IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i14p10850-d1191209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Study of Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Environmental Governance Based on Recycling, Reduction and Resourcing

Author

Listed:
  • Jia Liu

    (School of Urban Economics and Public Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Senwei Huang

    (School of Public Administration & Law, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Yijia Wang

    (School of Urban Economics and Public Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

Abstract

In order to establish a green and low-carbon agricultural economic system based on the principles of recycling, reduction and resource utilization, to promote a comprehensive green transformation of the economic development and to achieve carbon peaking and carbon neutrality, this article examines the farmers’ willingness to participate in rural environmental governance. Through a questionnaire survey in the Fujian, Anhui and Shanxi provinces, this article explores the influence of homogeneous and heterogeneous relationships in social networks on the farmers’ willingness to participate in rural environmental governance using a logit model and tries to reveal the deeper mechanisms. The results show that: (1) heterogeneous relationships have a significant positive effect on farmers’ participation in rural environmental governance, but homogeneous relationships do not have a significant effect. (2) The larger the size of the social network, the weaker the farmers’ willingness to participate in rural environmental governance. (3) Age and education level have significant effects on willingness to participate. The older the age, the weaker the willingness to participate; the higher the education level, the stronger the willingness to participate. (4) The larger the number of family members, the stronger the farmers’ willingness to participate in environmental governance. (5) The subjective cognitive status of farmers also has an important influence on their willingness to participate. The more environmental knowledge is acquired, the stronger the willingness to participate in rural environmental governance. Therefore, to promote rural environmental management, there is an urgent need to keep modern farmers on rural land and to make the countryside a beautiful space for living and working with complete living functions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jia Liu & Senwei Huang & Yijia Wang, 2023. "Study of Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Environmental Governance Based on Recycling, Reduction and Resourcing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:14:p:10850-:d:1191209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/10850/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/10850/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Munshi, Kaivan, 2004. "Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the Indian Green Revolution," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 185-213, February.
    2. Vuong, Quan-Hoang, 2022. "A New Theory of Serendipity: Nature, Emergence and Mechanism," OSF Preprints t8ahv, Center for Open Science.
    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. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    2. Francesco Amodio & Miguel A. Martinez-Carrasco, 2023. "Workplace Incentives and Organizational Learning," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 453-478.
    3. Raphaël Soubeyran, 2019. "Technology adoption and pro-social preferences," CEE-M Working Papers halshs-02291905, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    4. Kiichi Tokuoka, 2017. "Is stock investment contagious among siblings?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1505-1528, June.
    5. Feng, Yao, 2011. "Local spillovers and learning from neighbors: Evidence from durable adoptions in rural China," MPRA Paper 33924, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Giuseppe Maggio & Marina Mastrorillo & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2022. "Adapting to High Temperatures: Effect of Farm Practices and Their Adoption Duration on Total Value of Crop Production in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 385-403, January.
    7. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.
    8. Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Winter-Nelson, Alex, 2009. "Poverty status and the impact of social networks on smallholder technology adoption in rural Ethiopia," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49357, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Sseruyange, J. & Bulte, E., 2018. "Do Incentives matter for Knowledge Diffusion? Experimental Evidence from Uganda," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275896, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Adhvaryu, Achyuta, 2011. "Learning, Misallocation, and Technology Adoption: Evidence from New Malaria Therapy in Tanzania," Center Discussion Papers 115712, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    11. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    12. Ariel BenYishay & A. Mushfiq Mobarak, 2014. "Social Learning and Communication," NBER Working Papers 20139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. 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.
    14. Chen, Shuo & Lan, Xiaohuan, 2020. "Tractor vs. animal: Rural reforms and technology adoption in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    15. Muscillo, Alessio & Pin, Paolo & Razzolini, Tiziano & Serti, Francesco, 2018. "Does "Network Closure" Beef up Import Premium?," IZA Discussion Papers 12036, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. 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.
    17. Bet Caeyers, 2014. "Peer effects in development programme awareness of vulnerable groups in rural Tanzania," CSAE Working Paper Series 2014-11, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    18. David Spielman & Kristin Davis & Martha Negash & Gezahegn Ayele, 2011. "Rural innovation systems and networks: findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 195-212, June.
    19. Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Gulati, Kajal, 2015. "Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers' demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 223-251.
    20. 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.

    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:15:y:2023:i:14:p:10850-:d:1191209. 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.