, improve crop quality, and ulti-
mately raise farmers’ income [10]. Conversely, another viewpoint argues that the adoption
of agricultural technology has not sufficiently increased farmers’ income. German agri-
cultural economist Koester analyzed the potential impacts of technological advancements
in agriculture and posited that such advancements, within closed economic conditions,
could negatively affect agricultural producers [11]. Advances in agricultural technology
can increase agricultural output and result in lower prices. Some Chinese scholars have
reached a similar conclusion, arguing that although the adoption of agricultural technology
significantly improves production, marginal output has increased faster than demand,
and the price elasticity of demand for agricultural products is smaller than the supply
elasticity [12,13]. Consequently, an increase in quantity leads to a decrease in income due to
a drop in price, resulting in the phenomenon of “increasing production but not increasing
income”. According to Dong and Mitchell, some agricultural technologies may require
higher input than output, making it difficult for farmers to increase their income after
adoption [14].
The main reason for these different opinions may be twofold. First, the classification
of technology adoption behavior is unclear, ignoring the dynamic nature of farmers’ tech-
nology adoption behavior. Most studies treat farmers’ technology adoption as static and
one-time [15,16]. However, the uncertainty in agricultural production, the diversity of
technology adoption, and the intertemporal attributes of agricultural technology suggest
that farmers’ technology adoption behavior is multi-staged [17,18]. Therefore, examining
the income effect of agricultural technology from a phased or short-term perspective is of
limited significance. RCT has an intertemporal property, characterized by the temporal in-
consistency between technology adoption and income growth [19]. The initial or short-term
adoption of RCT may hinder the realization of technological benefits. The income effect
of this technique can only be thoroughly and accurately evaluated as farmers consistently
embrace RCT over time.
Second, it overlooks the multiple attributes of agricultural technology, failing to explore
its income effect in conjunction with non-farm employment. Aside from its technology- and
capital-intensive properties, RCT also exhibits labor-intensive characteristics. Currently,
 ogy- and capital-intensive properties, RCT also exhibits labor-intensive characteristics.
Currently, however, China’s trend toward non-farm employment is evident. To examine
the income effect of RCT, it is essential to consider non-farm employment. Non-farm em-
ployment can diversify farmers’ income streams and enhance their capacity to adopt new
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224
technology, thereby improving their technology adoption income [20,21]. 3Farmers of 15
en-
gaged in non-farm employment have a broader perspective and greater access to infor-
mation, ensuring the efficiency of agricultural technology output and increasing the in-
however, China’s trend toward non-farm employment is evident. To examine the income
come from
effect of RCT,technology
it is essentialadoption [22].
to consider RCT isemployment.
non-farm classified asNon-farm
a labor-intensive
employment technology.
can A
significant number of farmers involved in non-farm employment could
diversify farmers’ income streams and enhance their capacity to adopt new technology, lead to a labor
shortage and a decline
thereby improving in labor adoption
their technology quality [23]. Consequently,
income [20,21]. FarmersRCT may in
engaged lose its efficiency,
non-farm
negatively
employment impacting farmers’
have a broader [Link] greater access to information, ensuring the
perspective
Hence,
efficiency from the perspective
of agricultural technology of continuous
output adoption,
and increasing this study
the income fromincludes
technology non-farm
employment
adoption [22].as RCTa moderator
is classifiedvariable to provide theoretical
as a labor-intensive technology. and empiricalnumber
A significant insights of into the
farmers involved in non-farm employment could lead to a labor shortage and a decline
income effect of RCT.
in labor quality [23]. Consequently, RCT may lose its efficiency, negatively impacting
The remaining sections of this paper are structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the
farmers’ income.
theoretical
Hence, analysis. Section 3 details
from the perspective the data
of continuous sources,this
adoption, thestudy
econometric model, and de-
includes non-farm
scriptive
employment statistics. Sectionvariable
as a moderator 4 reports the estimation
to provide results.
theoretical Sectioninsights
and empirical 5 features the results
into the
and theeffect
income policyof implications.
RCT.
The remaining sections of this paper are structured as follows. Section 2 outlines
2.
theTheoretical Framework
theoretical analysis. Section 3 details the data sources, the econometric model, and
descriptive statistics. Section 4 reports the estimation results. Section 5 features the results
2.1. RCT and Income for Farmers
and the policy implications.
According to the theory of endogenous economic growth, technological progress is
[Link] of income
Theoretical growth for farmers and economic development in agriculture. Indeed,
Framework
technological advances
2.1. RCT and Income for in agriculture involve the widespread application of advanced
Farmers
technologies,
Accordingaiming to improve
to the theory input and
of endogenous output
economic efficiency.
growth, Advanced
technological technology
progress is a re-
quires higher yields with fewer inputs. Specifically, RCT is characterized by increased
source of income growth for farmers and economic development in agriculture. Indeed,
technologicalreduced
production, advancescosts,
in agriculture involveefficiency.
and improved the widespread
On the application
one hand,ofRCT advanced
can enhance
technologies, aiming to improve input and output efficiency. Advanced technology requires
rice yield. By maintaining a stable rice spike number and 1000-grain weight, RCT can in-
higher yields with fewer inputs. Specifically, RCT is characterized by increased production,
crease
reducedrice yield
costs, andby approximately
improved efficiency.15%
On compared
the one hand,to RCT
rice monoculture
can enhance rice [24]. OnBy
yield. the other
hand, RCT can
maintaining reduce
a stable ricethe use number
spike of fertilizers and pesticides
and 1000-grain weight,through
RCT can reusing
increasericerice
and cray-
fish
yield by approximately 15% compared to rice monoculture [24]. On the other hand, ferti-
resources [25]. Moreover, RCT is considered naturally green. It utilizes organic
lizer
RCT instead
can reduceof chemical
the use ofones, and crayfish
fertilizers increase
and pesticides the nitrogen
through reusing content
rice andof paddy fields,
crayfish
thus improving
resources rice quality
[25]. Moreover, RCT[26].
is considered naturally green. It utilizes organic fertilizer
Asof
instead such, the application
chemical of RCT
ones, and crayfish is essentially
increase an advance
the nitrogen content of inpaddy
agricultural technology
fields, thus
improving rice quality [26].
with the potential to increase income
As such, the application of RCT is essentially an advance in agricultural technology
with the potential to increase income
2.2. Continuous Adoption of RCT and Income of Farmers
The continuous
2.2. Continuous adoption
Adoption of Income
of RCT and RCT isofbased on all adopted farmers, as opposed to non-
Farmers
continuous adoption.
The continuous Continuous
adoption of RCTadoption
is based highlights
on all adoptedthatfarmers,
farmersashave been to
opposed adopting
RCT continuously for several years. Noncontinuous adoption encompasses both initial
noncontinuous adoption. Continuous adoption highlights that farmers have been adopting
and
RCTinterrupted
continuouslyadoption [27].
for several Figure
years. 1 illustratesadoption
Noncontinuous the relationship between
encompasses the different
both initial
and interrupted adoption
adoption behaviors. [27]. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the different
adoption behaviors.

Figure 1. The relationship between several adoption behaviors.

In general, farmers who continuously adopt RCT are more likely to increase their
income compared to those who do not. Firstly, these farmers experience a longer adoption
period and cycle. RCT has an intertemporal property, meaning its benefits are not imme-
diate [19]. The adoption of RCT requires a substantial initial investment in the first year,
 Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 4 of 15

but benefits can only be realized over time. This initial investment comprises three main
components [28]. The first component involves pre-production costs, including rice field
conversion, infrastructure construction, crayfish seedling purchase, and technical training.
The second component covers production costs, such as labor, machinery, pesticides, and
fertilizers. The third component pertains to post-production transaction costs. If farmers
adopt RCT for a short period, the economic benefits may not be sufficient to cover these
investments. In this regard, farmers without continuous adoption of RCT find it hard
to increase their income. In contrast, those who continuously adopt RCT can gradually
realize technological benefits, potentially deducting and distributing the initial investment
over time.
Secondly, due to the “learning by doing” effect, farmers with continuous adoption
may accumulate more technical experience [29]. Additionally, the continuous adoption
improves their management skills. Consequently, RCT becomes more effective, enabling
these farmers to earn higher incomes. During pre-production, farmers who continue to
adopt RCT can accurately predict input production factors for rational RCT layout based
on their extensive technical experience. In mid-production, these farmers can leverage
their technical expertise to manage key elements such as water, pesticide, and fertilizer
applications, effectively addressing sudden diseases or disasters affecting crayfish or rice.
In post-production, enhanced management capabilities make continuous adopters more
sensitive to market prices. This sensitivity increases their likelihood of establishing stable
sales channels and securing fixed buyers, which helps realize the economic value of rice
and crayfish.

2.3. Continuous Adoption of RCT, Non-Farm Employment and Income of Farmers

Non-farm employment is extremely common among Chinese farmers. However, RCT
is labor-intensive, and farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT increases the demand for
labor. Non-farm employment moderates the income effect of RCT by influencing labor
information acquisition, quantity, quality, and income. Specifically, non-farm employment
Agriculture 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW moderates the income effect of RCT through “information acquisition effect”, “labor 5loss
of 15
effect”, and “income effect”. The relationship between continuous adoption of RCT, non-
farm employment, and the income of farmers is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Diagram of the theoretical analysis framework.

Figure 2. Diagram of the theoretical analysis framework.
Through the “information acquisition effect”, farmers improve the ability to acquire
information, with enhanced access channels developed during the migration from rural
3. Materials and Methods
areas to cities [21]. Better information access enables farmers to assimilate experiences
3.1. Materials
related to RCT [30]. In addition, broad access to information helps farmers better un-
3.1.1. Study Area
derstand andstructure
market Data Collection
and demand for agricultural products, facilitating continuous
technological benefits.
The data
The were
“laborobtained from
loss effect” a survey
occurs of farmers
as agricultural in 2021.
labor shifts These data mainly
from farms reflect
to non-farm
the general agricultural production situation of farmers in 2020. The study area
sectors, resulting in reduced availability and quality of agricultural production labor. On covers
nine counties in thecrayfish
the one hand, Jianghan Plain,
culture andincluding Shashi
fishing are County, Jiangling
less mechanized, County,
requiring frequentGongan
and
County, Jianli County,
scattered labor. AsShishou
more laborCity, Honghu
shifts County,
to non-farm Xiantao
sectors, County,
the labor Qianjiang
constraint County,
on farmers’
and Tianmen
continuousCounty. Weof
adoption selected these regions
RCT increases. On thebased on thenon-farm
other hand, following three factors.
employment One
forces
is the geographical environment. The Jianghan Plain has a subtropical monsoon climate,
flat terrain, fertile soil, and a dense network of rivers. Known as “land of fish and rice”,
this area is suitable for the promotion and development of RCT. The level of agricultural
development is the second factor. Agricultural production in the Jianghan Plain is highly
intensive. It is one of China’s commercial grain bases. The total grain production in the
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 5 of 15

the left-behind women and the elderly to become the main labor for RCT. However, their
limited labor capacity and low efficiency can adversely affect the income effect of RCT.
The “income effect” primarily manifests as farmers engaged in non-farm employment
receive economic rewards. This additional income is beneficial for increasing agricultural
investment, improving technical efficiency, and enhancing the income effect of RCT.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Materials
3.1.1. Study Area and Data Collection
The data were obtained from a survey of farmers in 2021. These data mainly reflect
the general agricultural production situation of farmers in 2020. The study area covers
nine counties in the Jianghan Plain, including Shashi County, Jiangling County, Gongan
County, Jianli County, Shishou City, Honghu County, Xiantao County, Qianjiang County,
and Tianmen County. We selected these regions based on the following three factors.
One is the geographical environment. The Jianghan Plain has a subtropical monsoon
climate, flat terrain, fertile soil, and a dense network of rivers. Known as “land of fish
and rice”, this area is suitable for the promotion and development of RCT. The level of
agricultural development is the second factor. Agricultural production in the Jianghan
Plain is highly intensive. It is one of China’s commercial grain bases. The total grain
production in the Jianghan Plain accounts for 5% to 12% of the country’s total. The third
key factor is this study’s purpose. In line with the study objectives, the survey focused
on the continuous adoption behavior, production factors, agricultural income, individual
characteristics, family characteristics, etc.
For data collection, stratified random sampling was used with a fixed sample size.
The data collection process was carried out in several stages. In the first stage, 4 towns
were selected from each of the 9 counties. Each county recommended a typical town to the
survey team. As a reference, the survey team selected three other towns based on their
geographical location (east, south, west, and west). Next, 2 villages were randomly selected
in each town. This was followed by the random selection of 7 rice monoculture households
and 7 rice–crayfish co-culture households in each village. In total, 36 towns, 72 villages, and
1008 households were surveyed. Among the 1008 samples, 743 belonged to rice–crayfish
co-culture households, which is the main research focus of this study. After filtering out
inadequate information and conflicting responses, 736 valid questionnaires were collected,
resulting in an effective questionnaire rate of 99.06%.

3.1.2. Variable Measurement

Outcome variable: net agricultural income. The adoption of agricultural technology
has the most visible and immediate impact on farmers’ agricultural income. Net agricultural
income reflects both the input and output of technology adoption, making it an essential
metric for characterizing the income effect. This study focuses on the income effect of the
continuous adoption of RCT. The net agricultural income in this study specifically refers to
the net income of “rice + crayfish”. It is mainly calculated from the sales income minus the
production cost of rice and crayfish.
Treatment variable: continuous adoption of RCT. Farmers’ decision to adopt RCT
involves two stages. The first stage is to decide whether to adopt RCT or not. The second
stage is for the adopted farmers to further decide whether to continue with the technology.
So, continuous adoption is aimed at farmers who have already adopted the RCT. This
behavior underlines the uninterrupted adoption of RCT by farmers over many years. With
this in mind, farmers were asked “By 2020, have you continuously adopted RCT for more
than three years?” The responses were binary, with 1 being for continuous adopters and 0
for noncontinuous adopters.
Moderator variable: non-farm employment. Non-farm employment is the movement
of rural labor into non-farm sector employment. Whether or not to engage in non-farm
employment is a household decision. In reality, farmers allocate labor resources not only
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 6 of 15

limited by their own endowment, but also those of their family members. In general, the
agricultural labor capacity of women and the elderly is limited. So the participation of
young and middle-aged labor in non-farm employment significantly impacts the agri-
cultural production [31]. In this study, farmers were asked “Is there at least one adult
male labor involved in non-farm employment in your family?” Therefore, the non-farm
employment situation of peasant households can be measured.
Control variables: This paper controls for other variables that may affect net agricul-
tural income, including individual characteristics, management characteristics, technologi-
cal cognition, government policies, etc. Among these, individual characteristics include
age, education; management characteristics relating to land scale, land block, cooperative
involvement; technological cognition covers both difficulty and market cognition; and
government policies involve government propaganda and government regulation.
Instrumental variable: perceived usefulness. To ensure the identifiability of the model,
at least one valid instrumental variable is required for the selection equation. This instru-
mental variable will affect farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT, but does not directly
influence net agricultural income. After analyzing several variables, this paper takes “per-
ceived usefulness” as an instrumental variable. Thong et al. showed that the level of
perceived usefulness can directly affect the continuous adoption behavior of a product,
service, or technology by farmers, but it does not directly influence the actual income of
farmers after technology adoption [32]. The descriptive statistical results of all variables
are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Standard
Variables Variable Definition and Assignment Unit Mean
Deviation
Net agricultural income = Crayfish and rice sales
Net agricultural income RMB 10,000 4.718 6.811
income—Crayfish and rice production costs
Continuous adoption By 2020, have you continuously adopted RCT for more
- 0.596 0.491
of RCT than three years? 1 = yes; 0 = no
Is there at least one adult male laborer involved in
Non-farm employment - 0.732 0.443
non-farm employment in your family? 1 = yes; 0 = no
Age Age of the head of household years 54.950 8.816
The number of years of education of the head of
Education years 8.086 3.290
household
land scale Area adopted for RCT hm2 29.180 36.738
Land block The number of land blocks blocks 3.101 3.267
Cooperative
Are you a member of a cooperative? 1 = yes; 0 = no - 0.226 0.418
involvement
Difficulty cognition Do you think RCT is difficult to run? 1 = yes; 0 = no - 3.101 1.068
Do you think the price of crayfish fluctuates greatly?
Market cognition - 4.117 0.654
1 = yes; 0 = no
Do you think the government’s green propaganda has an
Government
impact on agricultural production? 1 = Strongly disagree; - 3.188 0.920
propaganda
2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = Strongly agree
Do you think that government policies on environmental
protection have an impact on agricultural production?
Government regulation - 3.249 0.897
1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral;
4 = agree; 5 = Strongly agree
Do you think the adoption of RCT is good for the
Perceived usefulness. - 0.644 0.479
farmland environment? 1 = yes; 0 = no

In addition, based on the references to previous studies [33], in this paper, the dis-
tribution of net agricultural income of continuous adopters and noncontinuous adopters
is compared. Figure 3 reflects the cumulative distribution function of net agricultural
income for farmers who are continuous adopters and noncontinuous adopters. It shows
that farmers who continuously adopt RCT have higher net agricultural income than those
 In addition, based on the references to previous studies [33], in this paper, the distri-
bution of net agricultural income of continuous adopters and noncontinuous adopters is
compared. Figure 3 reflects the cumulative distribution function of net agricultural in-
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 come for farmers who are continuous adopters and noncontinuous adopters. It7 of shows
15 that
farmers who continuously adopt RCT have higher net agricultural income than those who
do not. In the following section, we empirically analyze and test the income effect and the
who do not. In the following section, we empirically analyze and test the income effect and
income growth mechanism resulting from the continuous adoption of RCT.
the income growth mechanism resulting from the continuous adoption of RCT.

Figure 3. The cumulative distribution function of net agricultural income.

Figure 3. The cumulative distribution function of net agricultural income.
3.2. Econometric Methods
3.2. Econometric
3.2.1. Decision onMethods
Farmers’ Continuous Adoption of RCT
[Link]
is a truly on Farmers’
complex Continuous
process for farmersAdoption of RCTor not to continue with RCT.
to decide whether
Several factors affect the decision. Generally, farmers’ continuous adoption decision could
It is a truly complex process for farmers to decide whether or not to continue with
be divided into two categories: (i) Ai = 1—continuous adoption; (ii) Ai = 0—noncontinuous
RCT. Several
adoption. factors
In this affect
paper, thethe decision.
utility Generally,
is assumed to be U farmers’ continuous adoption decision
1i for farmers who continuously
could
adopt be
RCT,divided
and U0iinto two who
for those categories: (ⅰ) 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = to
do not. According 1—continuous adoption;
the random decision effect(ⅱ) 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = 0—
model,
noncontinuous adoption. In this paper, the utility is assumed
farmers only make continuous adoption decisions when the utility of continuous to be 𝑈𝑈 for farmers
1𝑖𝑖 adoption who
continuously
outweighs thatadopt RCT, and 𝑈𝑈0𝑖𝑖
of noncontinuous for those
adoption who
[34]. do not.
In other According
words, farmersto thecontinue
will randomtodecision
effect
adoptmodel,
RCT if andfarmers only
only if make
Ai∗ = U1i −continuous
U0i ≥ 0. Inadoption
reality, thedecisions when for
potential utility thefarmers
utility of con-
tinuous adoption outweighs that of noncontinuous adoption [34]. In other words, farmers
without continuous adoption is unobservable. Therefore, the following latent variable
model
will is used to
continue in adopt
this paper
RCTtoifexamine
and only 𝐴𝐴∗ = 𝑈𝑈of −
theifdecision
𝑖𝑖 1𝑖𝑖
farmers
𝑈𝑈 ≥ on
0𝑖𝑖
continuous
0. In adoption:
reality, the potential utility
for farmers without continuous adoption is unobservable.

1, i f Di∗ > 0 Therefore, the following latent
∗
variable model is used in this paper to examine
A i = Zi β + µ i , A i =
0, i f the decision
Di∗ ≤ 0 of farmers on continuous
(1)
adoption:
In Equation (1), Ai∗ is a latent variable. If farmers continue to adopt RCT, Ai = 1.
∗ the vector of individual 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖∗ > 0
1, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖characteristics,
Otherwise, Ai = 0. Zi denotes 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖 𝛽𝛽 + 𝜇𝜇𝑖𝑖 , 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = � ∗
management (1)
characteristics, technological cognition, government policies, 0, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖and≤ 0others that influence
farmers’ continuous
In Equation (1),adoption
𝐴𝐴∗𝑖𝑖 is abehavior; β is the parameter
latent variable. If farmerstocontinue
be estimated; and µRCT,
to adopt i is the𝐴𝐴 = 1.
𝑖𝑖
error term, which represents the unobservable factors, such as innate ability endowment.
Otherwise, 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = 0 . 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖 denotes the vector of individual characteristics, management
characteristics, technological cognition, government policies, and others that influence
3.2.2. Selection Bias
farmers’
This study aims toadoption
continuous explore thebehavior;
income effect isthe
β of thecontinuous
parameter to be estimated;
adoption and 𝜇𝜇𝑖𝑖 is the
of RCT. Assuming
error term,
that the which represents
net agricultural income Ythe unobservable factors, such as innate ability endowment.
i is a linear function of the continuous adoption decision of
RCT Ai and other variables Xi , the regression Equation is as follows:

Yi = Xi α + Ai γ + ε i (2)

As in Equation (2), the vector Yi denotes the outcome variable (net agricultural income);
Xi is a vector of observable regressors that influence the treatment and outcome variables,
including individual characteristics, managerial characteristics, technological cognition,
government policies, and other exogenous explanatory variables; α and γ are vectors of
parameters to be estimated; and ε i is the error term.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 8 of 15

The ordinary least squares (OLS) model can directly estimate the income effect when
farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT is exogenous. Nonetheless, the continuous adoption
behavior of RCT by farmers is based on comprehensive consideration. In other words, the
continuous adoption of RCT by farmers is self-selected. In this case, the OLS estimation
must be biased. As an improved method, propensity score matching (PSM) can effec-
tively eliminate self-selection errors caused by observable variables such as age, education
level, land scale, etc. However, the model is powerless to self-selection errors caused
by unobservable variables such as farmers’ interest, innate ability endowment, etc. The
treatment effect model (TEM) is well suited to make-up for the shortcomings of the PSM
model, since it can simultaneously eliminate self-selection errors caused by observable and
unobservable variables.

3.2.3. Effect Estimation

As a consequence, this paper utilizes the TEM to investigate the income effect of
continuous adoption of RCT. In dealing with selection bias and endogeneity, TEM can take
into account both observable and unobservable factors that influence continuous adoption
behavior and net agricultural income. In addition, TEM can directly estimate the average
treatment effect (ATE) of the continuous adoption of RCT on net agricultural income.
In TEM, there are two stages. The first stage is the selection equation, namely
Equation (1). The second stage is the outcome equation, namely Equation (2). The selection
equation is to investigate farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT. The outcome equation
estimates the impact of other factors on the net agricultural income of both continuous and
noncontinuous adopters.
The TEM estimation directly reflects the marginal effect of continuous adoption of
RCT on net agricultural income. That is, the net agricultural income changes when the
probability of continuous adoption by the farmer increases from 0 to 1. To investigate the
ATE of continuous adoption of RCT on net agricultural income, the equation could be
defined as follows:
ATE = E(Yi | Ai = 1) − E(Yi | Ai = 0) (3)
As in Equation (3), E(Yi | Ai = 1) indicates the net agricultural income when farmers
continue to adopt RCT; meanwhile, E(Yi | Ai = 0) indicates the net agricultural income
when farmers do not continue to adopt RCT. The ATE estimated by Equation (3) controls
the bias that may be caused by observable and unobservable factors. Therefore, it is more
accurate to examine the income effect of continuous adoption behavior of RCT.

4. Results
4.1. Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Continuous Adoption of RCT
The selection equation in Table 2 shows the factors that influence the continuous
adoption behavior of RCT among farmers. Land scale and the number of land blocks
positively affect the continuous adoption behavior of RCT. The probability of continuing to
adopt RCT will increase by 0.014 for every 1 hectare increase in farmers’ land scale. For
each additional block of land, there is a 0.037 increase in the probability that a farmer will
continue to adopt RCT. Typically, large-scale farmers have abundant land endowments
and are better positioned to adopt RCT continuously. Moreover, the technology adoption
behavior of farmers is a gradual process. Farmers will not immediately use all their land to
adopt RCT. Instead, farmers with a large number of land blocks will first try to adopt the
RCT on some blocks. If the trial is successful, they will gradually extend the RCT to other
blocks. As a result, the larger the number of land blocks a farmer possesses, the greater the
probability of continuous adoption of RCT. Concurrently, perceived usefulness was also
found to exert a positive and significant impact on the continuous adoption of RCT. For
every unit increase in perceived usefulness, the probability of farmers’ continuous adoption
of RCT will increase by 0.152. Perceived usefulness is a critical factor in the continuous
adoption of technology. In the absence of external interference, farmers’ decisions must be
consistent with their standards of value judgment. Therefore, only agricultural technologies
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 9 of 15

that conform to the farmers’ perceived usefulness will be adopted spontaneously and
continuously. In contrast, difficulty cognition significantly negatively affected farmers’
continuous adoption of RCT. The probability of continuous adoption of RCT decreased by
0.084 for each unit increase in a farmer’s difficulty perception. This is because the more
difficult it is, the more difficulties farmers will face in the continuous adoption of RCT.

Table 2. Results of joint estimation of decision on farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT and influenc-
ing factors of net agricultural income.

Selection Equation Outcome Equation

Continuous Adoption Net Agricultural Income Net Agricultural Income
Variable
of RCT (Continuous Adopters) (Noncontinuous Adopters)
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
0.001 0.037 −0.038
Age
(0.006) (0.035) (0.039)
−0.014 0.145 0.135
Education
(0.014) (0.106) (0.090)
0.014 *** 0.113 *** 0.063 ***
land scale
(0.002) (0.007) (0.020)
0.037 ** 0.055 0.085
Land block
(0.015) (0.083) (0.118)
−0.174 1.702 ** 0.388
Cooperative involvement
(0.117) (0.688) (0.855)
−0.084 * 0.206 −0.411
Difficulty cognition
(0.045) (0.275) (0.317)
0.096 −0.811 * 0.077
Market cognition
(0.071) (0.447) (0.491)
−0.010 0.180 −0.332
Government propaganda
(0.090) (0.550) (0.643)
0.014 0.043 −0.534
Government regulation
(0.093) (0.576) (0.645)
0.152 **
Perceived usefulness - -
(0.079)
−0.406
Constant - -
(0.508)
Residual correlation coefficient −0.771 ***
Wald chi2 868.860 ***
Log likelihood −2722.180
Sample size 736
Note: The asterisks ***, **, and * denote significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Figures in parentheses
are standard errors.

4.2. Analysis of Factors Influencing Net Agricultural Income Based on Continuous

Adoption Behavior
The outcome equation in Table 2 shows the estimated results for the factors affecting
farmers’ net agricultural income. Land scale has a significant positive impact on net
agricultural income for both continuous and noncontinuous adopters. Expanding the
land scale creates the scale economy effect, which can share the total cost of agricultural
production and then increase the income of farmers [35]. For every 1 hectare increase in
the land scale of continuous adopters, their net agricultural income increases by RMB 1130.
Conversely, for noncontinuous adopters, every 1 hectare increase in the land scale only
increases their net agricultural income by RMB 630. This income increase is only half that
of continuous adopters. It indicates that farmers who continue to adopt RCT are better
equipped to manage and achieve a greater income effect. In addition, the net agricultural
income of continuous adopters is significantly boosted by the involvement of cooperatives.
For every unit increase in the probability of participation in cooperative for continuous
adopters, there is an increase in net agricultural income of RMB 17,020. Cooperatives can
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 10 of 15

continuously provide sales, procurement, and technical guidance to help farmers cope with
issues during the adoption process [36]. This, in turn, improves the ongoing profitability
of the cooperative members. On the contrary, market cognition has a significant negative
impact on the net agricultural income for continuous adopters. Each unit increase in the
market cognition of continuous adopters reduces their net agricultural income by RMB
8110. Farmers who are highly aware of market risk perception are extremely sensitive
to market changes. They adjust their production behavior in time in response to these
changes, such as delaying fishing or selling crayfish at low prices. While this approach
reduces farmers’ income in the short term, it does not affect their ability to adopt RCT
continuously in the long term.

4.3. Average Treatment Effect (TEM) of Continuous Adoption of RCT on Net Agricultural Income
With the TEM estimation, the ATE of continuous adoption of RCT on net agricultural
income for farmers can be computed. Table 3 shows that continuous adoption of RCT by
farmers has a significant positive impact on net agricultural income at the statistical level
of 1%. If the farmers who continue to adopt RCT do not continue to adopt it, their net
agricultural income would decrease by RMB 83,430. It appears that farmers’ net agricultural
income can grow significantly with the continuous adoption of RCT.

Table 3. Estimated results of average treatment effect.

Sample Size ATE S.E.

The ATE of continuous adoption of
736 8.343 *** 0.907
RCT on net agricultural income
Note: The asterisks *** denote significance at 10% levels.

This result may seem counterintuitive. The competitive market model suggests that
when farmers adopt new agricultural technologies, the marginal output of agricultural
products increases faster than demand. As the demand price elasticity is lower than the
supply price elasticity, the income gain from increased supply is less than the income loss
from falling prices. However, combined with China’s current national conditions, the
continuous adoption of RCT can indeed increase farmers’ net agricultural income. From
an agricultural policy perspective, the Chinese government formulated a policy to set a
minimum purchase price for grain in 2004. Therefore, after farmers adopt RCT, if the price
of rice on the market drops due to the increase in supply, the government will entrust
grain enterprises to buy rice from farmers at a minimum purchase price to avoid damage
to farmers’ income. From a geographical location perspective, the main area for RCT is
in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River in China. This region produces
30.5 % of China’s rice. Compared with rice monoculture, RCT can significantly increase
rice yield by around 15%. That is to say, farmers continue to adopt RCT, which has a
limited impact on the national rice supply. Judging from the transaction price, the price of
crayfish has not declined significantly in recent years, according to the crayfish industry
development report released by the National Fisheries Technology Extension Center in
2022. In addition, the trend of crayfish prices has remained basically stable from 2019 to
2021. The crayfish industry report also noted that the price of crayfish tended to be stable
and farmers generally made a profit in 2022. In addition, the market for crayfish in China
is vast and nationwide. However, the area where crayfish can be raised is limited, mostly
in the middle and lower reaches of China’s Yangtze River. Therefore, it is profitable for
farmers to continue to adopt RCT.

4.4. Further Discussion

The empirical results in Table 3 confirm that the income effect of continuous adoption
of RCT is extremely significant. However, there is a trend law in the income effect of
agricultural technology. In other words, farmers who continue to adopt RCT may reap
increased benefits, but it does not mean that “the more continuous, the higher income”.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 11 of 15

The “agricultural bicycle” theory posits that whether farmers can increase their income by
adopting new technology depends on the balance of positive and negative forces. Overall,
the income effect of technology adoption behavior exhibits an inverted U-shaped shift. It
has been shown in several studies that the positive or negative income effect of farmers’
technology adoption behavior is time-span dependent [37]. In the short term, farmers who
adopt RCT at an early stage gain excess profits by differentiating agricultural products
on the market. However, in the long run, due to “technology spillover” and “learning
by doing” effects, RCT becomes popular among farmers. Thus, the agricultural products
produced by RCT lose their heterogeneity, and the excess profit disappears. For this reason,
it is necessary to test the inverted U-shaped relationship between adoption years and the
income effect of RCT based on the “agricultural bicycle” theory. Following that, the income
effect of continuous adoption of RCT could be justified, and the optimal adoption years
would be identified.
Table 4 shows the results of the U-shaped test. As shown in Table 4, the interval where
slope is located has a negative value, indicating an inverted U-shaped relationship between
the adoption years and the adoption behavior of RCT. This suggests that farmers’ income
initially increases and then decreases after adopting RCT. The extreme value shown in
Table 4 is 4.562. That said, the RCT yields the most significant increase in income at four
and a half years. Beyond this point, there will be a decline in income growth and even
a loss.

Table 4. Inverted U-shaped test results of adoption years and income effect.

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Interval 0 24
Slope −0.543 2.312
Extreme value 4.562

4.5. Moderating Effect Test

To assess the moderating effect of non-farm employment, in this paper, the income
effect of continuous adoption of RCT between farmers with and without non-farm employ-
ment is compared [38]. As shown in Table 5, in the absence of non-farm employment, the
ATE of continuous adoption of RCT on net agricultural income is negative and significant
at the 1% statistical level. On the contrary, in the case of non-farm employment, the ATE is
positive and significant at the 1% statistical level. Specifically, farmers who reject non-farm
employment but continue to adopt RCT will have their net agricultural income reduced
by RMB 93,430 compared to noncontinuous adopters. Correspondingly, farmers who
participate in non-farm employment and continue to adopt RCT will experience an increase
in net agricultural income of RMB 104,510. As the likelihood of non-farm employment
increases, the income effect of continuous adoption of RCT shifts from negative to positive.
That is, for farmers engaged in non-farm employment, the continuous adoption of RCT
shows a positive income effect; otherwise, the income effect is negative. Therefore, it
can be judged that non-farm employment positively moderates the relationship between
continuous adoption of RCT and net agricultural income.
The results of Table 5 also show that in the process of farmers’ continuous adoption of
RCT, non-farm employment is more characterized by the “information acquisition effect”
and “income effect” rather than the “labor loss effect”. The likely reason is that farmers
differ in the location and degree of non-farm employment [39]. Farmers employed in local
non-farm jobs return to farming during the busy season. During the holidays, farmers with
a relatively low level of non-farm employment return home to plow their fields. In this
way, it can not only alleviate the “labor loss effect”, but also encourage the timely transfer
of what they have seen, heard, and gained during the period of non-farm employment to
other laborers at home, which enhances the “information acquisition effect” and “income
effect”. Therefore, non-farm employment ultimately plays a positive moderator role.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 12 of 15

Table 5. Test results for the moderating effect of non-farm employment.

Sample Size ATE S.E.

In the absence of participation in
non-farm employment, the ATE of
197 −9.434 *** 0.932
continuous adoption of RCT on net
agricultural income
In the case of non-farm employment, the
ATE of continuous adoption of RCT on 539 10.451 *** 0.888
net agricultural income
Note: The asterisks *** denote significance at 10% levels.

4.6. Robustness Test

To ensure the stability of the empirical results, robustness tests were performed on
the results in Tables 4 and 5. In some cases, farmers may conceal their income and output,
resulting in outliers. In view of this, the left tail reduction in the explained variable (net
agricultural income) was carried out, replacing the value below the 1% quantile with the
value at the 1% quantile. We then used the TEM to re-estimate the income effect of the
continuous adoption of RCT, as well as the moderating effect of non-farm employment.
Table 6 shows the robustness test results. These robustness test results are in good agreement
with the empirical results in Tables 4 and 5, which indicates that the empirical results in
this paper are reasonably robust.

Table 6. Robustness test results.

Sample Size ATE S.E.

The ATE of continuous adoption of RCT on
736 8.343 *** 0.907
net agricultural income
In the case of non-farm employment, the
ATE of continuous adoption of RCT on net 539 10.451 *** 0.888
agricultural income
In the absence of participation in non-farm
employment, the ATE of continuous 197 −9.731 *** 0.968
adoption of RCT on net agricultural income
Note: The asterisks *** denote significance at 10% levels.

5. Conclusions and Policy Implications

5.1. Conclusions
Given the objectives and challenges of China’s green development in agriculture, in
this study, the income effect and income growth mechanism of RCT are examined in terms
of continuous adoption. Additionally, the moderating effect of non-farm employment on
the income effect of continuous adoption of RCT is also explored. Based on the above
analysis, this paper draws three main conclusions. First, the income effect of continuous
adoption of RCT is significant. That is, the net agricultural income will increase after
farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT. Compared with noncontinuous adopters, the RCT
will increase the net agricultural income of continuous adopters by RMB 83,430. Second,
the optimal adoption period for RCT is four and a half years. At this point, the agricultural
net income of farmers adopting RCT reaches its peak. Since this time point, there will
be a decline in income growth and even a loss year by year. Third, non-farm employ-
ment positively moderates the relationship between continuous adoption of RCT and net
agricultural income. In other words, the greater the farmers’ propensity to participate
in non-farm employment, the more pronounced the income effect of their continuous
adoption of RCT. Farmers who participate in non-farm employment and continue to adopt
RCT will experience an increase in net agricultural income of RMB 104,510. However, for
farmers who do not participate in non-farm employment, even if they continue to adopt
RCT, their net agricultural income will still decrease by RMB 93,430. Fourth, land scale,
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 13 of 15

land blocks, difficulty cognition, and perceived usefulness are important factors affecting
farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT. Among them, land scale, land blocks, and perceived
usefulness play an important role in driving the continuous adoption of RCT by farmers.
Difficulty cognition greatly inhibits farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT. Five, land scale,
cooperative involvement, and market cognition have a significant impact on the income
effect of farmers’ continuous adoption of RCT. Land scale and cooperative involvement
can enhance the income effect of the continuous adoption of RCT. On the contrary, market
cognition has a significant weakening effect on this income effect.

5.2. Policy Implications

Based on the above conclusions, this paper puts forward the following three policy
recommendations. The first is to encourage farmers to make continuous adoption decisions
as far as possible when adopting RCT. In particular, agricultural technology extension
departments should emphasize not only the technical operations but also popularize the
income-increasing attributes and laws behind RCT with farmers. In this way, we can
promote farmers’ continuous adoption behavior and ensure their access to RCT benefits.
Second, actively cultivate the leading enterprises of “rice + crayfish”. The development
of rice and crayfish industry chain should focus on leading enterprises as the core, with
RCT as the foundation. As a result, RCT will be able to evolve from product production to
industrial development. Third, support farmers who continuously adopt RCT to participate
in non-farm employment. Government departments should provide institutional support
for farmers’ non-farm employment through reforms in household registration and social
security. Meanwhile, the government will continue to promote the integration of primary,
secondary, and tertiary industries to expand the non-farm employment market. As a result,
it can expand income streams for farmers and unleash the feed-back and risk-resilience
functions of non-farm employment to agriculture.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.T., X.W., Z.L. (Zekui Lei) and Z.Q.; formal analysis, Z.T.
and Z.L. (Zekui Lei); funding acquisition, Z.L. (Zekui Lei); investigation, Z.T., X.W., and Z.L. (Zhe
Liu); methodology, Z.T., X.W. and Z.L. (Zhe Liu); project administration, Z.L. (Zekui Lei); resources,
Z.L. (Zekui Lei); software, Z.T. and Z.L. (Zekui Lei); supervision, Z.Q.; writing—original draft, Z.T.;
writing—review and editing, X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was financed by National Natural Science Foundation of China (72273049),
and the Talent Introduction Project of Hubei Normal University in 2023 (HS2023RC032).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The associated dataset of this study is available upon request to the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Han, J. Follow Xi Jinping’s thought of “agriculture, rural and rural areas”, carryout rural revitalization strategy. J. Manag. World.
2018, 34, 1–10.
2. Li, Y.; MA, J. Analysis of income effect differences of scientific fertilization technology: An empirical estimation based on farmers’
initial endowment. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2021, 7, 18–32.
3. Cao, C.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, J.; Yuan, P.; Chen, S. “Dual character” of rice-crayfish culture and strategies for its sustainable development.
Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2017, 25, 1245–1253.
4. Yang, Y.; Lin, W. The income-increasing effect of agricultural technological progress: A test based on provincial panel data in
china. Econ. Sci. 2016, 5, 45–57.
5. Sang, X.; Luo, X.; Razzaq, A.; Huang, Y.; Erfanian, F. Can agricultural mechanization services narrow the income gap in rural
China? Heliyon. 2023, 9, 13367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Xu, C. Adoption of organic fertilizer technology can promote tea farmers to increase income. J. Arid. Land Resour.
Environ. 2022, 36, 56–61.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 14 of 15

7. Pretty, J.; Bharucha, Z. Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 2015,
6, 152–182. [CrossRef]
8. Yang, X.; Deng, X.; Zhang, A. Does conservation tillage adoption improve farmers’ agricultural income? A case study of the rice and
fish co-cultivation system in Jianghan Plain, China. J. Rural. Stud. 2023, 103, 103108.
9. Keil, A.; Mitra, A.; Srivastava, A.; Mcdonald, A. Social inclusion increases with time for zero-tillage wheat in the Eastern
Indo-Gangetic Plains. World Dev. 2019, 123, 104582. [CrossRef]
10. Arslan, F. Production-water user association performance nexus in mediterranean irrigated agriculture: The case of banana in
Türkiye. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 292, 108650. [CrossRef]
11. Koester, U. Broad Outline of the Agricultural Market Theory; Vahlen: Münich, Germany, 1992.
12. Huang, Z.; Qian, F. The influence of technological progress on farmers’ income in china and its countermeasures. Chin. Rural.
Econ. 2003, 12, 11–17.
13. Wu, D.; Liu, F. Difficulties and countermeasures of agricultural technology innovation promoting the steady growth of farmers’
income. Econ. Rev. J. 2017, 2, 115–119.
14. Dong, F.; Mitchell, P. Economic and risk analysis of sustainable practice adoption among U.S. corn growers. Agric. Syst. 2023, 211,
103730. [CrossRef]
15. Shively, G. Poverty, consumption risk, and soil conservation. J. Dev. Econ. 2001, 65, 267–290. [CrossRef]
16. Mbaga-Semgalawe, Z.; Folmer, H. Household adoption behavior of improved soil conservation: The case of the North Pare and
West Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. Land Use Policy 2000, 17, 321–336. [CrossRef]
17. Yu, W.; Luo, X.; Huang, Y.; Li, R. Internal perception, external environment and the replacement of organic fertilizer by peasant
households continued use. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2019, 5, 66–74.
18. Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q.
2011, 25, 351–370. [CrossRef]
19. Xv, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lv, K. The scale of operation, term of land ownership and the adoption of intertemporal agricultural technology:
An example of “straw return to soil directly”. Chin. Rural Econ. 2018, 3, 61–74.
20. Parimalam, P.; Padmanaban, P.; Nallakurumban, B.; Swaminathan, C.; Surya, R. Drudgery reduction through the use of handheld
fertilizer applicator. In International Conference of the Indian Society of Ergonomics, Proceeding of the HWWE 2021, Guwahati, India, 1–3
December 2021; Rana, N.K., Shah, A.A., Iqbal, R., Khanzode, V., Eds.; Design Science and Innovation; Springer: Singapore, 2022;
pp. 163–169.
21. Li, Y.; Huan, M.; Jiao, X.; Chi, L.; Ma, J. The impact of labor migration on chemical fertilizer use of wheat smallholders in China-
mediation analysis of socialized service. J. Clean Prod. 2023, 394, 136366. [CrossRef]
22. Zhou, W.; Xue, P.; Xu, D. Exploring disparities in employment location and structure: The influence of off-farm employment on
reducing chemical fertilizer usage. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 440, 140720. [CrossRef]
23. Huang, X.; Lu, Q.; Wang, L.; Cui, M.; Yang, F. Does aging and off-farm employment hinder farmers’ adoption behavior of soil and
water conservation technology in the Loess Plateau? Int. J. Clim. Change Strat. Manag. 2020, 12, 92–107. [CrossRef]
24. Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Niu, L.; Zhang, W.; Wang, L.; Zhang, H. Nutrient status of integrated rice-crayfish system impacts the microbial
nitrogen-transformation processes in paddy fields and rice yields. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 836, 155706. [CrossRef]
25. Hou, J.; Styles, D.; Cao, Y.; Ye, X. The sustainability of rice-crayfish coculture systems: A mini review of evidence from Jianghan
plain in China. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 3843–3853. [CrossRef]
26. Yu, H.; Zhang, X.; Shen, W.; Yao, H.; Meng, X.; Zeng, J.; Zhang, G.; Zamanien, K. A meta-analysis of ecological functions and
economic benefits of co-culture models in paddy fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 341, 108195. [CrossRef]
27. Yu, W. Study on the first and continuous adoption behavior of green production technology by rice farmers. Ph.D. Thesis,
Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China, 2020.
28. Zhang, Q. Theory and Practice of “Shuangshui Shuanglv” (Two-Aquatics and Double-Green) Industry Development; Science Press:
Beijing, China, 2021.
29. Bointner, R.; Schubert, K. The influence of experience and knowledge on reactor safety in Germany. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2016, 53,
1009–1020. [CrossRef]
30. Chen, Z.; Li, X.; Xia, X.; Zhang, J. The impact of social interaction and information acquisition on the adoption of soil and water
conservation technology by farmers: Evidence from the Loess Plateau, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 139880. [CrossRef]
31. Kung, J. Off-farm labor markets and the emergence of land rental markets in rural China. J. Comp. Econ. 2022, 30, 395–414.
[CrossRef]
32. Thong, J.; Hong, S.; Tam, K. The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology
continuance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2006, 64, 799–810. [CrossRef]
33. Qin, F.; Wang, J.; Xv, Q. How does the digital economy affect farmers’ income? Evidence from the development of rural
e-commerce in China. China Econ. Q. 2022, 22, 591–612.
34. Becerril, J.; Abdulai, A. The impact of improved maize varieties on poverty in Mexico: A propensity score-matching approach.
World Dev. 2010, 38, 1024–1035. [CrossRef]
35. Gong, M.; Zhong, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Elahi, E.; Yang, Y. Have the new round of agricultural land system reform improved farmers’
agricultural inputs in China? Land Use Pol. 2023, 132, 106825. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2024, 14, 1224 15 of 15

36. Yang, D.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Z.; Zeng, Q. Do cooperatives participation and technology adoption improve farmers’ welfare in China?
A joint analysis accounting for selection bias. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 1716–1726. [CrossRef]
37. Manda, J.; Feleke, S.; Mutungi, C.; Tufa, A.; Mateete, B.; Abdoulaye, T.; Alene, A. Assessing the speed of improved postharvest
technology adoption in Tanzania: The role of social learning and agricultural extension services. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
2024, 202, 123306. [CrossRef]
38. Kassie, M.; Fisher, M.; Muricho, G.; Diiro, G. Women’s empowerment boosts the gains in dietary diversity from agricultural
technology adoption in rural Kenya. Food Pol. 2020, 95, 101957. [CrossRef]
39. Yang, J.; Wan, Q.; Bi, W. Off-farm employment and grain production change: New evidence from China. China Econ Rev. 2020, 63,
101519. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.