IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i7d10.1007_s10668-023-03392-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Jinhua Xie

    (Lanzhou University)

  • Gangqiao Yang

    (Huazhong Agricultural University)

  • Ge Wang

    (Huazhong Agricultural University
    Rural Revitalization Institute, Huazhong Agricultural University
    Huazhong Agricultural University)

  • Shuoyan He

    (Huazhong Agricultural University)

Abstract

Based on the social capital theory, this study analyzes the mechanisms by which social capital and technology cognition influence farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior (ETAB). Using primary survey data from rural areas in Hubei Province, central China, Logit and Ologit models are applied for empirical analysis. The results are shown as follows. (1) Social capital directly affects farmers’ decisions to adopt environment-friendly technology. (2) Technology cognition has a significant positive impact on farmers’ adoption of environment-friendly technology. (3) Social capital indirectly influences the farmers’ ETAB through their perceived technology risk. Thus, first, it is important to maximize the use of social capital to promote farmers’ ETAB effectively and use different channels to enhance farmers’ perceptions of environment-friendly technology and alleviate the risk of adopting technology. Second, it is crucial to establish an effective platform to distribute agricultural technology knowledge and to provide different targeted technology services based on the different education levels of farmers. Third, the government should make environment-friendly technology more accessible and available by improving the agricultural technology service system in rural areas and lowering the loan threshold, loan rate, and other agricultural costs. In sum, the effective integration of these measures can better guide farmers to adopt environment-friendly technology to protect the rural ecological environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Shuoyan He, 2024. "How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18361-18384, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03392-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03392-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03392-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-03392-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Beaman & Ariel BenYishay & Jeremy Magruder & Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, 2021. "Can Network Theory-Based Targeting Increase Technology Adoption?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1918-1943, June.
    2. Bo Zhu & Yu Zhang & Nan Chen & Jihong Quan, 2019. "Assessment of Air Pollution Aggravation during Straw Burning in Hubei, Central China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Gao, Li & Zhang, Wendong & Mei, Yingdan & Sam, Abdoul G. & Song, Yu & Jin, Shuqin, 2018. "Do farmers adopt fewer conservation practices on rented land? Evidence from straw retention in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 609-621.
    4. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Analyzing collective action," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 155-166, November.
    5. Welsch, Heinz, 2020. "Moral Foundations and Voluntary Public Good Provision: The Case of Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Patrick S. Ward & Valerien O. Pede, 2015. "Capturing social network effects in technology adoption: the spatial diffusion of hybrid rice in Bangladesh," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), pages 225-241, April.
    7. Gallagher, Kelly Sims & Muehlegger, Erich, 2011. "Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Tesfamicheal Wossen & Thomas Berger & Salvatore Di Falco, 2015. "Social capital, risk preference and adoption of improved farm land management practices in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 81-97, January.
    9. Annemie Maertens & Christopher B. Barrett, 2013. "Measuring Social Networks' Effects on Agricultural Technology Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 353-359.
    10. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    11. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2010. "Microeconomics of Technology Adoption," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 395-424, September.
    12. Hunecke, Claudia & Engler, Alejandra & Jara-Rojas, Roberto & Poortvliet, P. Marijn, 2017. "Understanding the role of social capital in adoption decisions: An application to irrigation technology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 221-231.
    13. Awudu Abdulai & Wallace Huffman, 2014. "The Adoption and Impact of Soil and Water Conservation Technology: An Endogenous Switching Regression Application," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 26-43.
    14. Robert C. Anderson & Alfons Weersink, 2014. "A Real Options Approach for the Investment Decisions of a Farm-Based Anaerobic Digester," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(1), pages 69-87, March.
    15. Martins, Nuno Ornelas, 2016. "Ecosystems, strong sustainability and the classical circular economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 32-39.
    16. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    17. Yao, Chunsheng & Chen, Chongying & Li, Ming, 2012. "Analysis of rural residential energy consumption and corresponding carbon emissions in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 445-450.
    18. Kenneth A. Baerenklau, 2005. "Toward an Understanding of Technology Adoption: Risk, Learning, and Neighborhood Effects," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    19. Ke He & Junbiao Zhang & Junhui Feng & Ting Hu & Lu Zhang, 2016. "The Impact of Social Capital on farmers' Willingness to Reuse Agricultural Waste for Sustainable Development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2), pages 101-108, March.
    20. Liu, Beibei & Wu, Qiaoran & Wang, Feng & Zhang, Bing, 2019. "Is straw return-to-field always beneficial? Evidence from an integrated cost-benefit analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 393-402.
    21. Nassul Ssentamu Kabunga & Thomas Dubois & Matin Qaim, 2012. "Heterogeneous information exposure and technology adoption: the case of tissue culture bananas in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(5), pages 473-486, September.
    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. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    2. Tessema, Yohannis Mulu & Asafu-Adjaye, John & Kassie, Menale & Mallawaarachchi, Thilak, 2016. "Do neighbours matter in technology adoption? The case of conservation tillage in northwest Ethiopia," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(3).
    3. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Satish, Varun & Sulaiman, Munshi & Sun, Yi, 2022. "Sooner rather than later: Social networks and technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 466-482.
    4. Mao, Hui & Quan, Yurong & Fu, Yong & Chen, Shaojian, 2022. "Risk preferences, productive investment and straw return technology adoption by farmers in China," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322087, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    6. Jutao Zeng & Jie Lyu, 2023. "Simultaneous Decisions to Undertake Off-Farm Work and Straw Return: The Role of Cognitive Ability," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Ambali, Omotuyole I. & Areal, Francisco J. & Georgantzis, Nikolaos & Oyetunde-Usman, Zainab, 2021. "Examining the Role of Spatially-Dependent Time Preference in Improved Rice Technology Adoption Decisions," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315286, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Yanbing Wang & Niklas Möhring & Robert Finger, 2023. "When my neighbors matter: Spillover effects in the adoption of large‐scale pesticide‐free wheat production," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 256-273, March.
    9. Sadick Mohammed & Awudu Abdulai, 2022. "Do Egocentric information networks influence technical efficiency of farmers? Empirical evidence from Ghana," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 109-128, December.
    10. Keiko Fukumori & Ayumi Arai & Tomoya Matsumoto, 2022. "Risk Management for Smallholder Farmers: An Empirical Study on the Adoption of Weather-Index Crop Insurance in Rural Kenya," Working Papers 230, JICA Research Institute.
    11. Arslan, Cansın & Wollni, Meike & Oduol, Judith & Hughes, Karl, 2022. "Who communicates the information matters for technology adoption," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Satish, Varun & Sulaiman, Munshi & Sun, Yi, 2021. "Sooner Rather Than Later: Social Networks and Technology Adoption," IZA Discussion Papers 14307, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Alexander Pfaff & Juan Robalino, 2017. "Spillovers from Conservation Programs," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 299-315, October.
    14. Jose Funes & Laixiang Sun & Fernando Sedano & Giovanni Baiocchi & Todd Benson, 2022. "Social interaction and geographic diffusion of iron‐biofortified beans in Rwanda," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 503-528, July.
    15. Bradford L. Barham & Jean-Paul Chavas & Dylan Fitz & Vanessa Ríos-Salas & Laura Schechter, 2015. "Risk, learning, and technology adoption," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 11-24, January.
    16. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Schechter, Laura, 2018. "Receptiveness to advice, cognitive ability, and technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 239-268.
    17. Muange, Elijah N. & Godecke, Theda & Schwarze, Stefan, 2015. "Effects of social networks on technical efficiency in smallholder agriculture: The case of cereal producers Tanzania," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 230221, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Anna Folke Larsen, 2019. "When knowledgeable neighbors also share seedlings: diffusion of banana cultivation in Tanzania," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 51-65, January.
    19. Annemie Maertens & Hope Michelson & Vesall Nourani, 2021. "How Do Farmers Learn from Extension Services? Evidence from Malawi," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 569-595, March.
    20. Li, Kai & Li, Qi, 2022. "Social embeddedness and agricultural technology diffusion from the perspective of scale differentiation – a case study from China," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 26(1), August.

    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:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03392-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.