Environmental Efficiency Analysis of Rice Farms in Guilan Province with Emphasis on Material Balance Condition

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• S.S. Ahmadzadeh
• H. Amirnejad
• S.A. Hosseini Yekani

Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead2.vi0.82723

Abstract

Introduction: The overuse of fertilizers in recent years has led to the production of harmful agricultural products and environmental pollution. Studying the environmental efficiency of agricultural activities and transferring the results of these studies to farmers and making practical use of them is one of the important strategies that can have a significant impact on the production of healthy products with less negative impacts on the environment. The main objective of this research is to measure the technical and environmental efficiency of rice farms in Guilan province. Previous studies in agriculture sector considered pesticides and fertilizers as undesirable inputs in the environmental model but considering undesirable outputs as inputs leads to an unbounded PPS, which is not rational from an economic perspective. So in this study, the nutrient surplus (nitrogen and phosphorus surplus) from rice fields, caused by overuse of chemical fertilizer, was considered as an undesirable product in the environmental model.
Materials and Methods: The presence of outliers in the dataset may bias efficiency estimates: this could make the results meaningless and misleading. The data cloud method is useful in identifying and removing outliers in the data, thus leading to more accurate efficiency estimates. Therefore, at first, farms that were identified as outliers were deleted from the sample. Then the nitrogen and phosphorus surplus were calculated by material balance condition and farms with negative or zero NS and PS were removed from sample, then the remaining farms were used to estimate the technical and environmental efficiency. To determine efficiency, the directional output distance function method was used. In this method, it is assumed that undesirable output is produced along with the desirable output and that means maximizing optimum output while reducing undesired output. The required data were collected by questionnaires from 427 Rice farmers.
Results and Discussion: The results indicated that the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus surplus in rice farms of Guilan province were 44.63 and 14.31 kg/ha, respectively. Therefore, if rice farmers continue to use current levels of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, environmental problems caused by NS and PS would increase.
The average technical efficiency of farmers in constant and variable returns to scale is 59 and 69 percent, respectively. So, it is possible to improve the efficiency of rice farms. In other words, the technical efficiency of farms under assumption of CRS and VRS can be improved 41% and 31%, respectively, through increasing output. The average environmental efficiency was 52%, it indicates that environmental efficiency is low. So according to the directional nutrients efficiency measure, rice farmers can increase their rice production and reduce environmental pollution simultaneously.
Based on the results, environmental efficiency of farmers is lower than technical efficiency and there is a significant difference between the average efficiency with regard to nutrient surplus and without it, so if the nutrient is not considered in the model the efficiency score is estimated more than the actual value by 17%. The results also showed that almost 82% of these rice farmers are technically inefficient and 85% are environmentally inefficient. Spearman correlation coefficient between technical and environmental efficiency was 0.772. This indicated there is a positive relationship between these two kinds of efficiency and units with high technical efficiency also have high environmental efficiency.
Conclusion: One of the reasons for over usage of fertilizers and neglecting chemical fertilizer damages by farmers is that most farmers cultivate rice based on past experiences and they are more concerned with the economic aspect of production and not considering the external effects of increasing production methods. Lack of facilities and appropriate market for introducing and supplying healthy crops and the absence of appropriate agricultural policies are major obstacles to producing healthy crops that leads to continued usage of conventional production methods and the inadequate consumption of pesticides and fertilizers. So controlling fertilizer usage in farms, encouraging the consumption of healthy products, establishing training classes for farmers and raising their awareness about dangers of overuse of chemical fertilizers are essential for improving the environmental efficiency of Rice farmers in Guilan province.

Keywords

• Directional distance function
• Environmental efficiency
• Nitrogen surplus
• Phosphorus surplus

20.1001.1.20084722.1399.34.1.2.5

References

1. Abdi Rokni Kh., Hosseini Yekani S.A., Abedi S., and Kashiri F. 2018. Management of Chemical Fertilizers Consumption for Rice Production: A Case Study: Gohar baran of Sari. Agricultural Economics and Development 26: 29-53. (In Persian with English abstract)
2. Bagheri Kh., and Esfanjari R. 2019. Determination of technical efficiency of farmers in rice production (Case study: Tarom Hashemi cultivar in Rasht city). 6^th International Conference on Applied Research in Agricultural Sciences. January 24-25, 2019.
3. Ball V.E., Lovell C.A.K., Luu H., and Nehring R. 2004. Incorporating environmental impacts in the measurement of agricultural productivity growth. Agricultural and Resource Economics 29: 436-460.
4. Banker R.D., Charnes A., and Cooper W.W. 1984. Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science 30:1078-1092.
5. Chambers R.G., Chung Y., and Fare R. 1996. Benefit and distance functions. Economic Theory 70: 407-419.
6. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., and Rhodes E. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operation Research 2: 429-444.
7. Coelli, Lauwers L., and Huylenbroeck G.V. 2007. Environmental Efficiency Measurement and the Materials Balance Condition. Productivity Analysis 28:3-12.
8. Falavigna G., Manello A., and Pavone S. 2013. Environmental efficiency, productivity and public funds: the case of the Italian agricultural industry. Agricultural Systems 121: 73-80.
9. FAO’s Director-General on How to Feed the World in 2050. 2009. Population and Development Review 35: 837–839.
10. Färe R., Grosskopf S., Noh D., and Weber W. 2005. Characteristics of a Pollution Technology: Theory and Practice. Econometrics 126: 469–492.
11. Färe R., Filho C.M., Vardanyan M. 2009. On functional form representation of multi-output production technologies. Productivity Analysis 33: 81-96.
12. Farrell M.J. 1957. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Royal Statistical Society 120: 253-290.
13. Karbasi A., Fakari Sardehaee B., Kojouri Geshniyani M., and Rezaei Z. 2012. Analysis of soil nutrient management for rice production in Mazandaran. Annals of Biological Research 3:2881-2887.
14. Kohsari M.R. 2004. A Study on Lifestyle Habits and Gastric Cancer in Guilan Province. Guilan University of Medical Sciences 13: 10-19. (In Persian with English abstract)
15. Li, Xiao X., Cao G., and He B. 2017. Agricultural eco-environment efficiency and shadow price measurement in Three Gorges Reservoir area under non-point source pollution constraints. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 33: 203-210.
16. Malakouti M.J. 2010. The Relationship between Optimal Fertilizer Consumption and Healthy Agricultural Production. Crop Ecophysiology 4: 133-150. (In Persian with English abstract)
17. Ministry of Agriculture Jihad of Guilan. 2018. Agricultural Jihad Statistics, Available at https://www.jkgc.ir.
18. Molaee M., and Sani F. 2015. Estimating Environmental Efficiency of the Agricultural Sector. Agricultural science and Sustainable Production 25: 91-101. (In Persian with English abstract)
19. Molaee M., Hesari N., and Javan bakht A. 2017. Estimation of Input-driven environmental efficiency of Crops (Case Study: Environmental Efficiency of Rice Production). Agricultural Economics 11: 157-172. (In Persian)
20. Parsa P., Jalai Esfandabadi A., and Sadeghi Z. 2016. Analysis of Environmental Technical Efficiency in the Provinces of Iranian. Environmental and Natural Resources Economics 1: 81-103. (In Persian with English abstract)
21. Pishgar Komleh H., Zylowski T., Rozakis S., and Kozyra J. 2020. Efficiency under different methods for incorporating undesirable outputs in an LCA+DEA framework: A case study of winter wheat production in Poland. Environmental Management 260: 110-138.
22. Pittman R.W. 1983. Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Economic 93: 883–891.
23. Rice Research Institute of Iran.
24. Sadeghi Z., Golestani Sh., and Pourbaferani A. 2013. Investigating the Effects of Energy Price on Changes in Industrial Technologies of Iran and Environmental Impact Assessment. Applied Economic Studies in Iran 2: 168-145.
25. Saelee W. 2017. Environmental Efficiency Analysis of Thai Rice Farming. PhD Thesis, university of reading, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development.
26. Seifi A., Salimifar M., Fonoudi E. 2013. Measuring environmental efficiency: A Case Study of Power Generation Thermal Powerhouse in South, Razavi and North Khorasan Provinces. Energy and Environment Economics 2: 41-17.
27. Shahiki Tash M., Khajeh Hassani M., and Jafari S. 2015. Calculating Environmental Efficiency in Energy Industries of Iran Using Directional Distance Function Approach. Applied Theories of Economics 2: 99-120. (In Persian)
28. Tilman D., Balzer C., Hill J., and Befort B.D. 2011. Global Food Demand and the Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 108: 20260–20264.
29. Tsujimot Y., Rakotoson T., Tanaka A., and Saito K. 2019. Challenges and opportunities for improving N use efficiency for rice production in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Production Science 22(4): 413–427.
30. Yaqubi M., Shahraki J., and Sabouhi Sabouni M. 2016. On dealing with the pollution costs in agriculture: A case study of paddy fields. Science of the Total Environment 556: 310-318.
31. Yu-Ying L., Eugene Ch., Ping-Yu Ch., and Chi-Chung M. 2013. Measuring the environmental efficiency of countries: A directional distance function metafrontier approach Environmental Management 119: 134-142.
32. Zofio J.L., Pastor J.T., and Aparicio J. 2013. The Directional Profit Efficiency Measure: on Why Profit Inefficiency is either Technical or Allocative. Productivity Analysis 40: 257–266.