IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i11p3753-d362971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Mingyue Li

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Jingjing Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Kai Chen

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Lianbei Wu

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Environmental pollution as a result of the improper disposal of pesticide packaging wastes (PPWs) has posed serious harm to groundwater, soil and public health. However, few studies focused on PPWs green disposal willingness and behaviors of farmers from the perspective of perceived value. Based on the first-hand data, collected from 635 farmers of grain-producing counties in Henan province of China, through the questionnaire survey method, this paper adopted a structural equation model (SEM) to empirically explore the formation mechanism of perceived value on PPWs green disposal, and green disposal willingness and behaviors were further in-depth investigated. The results showed that the action of farmers’ green disposal of PPWs followed the causal relationship, whereby perceived value→behavioral willingness→behavioral performance, and farmers’ perceived value came from the comprehensive tradeoff and comparison between perceived benefits and perceived risks. Meanwhile, the perceived benefits and perceived risks could have significant effects on green disposal willingness and behaviors directly and indirectly, among which perceived benefits (0.478) had the greatest positive total effects on the willingness, and perceived risks (−0.362) had the greatest negative total effects on the behaviors. Interestingly, there existed inconsistence between farmers’ green disposal willingness and behaviors. When faced with the choice of PPWs green disposal, the farmers were generally risk averse, which resulted in them being more inclined to take conservative behaviors driven by the profit maximization, and even showed the “powerless” state with willingness but no actual action.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingyue Li & Jingjing Wang & Kai Chen & Lianbei Wu, 2020. "Willingness and Behaviors of Farmers’ Green Disposal of Pesticide Packaging Waste in Henan, China: A Perceived Value Formation Mechanism Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-18, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:3753-:d:362971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3753/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3753/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Karina Solano Meza & Javier Rodrigo-Ilarri & Claudia Patricia Romero Hernández & Mª Elena Rodrigo-Clavero, 2020. "Analytical Methodology for the Identification of Critical Zones on the Generation of Solid Waste in Large Urban Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Einhorn, Hj & Hogarth, Rm, 1981. "Behavioral Decision-Theory - Processes Of Judgment And Choice," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 1-31.
    3. Andres Trujillo-Barrera & Joost M. E. Pennings & Dianne Hofenk, 2016. "Understanding producers' motives for adopting sustainable practices: the role of expected rewards, risk perception and risk tolerance," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(3), pages 359-382.
    4. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    5. Fahad, Shah & Wang, Jing & Hu, Guangyin & Wang, Hui & Yang, Xiaoying & Shah, Ashfaq Ahmad & Huong, Nguyen Thi Lan & Bilal, Arshad, 2018. "Empirical analysis of factors influencing farmers crop insurance decisions in Pakistan: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 459-467.
    6. Zhichao Li & Jilin Huang, 2018. "How to Effectively Improve Pesticide Waste Governance: A Perspective of Reverse Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    7. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    8. Wenmei Liao & Dong Xiang & Meiqiu Chen & Jiangli Yu & Qianfeng Luo, 2018. "The Impact of Perceived Value on Farmers’ Regret Mood Tendency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    9. Gao, Lan & Wang, Shanyong & Li, Jun & Li, Haidong, 2017. "Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 107-113.
    10. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    11. Mustapha F.A. Jallow & Dawood G. Awadh & Mohammed S. Albaho & Vimala Y. Devi & Binson M. Thomas, 2017. "Pesticide Knowledge and Safety Practices among Farm Workers in Kuwait: Results of a Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Jianhua Wang & Yuanyuan Deng & Yuting Ma, 2017. "Relationships between Safe Pesticide Practice and Perceived Benefits and Subjective Norm, and the Moderation Role of Information Acquisition: Evidence from 971 Farmers in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-11, August.
    13. Christos A. Damalas & Ilias G. Eleftherohorinos, 2011. "Pesticide Exposure, Safety Issues, and Risk Assessment Indicators," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    14. Richard Kofi Asravor, 2019. "Farmers’ risk preference and the adoption of risk management strategies in Northern Ghana," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(5), pages 881-900, April.
    15. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    16. Dilshad Ahmad & Muhammad Afzal & Abdur Rauf, 2019. "Analysis of wheat farmers’ risk perceptions and attitudes: evidence from Punjab, Pakistan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 95(3), pages 845-861, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wen Xiang & Jianzhong Gao, 2023. "Do Not Be Anticlimactic: Farmers’ Behavior in the Sustainable Application of Green Agricultural Technology—A Perceived Value and Government Support Perspective," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Ying Ma & Mansoor Ahmed Koondhar & Shengke Liu & Huiling Wang & Rong Kong, 2020. "Perceived Value Influencing the Household Waste Sorting Behaviors in Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Junqiao Ma & Wenfeng Zhou & Shili Guo & Xin Deng & Jiahao Song & Dingde Xu, 2022. "The influence of peer effects on farmers’ response to climate change: evidence from Sichuan Province, China," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Jingjing Wang & Mingyue Li & Sinan Li & Kai Chen, 2022. "Understanding Consumers’ Food Waste Reduction Behavior—A Study Based on Extended Norm Activation Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Lailafitri Handayani & Gatot Yudoko & Liane Okdinawati, 2024. "Towards a Closed-Loop Supply Chain: Assessing Current Practices in Empty Pesticide Container Management in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Bowen Wang & Desheng Hu & Diandian Hao & Meng Li & Yanan Wang, 2021. "Influence of Government Information on Farmers’ Participation in Rural Residential Environment Governance: Mediating Effect Analysis Based on Moderation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Lipeng Li & Apurbo Sarkar & Xi Zhou & Xiuling Ding & Hua Li, 2022. "Influence and Action Mechanisms of Governmental Relations Embeddedness for Fostering Green Production Demonstration Household: Evidence from Shaanxi, Sichuan, and Anhui Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-25, September.
    8. Shengnan Huang & Ehsan Elahi, 2022. "Farmers’ Preferences for Recycling Pesticide Packaging Waste: An Implication of a Discrete Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-13, October.

    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. Mingyue Li & Yu Liu & Yuhe Huang & Lianbei Wu & Kai Chen, 2022. "Impacts of Risk Perception and Environmental Regulation on Farmers’ Sustainable Behaviors of Agricultural Green Production in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Veronika Hannus & Johannes Sauer, 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Use a Sustainability Standard: The Role of Economic Rewards, Knowledge, and Ease of Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Love Offeibea Asiedu-Ayeh & Xungang Zheng & Kobina Agbodah & Bright Senyo Dogbe & Adjei Peter Darko, 2022. "Promoting the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies for Sustainable Farming: A Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    6. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    7. Wąs, Adam & Malak-Rawlikowska, Agata & Zavalloni, Matteo & Viaggi, Davide & Kobus, Paweł & Sulewski, Piotr, 2021. "In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes – Does only money matter in Poland?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Kreft, Cordelia & Huber, Robert & Wuepper, David & Finger, Robert, 2021. "The role of non-cognitive skills in farmers' adoption of climate change mitigation measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    9. Hannus, Veronika & Sauer, Johannes, 2021. "It is not only about money —– German farmers' preferences regarding voluntary standards for farm sustainability management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    10. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    11. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    13. Zhang, Wenqing & Liu, Liangliang, 2022. "Exploring non-users' intention to adopt ride-sharing services: Taking into account increased risks due to the COVID-19 pandemic among other factors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-195.
    14. Tiéfigué Pierrette Coulibaly & Jianguo Du & Daniel Diakité & Olivier Joseph Abban & Elvis Kouakou, 2021. "A Proposed Conceptual Framework on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: The Role of Network Contact Frequency and Institutional Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, February.
    15. Nketiah, Emmanuel & Song, Huaming & Obuobi, Bright & Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Adjei, Mavis & Cudjoe, Dan, 2022. "Citizens' willingness to pay for local anaerobic digestion energy: The influence of altruistic value and knowledge," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    16. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    17. Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Song, Huaming & Nketiah, Emmanuel & Obuobi, Bright & Adjei, Mavis & Cudjoe, Dan, 2022. "Determinants of adoption intention of battery swap technology for electric vehicles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 251(C).
    18. Han, Guang & Arbuckle, J. Gordon & Grudens-Schuck, Nancy, 2021. "Motivations, goals, and benefits associated with organic grain farming by producers in Iowa, U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    19. Niklas Möhring & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Robert Finger, 2020. "Are pesticides risk decreasing? The relevance of pesticide indicator choice in empirical analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 429-444, May.
    20. Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Marieke Cornelia Baaken & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa‐Goded & Julia Höh, 2023. "Farmers' risk preferences in 11 European farming systems: A multi‐country replication of Bocquého et al. ()," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1374-1399, September.

    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:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:3753-:d:362971. 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.