IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i18p8112-d1479713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ Willingness and Adoption of Water-Saving Agriculture in Arid Areas: Evidence from China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiujun Tai

    (School of Economics and Management, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030001, China)

  • Feng Feng

    (School of Economics and Management, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030001, China)

  • Fengluan Sun

    (School of Economics and Management, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030001, China)

Abstract

Enhancing water resource utilization efficiency is crucial for achieving sustainable development in arid and semi-arid regions. In promoting water-saving agriculture technologies, there is often a phenomenon of “willingness without behavior”. Therefore, investigating how willingness translates into behavior is of significant importance for improving water resource utilization. This study utilized data from a survey of 494 households in Ulanqab City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China, and employed Probit models to analyze the factors influencing farmers’ willingness towards water-saving technologies and their adoption. Prospect theory and mental accounting theory were introduced to understand the mechanism of transformation from farmers’ willingness to adoption. The study found that farmers’ willingness is a crucial prerequisite for their adoption. Farmers’ income perception towards adopting water-saving technologies can facilitate the transformation from willingness to adoption, while cost perception can inhibit this transformation. Both small and large-scale farmers’ perception of the benefits of water-saving technologies significantly increased their likelihood of translating their willingness to adopt into actual action. Compared with large-scale farmers, small-scale farmers are more sensitive to the perception of economic costs in the decision-making process. For both types of farmers, the perception of learning cost inhibits their willingness to adopt water-saving technologies to a certain extent. Farmers’ perception of the prospects of adopting water-saving technologies leads to a psychological segmentation effect, and the ultimate adoption depends on the psychological game between farmers’ income and cost perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiujun Tai & Feng Feng & Fengluan Sun, 2024. "Farmers’ Willingness and Adoption of Water-Saving Agriculture in Arid Areas: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:18:p:8112-:d:1479713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/18/8112/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/18/8112/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    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. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    2. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    3. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    4. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    5. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Eriksen, Kristoffer W. & Kvaløy, Ola, 2014. "Myopic risk-taking in tournaments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 37-46.
    7. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    8. Hongjuan Song & Yushi Jiang, 2019. "Dynamic pricing decisions by potential tourists under uncertainty: The effects of tourism advertising," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(2), pages 213-234, March.
    9. Manel Baucells & Silvia Bellezza, 2017. "Temporal Profiles of Instant Utility During Anticipation, Event, and Recall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 729-748, March.
    10. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    11. Sanjit Dhami & Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2020. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Tax Evasion: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 8606, CESifo.
    12. Cho, Young-Hee & Duncan Luce, R. & Truong, Lan, 2002. "Duplex decomposition and general segregation of lotteries of a gain and a loss: An empirical evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1176-1193, November.
    13. Bowman, David & Minehart, Deborah & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Loss aversion in a consumption-savings model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 155-178, February.
    14. Hopfensitz, Astrid & Wranik, Tanja, 2008. "Psychological and environmental determinants of myopic loss aversion," MPRA Paper 9305, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    16. M. Pelé & M. Broihanne & B. Thierry & J. Call & V. Dufour, 2014. "To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 141-166, October.
    17. Weber, Martin & Welfens, Frank, 2007. "The repurchase behavior of individual investors : an experimental investigation," Papers 07-44, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    18. Ng, Yew-Kwang & Wang, Jianguo, 2001. "Attitude choice, economic change, and welfare," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 279-291, July.
    19. Doron Sonsino & Mosi Rosenboim & Tal Shavit, 2017. "The valuation “by-tranche” of composite investment instruments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(3), pages 353-393, March.
    20. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.

    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:16:y:2024:i:18:p:8112-:d:1479713. 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.