IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i21p15227-d1266435.html

Farmers’ Cognition of and Satisfaction with Policy Affect Willingness of Returning Straw to Field: Based on Evolutionary Game Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Hong Chen

    (College of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China)

  • Haoyan Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China)

  • Sishu Zhou

    (College of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China)

Abstract

As an important measure to promote the black soil protection strategy, returning straw to the fields is the choice of government policy to affect the decision-making behavior of farmers, and the policy implementation process is a dynamic game equilibrium process between farmers and the government. In order to explore the influence of policies on farmers’ straw-returning decision-making and stability processes, this paper used a logit model to analyze the influencing factors on farmers’ straw-returning decision-making behavior based on the survey data of 397 farmers in Hailun City, Heilongjiang Province. This study also constructs the evolutionary game model between farmers and government, carrying out a stability strategy analysis and numerical simulation. The results evidence that farmers’ cognition of fertilization technology, ecological protection, policy satisfaction and cognition of straw returning recipients have a significant negative influence on their willingness to return to the field, and the effect intensity decreases successively. What is more, cognition of crop disease resistance has a positive effect on the willingness of returning straw to the field. It is found that the game balancing process of farmers’ behavior and government straw returning policy evolution can be divided into three stages. At present, China’s straw returning policy is in the intermediate stage, and government needs to provide comprehensive compensation for returning straw to the field according to local conditions such as farmers’ willingness, crop conditions and so on.

Suggested Citation

  • Hong Chen & Haoyan Wang & Sishu Zhou, 2023. "Farmers’ Cognition of and Satisfaction with Policy Affect Willingness of Returning Straw to Field: Based on Evolutionary Game Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:21:p:15227-:d:1266435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/21/15227/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/21/15227/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Anders Norton & Tim T. Phipps & Jerald J. Fletcher, 1994. "Role Of Voluntary Programs In Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 12(1), pages 113-121, January.
    2. Doss, Cheryl R., 2001. "Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(12), pages 2075-2092, December.
    3. Wang, Zhanwu & Wang, Zhenfeng & Tahir, Nadeem & Wang, Heng & Li, Jin & Xu, Guangyin, 2020. "Study of synergetic development in straw power supply chain: Straw price and government subsidy as incentive," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Joyce Willock & Ian J. Deary & Gareth Edwards‐Jones & Gavin J. Gibson & Murray J. McGregor & Alistair Sutherland & J. Barry Dent & Oliver Morgan & Robert Grieve, 1999. "The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-303, May.
    5. Zhaoxu Liu & Jinghua Sun & Weiya Zhu & Yanbo Qu, 2021. "Exploring Impacts of Perceived Value and Government Regulation on Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Wheat Straw Incorporation in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    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. Zou, Zhanlu & Jin, Jianjun & Yang, Jie & Liu, Dan & Zhang, Xuan, 2025. "How do farmers' cognition and social networks affect the adoption behavior of straw-returning technology? Evidence from the black soil region of Northeast China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 219(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. 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.
    2. Joshua Sikhu Okonya & Netsayi Noris Mudege & Anne M. Rietveld & Anastase Nduwayezu & Déo Kantungeko & Bernadette Marie Hakizimana & John Njuki Nyaga & Guy Blomme & James Peter Legg & Jürgen Kroschel, 2019. "The Role of Women in Production and Management of RTB Crops in Rwanda and Burundi: Do Men Decide, and Women Work?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Henning Best, 2008. "Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: A case study from West Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(1), pages 95-106, January.
    4. Hannah Gichungi & Beatrice Muriithi & Patrick Irungu & Gracious Diiro & John Busienei, 2021. "Effect of Technological Innovation on Gender Roles: The Case of Fruit Fly IPM Adoption on Women’s Decision-Making in Mango Production and Marketing in Kenya," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(3), pages 407-426, June.
    5. Kiprop, Emmanuel & Okinda, Cedric & Wamuyu, Samuel & Geng, Xianhui, 2020. "Factors Influencing Smallholder Farmers Participation in Collective Marketing and the Extent of Participation in Improved Indigenous Chicken Markets in Baringo, Kenya," Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, vol. 37(4).
    6. Ndoye Niane, Aifa Fatimata & Burger, Kees, 2012. "Gender and Experimental Measurement of Producers Risk Attitude Towards Output Market Price and its Effects on Economic Performance," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126928, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Alwang, Jeffrey & Larochelle, Catherine & Barrera, Victor, 2017. "Farm Decision Making and Gender: Results from a Randomized Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 117-129.
    8. Qianchun Dai & Kequn Cheng, 2022. "What Drives the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies? An Extension of TAM in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    9. Francisco J. André & Laura Riesgo, 2006. "A Duality Procedure to Elicit Nonlinear Multiattribute Utility Functions," Working Papers 06.02, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    10. Peter Howley & Emma Dillon & Thia Hennessy, 2014. "It’s not all about the money: understanding farmers’ labor allocation choices," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 261-271, June.
    11. Anne Jerneck, 2018. "What about Gender in Climate Change? Twelve Feminist Lessons from Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    13. Weiqin Tang & Weimin Tang & Changsheng Jiang & Shan Lu, 2014. "Incentive Decision on Safety Investment of Supply Chain of Agricultural Products in “Agricultural Super‐Docking”," Journal of Applied Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2014(1).
    14. Fisher, Monica & Kandiwa, Vongai, 2014. "Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 101-111.
    15. Isabel Lambrecht & Monica Schuster & Sarah Asare Samwini & Laura Pelleriaux, 2018. "Changing gender roles in agriculture? Evidence from 20 years of data in Ghana," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 691-710, November.
    16. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Leonard, Alycia & Nguti, Kuthea & Flores Lanza, Micaela & Hirmer, Stephanie, 2025. "Shedding light on vulnerability: Intersectional energy planning for development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    18. Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Heterogeneous economic and behavioural drivers of the Farm afforestation decision," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-74.
    19. Lang, Le Dang & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar & Hieu, Hoang Ngoc & Ha, Nguyen Minh & Gaur, Jighyasu, 2023. "The role of structural social capital in driving social-oriented sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    20. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:21:p:15227-:d:1266435. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.