IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i10p1821-d945209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Willingness and Technology Preferences of Farmers and Their Influencing Factors for Soil Remediation

Author

Listed:
  • Yunxian Yan

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Lingqing Wang

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Jun Yang

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

Abstract

Farmers are one of the major uncertainty factors in remediation of contamination farmland. Based on the face-to-face questionnaire survey data of 553 farmers in 4 heavy metal-contaminated agricultural soil remediation projects in China, this study used methods, such as structural equation modeling and random forest to explore farmers’ willingness to remediate, technology preference, and their key influencing factors for the first time. The results showed that farmers were willing to remediate contaminated soil and preferred phytoremediation, with 82.8% choosing phytoremediation, 12.5% choosing passivation, and 4.7% believing that the soil did not need to be remediated. In terms of willingness to remediate, the perceived benefits from participation in current remediation projects directly contributed to future willingness, with participation status (total impact coefficient 0.86) and perceived benefits (impact coefficient 0.49) being the main factors positively influencing farmers’ willingness. With regard to technology preference, technical characteristics (soil quality, 17.1%; secondary contamination, 16.8%; and remediation period, 11.5%) were the main influencing factors. The sustainability of passivation effect and the possible secondary contamination restrict the promotion of passivation, whereas the cessation of agricultural production during the long remediation period restricts the promotion of phytoremediation. It is recommended to increase farmers’ willingness to remediate by improving their perceived benefits and continuously overcoming the technical barriers by: (i) developing efficient and green passivators; and (ii) improving the efficiency of phytoremediation as well as intercropping or rotating cash crops while remediating. The results have important reference value for soil remediation in agricultural countries with small arable land per capita.

Suggested Citation

  • Yunxian Yan & Lingqing Wang & Jun Yang, 2022. "The Willingness and Technology Preferences of Farmers and Their Influencing Factors for Soil Remediation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1821-:d:945209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1821/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1821/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yu, Zhenning & Yao, Lan & Wu, Mengya, 2020. "Farmers’ attitude towards the policy of remediation during fallow in soil fertility declining and heavy metal polluted area of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    3. Shazia Kousar & Muhammad Afzal & Farhan Ahmed & Štefan Bojnec, 2022. "Environmental Awareness and Air Quality: The Mediating Role of Environmental Protective Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    5. Lu, Hua & Xie, Hualin & He, Yafen & Wu, Zhilong & Zhang, Xinmin, 2018. "Assessing the impacts of land fragmentation and plot size on yields and costs: A translog production model and cost function approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 81-88.
    6. Xie, Hualin & Wang, Wei & Zhang, Xinmin, 2018. "Evolutionary game and simulation of management strategies of fallow cultivated land: A case study in Hunan province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 86-97.
    7. Shazia Kousar & Farhan Ahmed & Amber Pervaiz & Štefan Bojnec, 2021. "Food Insecurity, Population Growth, Urbanization and Water Availability: The Role of Government Stability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Yu, Zhenning & Wu, Cifang & Tan, Yongzhong & Zhang, Xiaobin, 2018. "The dilemma of land expansion and governance in rural China: A comparative study based on three townships in Zhejiang Province," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 602-611.
    9. Yuan, Shiwei & Li, Xin & Du, Erhu, 2021. "Effects of farmers’ behavioral characteristics on crop choices and responses to water management policies," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    10. Elahi, Ehsan & Zhang, Hongxia & Lirong, Xing & Khalid, Zainab & Xu, Haiyun, 2021. "Understanding cognitive and socio-psychological factors determining farmers’ intentions to use improved grassland: Implications of land use policy for sustainable pasture production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    11. Ponce, Pablo & Alvarado, Rafael & Ponce, Katerine & Alvarado, Raquel & Granda, Danny & Yaguana, Karen, 2019. "Green returns of labor income and human capital: Empirical evidence of the environmental behavior of households in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 105-113.
    12. Lu, Hua & Xie, Hualin & Lv, Tiangui & Yao, Guanrong, 2019. "Determinants of cultivated land recuperation in ecologically damaged areas in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 160-166.
    13. Xie, Hualin & Cheng, Lingjuan & Lu, Hua, 2018. "Farmers’ responses to the winter wheat fallow policy in the groundwater funnel area of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 195-204.
    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. Mirosław Wyszkowski & Natalia Kordala, 2023. "Importance of Compost, Bentonite, and Calcium Oxide in Reducing Trace Element Content in Maize on Agricultural Soil Contaminated with Diesel Oil," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, 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. Yu, Zhenning & She, Shuoqi & Xia, Chuyu & Luo, Jiaojiao, 2023. "How to solve the dilemma of China’s land fallow policy: Application of voluntary bidding mode in the Yangtze River Delta of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. Chen, Xin & Jiang, Li & Zhang, Guoliang & Meng, Lijun & Pan, Zhihua & Lun, Fei & An, Pingli, 2021. "Green-depressing cropping system: A referential land use practice for fallow to ensure a harmonious human-land relationship in the farming-pastoral ecotone of northern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Xie, Xianxiong & Cui, Yu & Yao, Liuyang & Ni, Qi & Khan, Sufyan Ullah & Zhao, Minjuan, 2022. "Does fallow policy affect rural household income in poor areas? A quasi-experimental evidence from fallow pilot area in Northwest China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Qi, Xiaoxing & Dang, Heping, 2018. "Addressing the dual challenges of food security and environmental sustainability during rural livelihood transitions in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 199-208.
    5. Hualin Xie & Qing Wu, 2019. "Analysis of Fallow Farming Decision-Making Behavior of Farmers Based on Hawk-Dove Game Theory: The Case of Guizhou Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-15, July.
    6. He, Yafen & Xie, Hualin & Peng, Chaozhong, 2020. "Analyzing the behavioural mechanism of farmland abandonment in the hilly mountainous areas in China from the perspective of farming household diversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    7. Xie, Hualin & Jin, Shengtian, 2019. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Fallow Farmland Behaviors of Different Types of Farmers and Local Governments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Xinhai Lu & Yanwei Zhang & Handong Tang, 2021. "Modeling and Simulation of Dissemination of Cultivated Land Protection Policies in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Zhaoxia Guo & Qinqin Guo & Yujie Cai & Ge Wang, 2021. "Unraveling Risk Networks of Cultivated Land Protection: An Exploratory Stakeholder-Oriented Case Study in Xiliuhe Town, Hubei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, November.
    10. Xu, Weiyi & Jin, Xiaobin & Liu, Jing & Zhou, Yinkang, 2021. "Analysis of influencing factors of cultivated land fragmentation based on hierarchical linear model: A case study of Jiangsu Province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    11. Zhifei Liu & Qianru Chen & Hualin Xie, 2018. "Influence of the Farmer’s Livelihood Assets on Livelihood Strategies in the Western Mountainous Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.
    12. You, Heyuan & Hu, Xiaowei & Wu, Yizhou, 2018. "Farmland use intensity changes in response to rural transition in Zhejiang province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 350-361.
    13. Jiale Liang & Sipei Pan & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ting Zhou, 2021. "Cultivated Land Fragmentation and Its Influencing Factors Detection: A Case Study in Huaihe River Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-25, December.
    14. Wei Song, 2019. "Mapping Cropland Abandonment in Mountainous Areas Using an Annual Land-Use Trajectory Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, October.
    15. Ting Zhang & Jia Li & Yan Wang, 2023. "Effects of Livelihood Capital on the Farmers’ Behavioral Intention of Rural Residential Land Development Right Transfer: Evidence from Wujin District, Changzhou City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, June.
    16. Yanwei Zhang & Xinhai Lu & Yucheng Zou & Tiangui Lv, 2022. "Nudging Strategies for Arable Land Protection Behavior in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Min Jiang & Xiubin Li & Liangjie Xin & Minghong Tan & Wen Zhang, 2023. "Impacts of Rice Cropping System Changes on Paddy Methane Emissions in Southern China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-13, January.
    18. Qingyuan Yang & Renhao Yang & Yahui Wang & Kaifang Shi, 2019. "Does Fallowing Cultivated Land Threaten Food Security? Empirical Evidence from Chinese Pilot Provinces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, May.
    19. Qianru Chen & Hualin Xie & Qunli Zhai, 2022. "Management Policy of Farmers’ Cultivated Land Abandonment Behavior Based on Evolutionary Game and Simulation Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, February.
    20. Baccar, Mariem & Raynal, Hélène & Sekhar, Muddu & Bergez, Jacques-Eric & Willaume, Magali & Casel, Pierre & Giriraj, P. & Murthy, Sanjeeva & Ruiz, Laurent, 2023. "Dynamics of crop category choices reveal strategies and tactics used by smallholder farmers in India to cope with unreliable water availability," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1821-:d:945209. 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.