IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i14p5748-d385760.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Peasants’ Intention and Behavior of Farmland Trusteeship in China: Implications for Sustainable Agricultural Production

Author

Listed:
  • Jianying Xiao

    (School of Public Policy & Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Yan Song

    (Department of City and Regional Planning, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140, USA)

  • Heyuan You

    (School of Public Administration, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China)

Abstract

Developing countries generally face the problem of sustainable agricultural production during the process of agricultural modernization. Farmland trusteeship is an emerging mode of sustainable agricultural production and has played an important role in China. At present, the Chinese government has taken it as a pilot mode, but its effect also depends on the extensive participation of peasants. Based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and structural equation model (SEM) method, the paper analyzed peasants’ participation intention, behavior, drivers, and the influence of policy support on peasants’ participation behavior, using survey data of Jiangsu province and peasants’ participation variables. The results suggest that: (1) The behavioral attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control variables of peasants’ participation in farmland trusteeship have a significant direct impact on peasants’ willingness to participate, and these three factors indirectly influence peasants’ participation behavior by influencing peasants’ intention; (2) perceptual behavioral control variables such as the size of farmland trusteeship organization had no significant influence on peasants’ participation behaviors; (3) government policy support has a direct and significant impact on peasants’ participation behaviors. These findings not only generate broad direct implications for Chinese policymakers to improve peasants’ participation for sustainable agricultural production, but also provide lessons for other developing countries for agricultural modernization.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianying Xiao & Yan Song & Heyuan You, 2020. "Explaining Peasants’ Intention and Behavior of Farmland Trusteeship in China: Implications for Sustainable Agricultural Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:14:p:5748-:d:385760
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5748/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5748/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oscar Ortiz, 2006. "Evolution of agricultural extension and information dissemination in Peru: An historical perspective focusing on potato-related pest control," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(4), pages 477-489, December.
    2. Alfranca, Oscar & Huffman, Wallace E, 2003. "Aggregate Private R&D Investments in Agriculture: The Role of Incentives, Public Policies, and Institutions," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Jayne, T.S. & Zulu, Ballard & Nijhoff, J.J., 2006. "Stabilizing food markets in eastern and southern Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 328-341, August.
    4. Nicholas Ozor & Chris J. Garforth & Michael C. Madukwe, 2013. "Farmers' Willingness To Pay For Agricultural Extension Service: Evidence From Nigeria," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 382-392, April.
    5. Peter Österberg & Jerker Nilsson, 2009. "Members' perception of their participation in the governance of cooperatives: the key to trust and commitment in agricultural cooperatives," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 181-197.
    6. Heyuan You & Deshao Zhou & Shenyan Wu & Xiaowei Hu & Chenmeng Bie, 2020. "Social Deprivation and Rural Public Health in China: Exploring the Relationship Using Spatial Regression," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 843-864, February.
    7. Silvina M. Cabrini & Scott H. Irwin & Darrel L. Good, 2007. "Style and Performance of Agricultural Market Advisory Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 607-623.
    8. Houston, Carrie & Gyamfi, Samuel & Whale, Jonathan, 2014. "Evaluation of energy efficiency and renewable energy generation opportunities for small scale dairy farms: A case study in Prince Edward Island, Canada," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 20-29.
    9. 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.
    10. Murray Fulton & Konstantinos Giannakas, 2001. "Organizational Commitment in a Mixed Oligopoly: Agricultural Cooperatives and Investor-Owned Firms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1258-1265.
    11. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    12. V. James Rhodes, 1983. "The Large Agricultural Cooperative as a Competitor," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(5), pages 1090-1095.
    13. Silvina M. Cabrini & Brian G. Stark & Hayri Önal & Scott H. Irwin & Darrel L. Good & João Martines-Filho, 2004. "Efficiency Analysis of Agricultural Market Advisory Services: A Nonlinear Mixed-Integer Programming Approach," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 237-252, December.
    14. Ariel Dinar, 1996. "Extension Commercialization: How Much to Charge for Extension Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 1-12.
    15. Timothy Besley & Maitreesh Ghatak, 2003. "Incentives, Choice, and Accountability in the Provision of Public Services," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 19(2), pages 235-249, Summer.
    16. Huffman, Wallace & Alfranca, O., 2003. "Private R&D Investments in Agriculture: The Role of Incentives, Public Policies, and Institutions," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10427, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Vogelsang, Ingo, 2002. "Incentive Regulation and Competition in Public Utility Markets: A 20-Year Perspective," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 5-27, July.
    18. Tanguy Bernard & Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse & Eleni Gabre‐Madhin, 2008. "Impact of cooperatives on smallholders' commercialization behavior: evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 147-161, September.
    19. Hellin, Jon & Lundy, Mark & Meijer, Madelon, 2009. "Farmer organization, collective action and market access in Meso-America," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 16-22, February.
    20. Yunxian Hou & Pengfei Chen, 2019. "Research on the Relationship between Price Mechanism and Short-Term Behavior in Chinese Farmland Trusteeships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    21. Wang, Jue & Aenis, Thomas & Hofmann-Souki, Susanne, 2018. "Triangulation in participation: Dynamic approaches for science-practice interaction in land-use decision making in rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 364-371.
    22. Elahi, Ehsan & Abid, Muhammad & Zhang, Liqin & ul Haq, Shams & Sahito, Jam Ghulam Murtaza, 2018. "Agricultural advisory and financial services; farm level access, outreach and impact in a mixed cropping district of Punjab, Pakistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 249-260.
    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. Li Ma & Jiahao Lin & Chuangang Li & Yun Teng, 2024. "Research on Strategy Optimization of Green Agricultural Production Trusteeship to Promote Black Land Protection," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-30, May.
    2. Qi Li & Menghui Gao, . "Trust evolution, institutional constraints, and land trusteeship decisions among Chinese farmers," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 0.
    3. Haibo Ruan & Jun Chen & Chao Wang & Wendong Xu & Jiayi Tang, 2022. "Social Network, Sense of Responsibility, and Resident Participation in China’s Rural Environmental Governance," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-23, May.
    4. Yiqing Su & Qiaoyuan Huang & Qi Meng & Liangzhen Zang & Hua Xiao, 2023. "Socialized Farmland Operation—An Institutional Interpretation of Farmland Scale Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Qi Li & Menghui Gao, 2023. "Trust evolution, institutional constraints, and land trusteeship decisions among Chinese farmers," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(12), pages 485-497.
    6. Jianying Xiao & Qian Wang & Jinjin Dai & Bin Yang & Long Li, 2023. "Urban Residents’ Green Agro-Food Consumption: Perceived Risk, Decision Behaviors, and Policy Implications in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, July.

    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. Hakelius, Karin & Hansson, Helena, 2016. "Members’ attitudes towards cooperatives and their perception of agency problems," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(4), October.
    2. Karin Hakelius & Helena Hansson, 2016. "Measuring Changes in Farmers’ Attitudes to Agricultural Cooperatives: Evidence from Swedish Agriculture 1993–2013," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 531-546, November.
    3. Marco Marini & Alberto Zevi, 2011. "‘Just one of us’: consumers playing oligopoly in mixed markets," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 239-263, November.
    4. Kifle T. Sebhatu & Fatemeh Taheri & Tekeste Berhanu & Miet Maertens & Steven Van Passel & Marijke D'Haese, 2021. "Beyond focus: Exploring variability of service provision of agricultural cooperatives," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(2), pages 207-231, June.
    5. Lachaud, Michée A. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., 2022. "A Bayesian statistical analysis of return to agricultural R&D investment in Latin America: Implications for food security," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Jerzy Michalek & Pavel Ciaian & Jan Pokrivcak, 2018. "The impact of producer organisations on farm performance: A case study of large farms in Slovakia," JRC Research Reports JRC108059, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Cyrille Kamdem, 2016. "Collective Marketing and Cocoa Farmer's Price in Cameroon," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(4), pages 2535-2555.
    8. Kanwar, Sunil, 2007. "Intellectual Property Protection and Technology Transfer: Evidence From US Multinationals," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt606508js, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    9. Guyo Godana Dureti & Martin Paul Jr. Tabe‐Ojong & Enoch Owusu‐Sekyere, 2023. "The new normal? Cluster farming and smallholder commercialization in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(6), pages 900-920, November.
    10. Margitta Minah, 2022. "What is the influence of government programs on farmer organizations and their impacts? Evidence from Zambia," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(1), pages 29-53, March.
    11. Valérie Barraud-Didier & Marie-Christine Henninger & Pierre Triboulet, 2014. "La Participation des Adhérents Dans Leurs Coopératives Agricoles: Une Étude Exploratoire du Secteur Céréalier Français," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(1), pages 125-148, March.
    12. Jasper GRASHUIS & Ye SU, 2019. "A Review Of The Empirical Literature On Farmer Cooperatives: Performance, Ownership And Governance, Finance, And Member Attitude," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 90(1), pages 77-102, March.
    13. Léger, Andréanne, 2006. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation in Developing Countries: Evidence from Panel Data," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin 2006 17, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    14. Marco A. MARINI & Paolo POLIDORI & Desiree TEOBALDELLI & Alberto ZEVI, 2015. "Welfare Enhancing Coordination In Consumer Cooperatives Under Mixed Oligopoly," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(3), pages 505-527, September.
    15. Constantine Iliopoulos & Vladislav Valentinov, 2018. "Member Heterogeneity in Agricultural Cooperatives: A Systems-Theoretic Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    16. Yuanyuan Peng & H. Holly Wang & Yueshu Zhou, 2022. "Can cooperatives help commercial farms to access credit in China? Evidence from Jiangsu Province," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 325-349, December.
    17. You, Heyuan & Zhang, Jinrong & Song, Yan, 2022. "Assessing conflict of farmland institutions using credibility theory: Implications for socially acceptable land use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    18. Julia HÖHLER & Rainer KÜHL, 2018. "Dimensions Of Member Heterogeneity In Cooperatives And Their Impact On Organization – A Literature Review," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(4), pages 697-712, December.
    19. Iliopoulos, Constantine & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2018. "Member heterogeneity in agricultural cooperatives: A systems-theoretic perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22.
    20. Cetrulo, Armanda & Cirillo, Valeria & Landini, Fabio, 2022. "Organized Labour and R&D: Evidence from Italy," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1195, Global Labor Organization (GLO).

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:14:p:5748-:d:385760. 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.