IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i6p791-d1398676.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study of Farmers’ Behavior in Classifying Domestic Waste Based on the Participants Intellectual Decision Model

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Wang

    (College of Economics & Management, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Nan Zhao

    (College of Economics & Management, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China)

  • Dongjian Li

    (School of Economics and Management, Anqing Normal University, Anqing 246011, China)

  • Shiping Li

    (College of Economics & Management, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, China)

Abstract

The farmers’ deep participation in the classification of domestic waste plays a crucial role in reducing the amount of waste out of the village from the source, lowering the cost of waste treatment, and realizing the sustainable development of rural waste resocialization, reduction, and harmlessness. This paper aims to identify the key factors and logical structure that influence the farmers’ behavior in classifying domestic waste and provide recommendations for improving it. Based on the Participants’ Intellectual Decision (PID) Model, we constructed a theoretical analysis framework for farmers’ decision-making on domestic waste classification, and the PID model was further extended by combining with the practice of rural domestic waste management in China and proposing the research hypothesis that factors, such as community attributes, rules of operation, the status of the participants, and the situation of external actions, have a significant impact on the farmers’ behavior in classifying domestic waste. Empirical analyses were carried out with the help of the ordered logistic model and the DEMATEL-ISM using 939 research data of farmers in Jiangsu and Gansu provinces of China. The results show the following: (1) classification of domestic waste by farmers in the sample area was predominantly unclassified (34.40%) and two-classified (40.58%); (2) 17 factors, including regional disparity, Party affiliation, organizational support perception, environmental emotions, conscious governance attitudes, trust in village cadres, social reference norms, and expected outcomes, have a significant impact on the farmers’ behavior in classifying domestic waste; (3) trust in village cadres, organizational support perception, and environmental emotion are superficial direct factors; incentive measures, fee level, waste transport situation, difficulty perception, self-consciousness perception, social reference norms, and expected outcomes are middle indirect factors; whether or not it is a demonstration village, Party membership and regional disparity are deep root factors affecting farmers to classify their domestic waste.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Wang & Nan Zhao & Dongjian Li & Shiping Li, 2024. "A Study of Farmers’ Behavior in Classifying Domestic Waste Based on the Participants Intellectual Decision Model," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:6:p:791-:d:1398676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/6/791/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/6/791/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fei Meng & Hang Chen & Zhenning Yu & Wu Xiao & Yongzhong Tan, 2022. "What Drives Farmers to Participate in Rural Environmental Governance? Evidence from Villages in Sandu Town, Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Samuel Bowles & Sandra Polania-Reyes, 2012. "Economic Incentives and Social Preferences: Substitutes or Complements?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(2), pages 368-425, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Björn Vollan & Karla Henning & Deniza Staewa, 2017. "Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 500-518, October.
    2. Johan Graafland, 2020. "Competition in technology and innovation, motivation crowding, and environmental policy," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 137-145, January.
    3. Sseruyange, J. & Bulte, E., 2018. "Do Incentives matter for Knowledge Diffusion? Experimental Evidence from Uganda," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275896, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Pigou pushes preferences: decarbonisation and endogenous values," INET Oxford Working Papers 2018-16, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    5. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/vbu6kd1s68o6r34k5bcm3iopv is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Cabeza Martínez, Begoña, 2023. "Social preferences, support for redistribution, and attitudes towards vulnerable groups," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Lambsdorff, Johann Graf & Grubiak, Kevin & Werner, Katharina, 2023. "Intrinsic Motivation vs. Corruption? Experimental Evidence on the Performance of Officials," MPRA Paper 118153, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ariel BenYishay & A. Mushfiq Mobarak, 2014. "Social Learning and Communication," NBER Working Papers 20139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Winschel, Evguenia & Zahn, Philipp, 2012. "Effciency concern under asymmetric information," Working Papers 13-07, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    10. Ramm, Joachim & Tjøtta, Sigve & Torsvik, Gaute, 2013. "Incentives and creativity in groups," Working Papers in Economics 06/13, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    11. Chervier, Colas & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2019. "When the Implementation of Payments for Biodiversity Conservation Leads to Motivation Crowding-out: A Case Study From the Cardamoms Forests, Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 499-510.
    12. Stefan, Matthias & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Sutter, Matthias & Walzl, Markus, 2023. "Monetary and social incentives in multi-tasking: The ranking substitution effect," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    13. de Melo, Gioia & Piaggio, Matías, 2015. "The perils of peer punishment: Evidence from a common pool resource framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 376-393.
    14. Ina Ganguli & Marieke Huysentruyt & Chloé Le Coq, 2021. "How Do Nascent Social Entrepreneurs Respond to Rewards? A Field Experiment on Motivations in a Grant Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(10), pages 6294-6316, October.
    15. Cecere, Grazia & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2014. "Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 163-176.
    16. Silverman, Dan & Slemrod, Joel & Uler, Neslihan, 2014. "Distinguishing the role of authority “in” and authority “to”," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 32-42.
    17. Yildiz, Özgür, 2014. "Lehren aus der Verhaltensökonomik für die Gestaltung umweltpolitischer Maßnahmen [Lessons from behavioral economics for the design of environmental policy measures]," MPRA Paper 59360, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Matthias Stefan & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Sutter & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Monetary and Social Incentives in Multi-Tasking: The Ranking Substitution Effect," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    19. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    20. Emeric Henry & Nicolas Jacquemet & Roberto Galbiati, 2017. "Spillovers, Persistence and Learning: Institutions and the Dynamics of Cooperation," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01613850, HAL.
    21. Ortiz-Riomalo, Juan Felipe & Koessler, Ann-Kathrin & Engel, Stefanie, 2021. "Inducing perspective-taking for prosocial behaviour in natural resource management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:6:p:791-:d:1398676. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.