IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2017i1p29-d124126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Farmers’ Pro-Ecological Intentions after Ecological Rehabilitation in a Fragile Environment Area: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jian Deng

    (College of Life Sciences, Yan’an University, Yan’an 716000, China
    College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Wenhui Hao

    (College of Life Sciences, Yan’an University, Yan’an 716000, China)

  • Wei Zhang

    (College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Xinhui Han

    (College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Kaiyuan Li

    (College of Life Sciences, Yan’an University, Yan’an 716000, China)

  • Yongzhong Feng

    (College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Gaihe Yang

    (College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

Abstract

Farmers’ pro-ecological intentions (PEI) after ecological rehabilitation are crucial to the sustainability of ecological conservation achievements and attract attention from policy-makers and managers. However, studies regarding multiple factors and their mechanism of influence on farmer's PEI are limited in fragile environmental areas. We conducted a household survey that measures the perceptions and attitudes, and the individual, demographic, and economic properties of 2025 farmers in the Loess Plateau of China. Results showed that only 28.74% of the respondents intended to apply the pro-ecological behavior after ecological restoration. The structural equation model reported a high explanatory power of 77.6% for farmers’ PEI. Farmers’ intentions to apply pro-ecological behaviors are jointly affected by various factors, with their perceptions and attitudes found to be the most influential factor and a vital link to other factors. Farmers’ individual, demographic, and economic factors also showed significant effects. Younger male farmers with higher education degrees, and better self-assessment of their abilities and perception of environmental improvement tend to state a greater intention to apply pro-ecological behaviors after the ecological rehabilitation. Results suggest that policy-makers and managers wanting to encourage farmers taking pro-ecological actions after ecological programs should value both enhancing farmers’ abilities to conserve ecological achievements and their perceptions of ecological benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Jian Deng & Wenhui Hao & Wei Zhang & Xinhui Han & Kaiyuan Li & Yongzhong Feng & Gaihe Yang, 2017. "Exploring Farmers’ Pro-Ecological Intentions after Ecological Rehabilitation in a Fragile Environment Area: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:29-:d:124126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/29/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/29/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johnson, Phillip N. & Misra, Sukant K. & Ervin, R. Terry, 1997. "A Qualitative Choice Analysis Of Factors Influencing Post-Crp Land Use Decisions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-11, July.
    2. A. S. MacDougall & K. S. McCann & G. Gellner & R. Turkington, 2013. "Diversity loss with persistent human disturbance increases vulnerability to ecosystem collapse," Nature, Nature, vol. 494(7435), pages 86-89, February.
    3. Cacho, Oscar J. & Milne, Sarah & Gonzalez, Ricardo & Tacconi, Luca, 2014. "Benefits and costs of deforestation by smallholders: Implications for forest conservation and climate policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 321-332.
    4. Lise, Wietze, 2000. "Factors influencing people's participation in forest management in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 379-392, September.
    5. Yang, Xiaojun & Xu, Jintao, 2014. "Program sustainability and the determinants of farmers’ self-predicted post-program land use decisions: evidence from the Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) in China," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 30-47, February.
    6. Jian Deng & Pingsheng Sun & Fazhu Zhao & Xinhui Han & Gaihe Yang & Yongzhong Feng & Guangxin Ren, 2016. "Soil C, N, P and Its Stratification Ratio Affected by Artificial Vegetation in Subsoil, Loess Plateau China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    7. David U. Hooper & E. Carol Adair & Bradley J. Cardinale & Jarrett E. K. Byrnes & Bruce A. Hungate & Kristin L. Matulich & Andrew Gonzalez & J. Emmett Duffy & Lars Gamfeldt & Mary I. O’Connor, 2012. "A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7401), pages 105-108, June.
    8. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    9. Goldsmith, Peter D. & Gunjal, Kisan & Ndarishikanye, Barnabe, 2004. "Rural-urban migration and agricultural productivity: the case of Senegal," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 33-45, July.
    10. Johnson, Phillip N. & Misra, Sukant K. & Ervin, R. Terry, 1997. "A Qualitative Choice Analysis of Factors Influencing Post-CRP Land Use Decisions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 163-173, July.
    11. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    12. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    13. Michael J. Roberts & Ruben N. Lubowski, 2007. "Enduring Impacts of Land Retirement Policies: Evidence from the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 516-538.
    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. Pereira Lima, Flávia & Pereira Bastos, Rogério, 2020. "Understanding landowners’ intention to restore native areas: The role of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).

    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. Jacobson, Sarah, 2014. "Temporal spillovers in land conservation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 366-379.
    2. William W. Olney, 2012. "Offshoring, immigration, and the native wage distribution," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 830-856, August.
    3. Lee, Meongsu, 2018. "Impacts of Net Returns Per Acre on Land Use after Conservation Reserve Program Contract Expiration," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273877, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Lee, Meongsu & Westhoff, Patrick, 2023. "The Russian Aggression Against Ukraine: Implications for Decisions Leaving The Conservation Reserve Program," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 336006, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Brady, Michael P. & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2009. "A Spatial Analysis of Conservation Reserve Program Participants: The Impact of Absenteeism on Participation Decisions," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49369, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    7. Lynch, Lori & Brown, Cheryl, 2000. "Landowner Decision Making About Riparian Buffers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Williams, Jeffery R. & Llewelyn, Richard V. & Pendell, Dustin L. & Schlegel, Alan J. & Troy, Dumler, 2009. "A Risk Analysis of Converting CRP Acres to a Wheat-Sorghum-Fallow Rotation," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 45985, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Cortés-Capano, Gonzalo & Hanley, Nick & Sheremet, Oleg & Hausmann, Anna & Toivonen, Tuuli & Garibotto-Carton, Gustavo & Soutullo, Alvaro & Di Minin, Enrico, 2021. "Assessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of non-monetary incentives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Shuwei Sun & Jiamei Niu & Yujun Wang & Hongbo Yang & Xiaodong Chen, 2024. "Exploring the Heterogeneities in the Impacts of China’s Grassland Ecological Compensation Program," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-11, January.
    11. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Michael J. Roberts & Ruben N. Lubowski, 2007. "Enduring Impacts of Land Retirement Policies: Evidence from the Conservation Reserve Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 516-538.
    13. Grosjean, Pauline & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "How Sustainable are Sustainable Development Programs? The Case of the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 268-285, January.
    14. Watts, John D. & Tacconi, Luca & Hapsari, Nindita & Irawan, Silvia & Sloan, Sean & Widiastomo, Triyoga, 2019. "Incentivizing compliance: Evaluating the effectiveness of targeted village incentives for reducing burning in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Uchida, Emi & Xu, Jintao & Rozelle, Scott, 2003. ""Grain For Green" In China: Cost-Effectiveness And Sustainability Of A Conservation Set-Aside Program," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22252, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Claassen, Roger & Hansen, LeRoy T. & Peters, Mark & Breneman, Vincent E. & Weinberg, Marca & Cattaneo, Andrea & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Hellerstein, Daniel & Hopkins, Jeffrey W. & Johnsto, 2001. "Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape," Agricultural Economic Reports 33983, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Coulibaly-Lingani, Pascaline & Savadogo, Patrice & Tigabu, Mulualem & Oden, Per-Christer, 2011. "Factors influencing people's participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 292-302, April.
    18. Lillemo, Shuling Chen, 2014. "Measuring the effect of procrastination and environmental awareness on households' energy-saving behaviours: An empirical approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 249-256.
    19. Xiaoxu Dong & Huawei Zhao & Tiancai Li, 2022. "The Role of Live-Streaming E-Commerce on Consumers’ Purchasing Intention regarding Green Agricultural Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-13, April.
    20. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.

    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:10:y:2017:i:1:p:29-:d:124126. 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.