Author
Listed:
- Xin Nie
- Xingyi Wu
- Han Wang
- Qing Kang
- Fengqin Li
- Lihua Li
- Hua Qiao
Abstract
For a long time, the research on the cultivated land abandonment behavior of farmers, caused by natural constraints such as coastal ecological environment vulnerability and frequent extreme climates, has received extensive attention. However, few scholars pay attention to the impact of psychological construction of farmers’ environmental risk perception on abandoned farming behavior, especially the use of psychological distance (PD) to quantify this abstract psychological process. Taking Shankou Town, Guangxi, China as an example, this study combines the PD in the field of sociology with the construal level theory to build a PD framework for coastal farmers. A structural equation model was used to explore the influence mechanism of the social, temporal, hypothetical, and spatial distances on farmers’ cultivated land abandonment behavior. We found that coastal land abandonment is affected by social trust and the probability of extreme weather, although the risk preference under the ‘discount rate’ is not significantly affected. At the same time, the closer the spatial distance between the residence and the coastline, the higher the abandonment of cultivated land, although with a different impact. In addition, population mobility and human-sea connection were found to play a mediating role in the effect of psychological distance on cultivated land abandonment. We confirmed that the direction of the effects of the four types of psychological distance on land abandonment behavior is not consistent. This study is helpful to understand the cultivated land abandonment behavior of farmers in coastal zone, and tries to provide reference for coastal zone planting planning.
Suggested Citation
Xin Nie & Xingyi Wu & Han Wang & Qing Kang & Fengqin Li & Lihua Li & Hua Qiao, 2023.
"What psychological factors lead to the abandonment of cultivated land by coastal farmers? An interpretation based on the psychological distance,"
Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(9), pages 947-968, September.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:26:y:2023:i:9:p:947-968
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2220334
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:jriskr:v:26:y:2023:i:9:p:947-968. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.