IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277110.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pro-environmental behavior of grain farmers production and management and its influencing factors: based on the survey 797 households in Henan and Ningxia provinces

Author

Listed:
  • Cao, H.
  • Zhao, K.
  • Huang, H.

Abstract

In this paper, 797 households in Henan and Ningxia were selected as sample, and the binary Logit Model was used to analyze the influencing factors of pro-environmental behavior in grain farmers production and operation. The results show that: farmers in production and management have begun showing a pro-environmental trend. The main factors that affect the production and management of grain farmers include the characteristics of farmers' personal characteristics, family characteristics, cultivated land resources endowment, cognitive characteristics and location characteristics. The educational level, participation in skills training , income level, breeding status, joining cooperatives, awareness of arable land protection policy, whether the main grain producing areas and other factors have a significant positive impact on the pro-environmental behavior of farmers. And age, management type, fragmentation of cultivated land and other factors have a significant negative impact on the pro-environmental behavior of farmers. The factors such as the quantity of labor force, the importance of protecting the cultivated land and the cognition of person liable of the cultivated land protection have no significant effect on the pro-environmental behavior of the farmers. Other factors have different effects on the pro-environmental behavior of farmers. Acknowledgement : Hui Cao thanks Jingjing Sun and other research group members for the contribution made in the questionnaire survey and data processing.

Suggested Citation

  • Cao, H. & Zhao, K. & Huang, H., 2018. "Pro-environmental behavior of grain farmers production and management and its influencing factors: based on the survey 797 households in Henan and Ningxia provinces," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277110, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277110
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277110/files/972.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277110?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    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. Ferrer, Stuart R.D. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 1997. "Factors affecting soil conservation decisions of KwaZulu-Natal commercial sugarcane farmers," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 36(4), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    3. Nagubadi, Venkatarao & McNamara, Kevin T. & Hoover, William L. & Mills, Walter L., Jr., 1996. "Program Participation Behvaior Of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2012. "Revealed payments for biodiversity protection in Swedish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-62.
    5. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Pagiola, Stefano & Rios, Ana R. & Arcenas, Agustin, 2008. "Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 299-325, June.
    8. Franco, Juan Agustin & Calatrava-Requena, Javier, 2008. "Adoption and diffusion of no tillage practices in Southern Spain olive groves," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44014, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Morrison, Mark, 2005. "Identifying Market Segments for Technology Adoption," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137937, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    11. Jordan, Jeffrey L. & Elnagheeb, Abdelmoneim H., 1992. "The Structure Of Citizen Preferences For Government Soil Erosion Control Programs," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Gary Lynne, 1984. "Commentary," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 1(3), pages 10-14, June.
    13. Leland Glenna, 1996. "Rationality, habitus, and agricultural landscapes: Ethnographic case studies in landscape sociology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 13(4), pages 21-38, September.
    14. Willy, Daniel Kyalo & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2013. "Social influence and collective action effects on farm level soil conservation effort in rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 94-103.
    15. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, July.
    16. Mahadevan, Renuka, 2008. "The high price of sweetness: The twin challenges of efficiency and soil erosion in Fiji's sugar industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 468-477, June.
    17. Maria & Irham & Slamet Hartono & Lestari Rahayu Waluyati, 2022. "The effect of environmental awareness on motivation in adopting farming conservation techniques in the various agro-ecological zones: a case study in critical land of Java Island, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1878-1896, February.
    18. Benin, Samuel & Johnson, Michael E. & Abokyi, Emmanuel & Ahorbo, Gerald & Jimah, Kipo & Nasser, Gamel & Owusu, Victor & Taabazuing, Joe & Tenga, Albert, 2013. "Revisiting agricultural input and farm support subsidies in Africa: The case of Ghana’s mechanization, fertilizer, block farms, and marketing programs:," IFPRI discussion papers 1300, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Nikolaos E. Petridis & Georgios Digkas & Leonidas Anastasakis, 2020. "Factors affecting innovation and imitation of ICT in the agrifood sector," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 501-514, November.
    20. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:iaae18:277110. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.