IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i22p15811-d1277514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Multi-Subjective Governance on Tea Farmers’ Green Production Behavior Based on the Improved Theory of Planned Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Jinxiong Ji

    (Anxi College of Tea Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Quanzhou 362406, China)

  • Kaibin Zhuo

    (Anxi College of Tea Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Quanzhou 362406, China)

  • Yuxin Zeng

    (Anxi College of Tea Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Quanzhou 362406, China)

  • Jinglin Su

    (Anxi College of Tea Science, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Quanzhou 362406, China)

  • Yi Xie

    (School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

This study constructs a research framework to examine the decision-making process of tea farmers’ green production behavior based on the improved theory of planned behavior, incorporating external environmental factors such as government regulation, market mechanisms, industrial organization-driven environmental factors, and community governance. A structural equation model was employed to empirically analyze the influence paths and underlying mechanisms of multi-subjective governance on tea farmers’ green production behavior using survey data from 872 tea farmers in the main tea-producing areas of Fujian Province. The results showed that (1) government regulation, market mechanisms, and community governance significantly and directly impact the decision-making of tea farmers’ green production behavior, with path coefficients of 0.676, 0.686, and 0.373, respectively, and market mechanisms also indirectly act on green production behavior through perceptual behavioral control, with a path coefficient of 0.459. (2) The market mechanisms had the greatest influence on the decision-making of tea farmers’ green production behavior (total utility of 0.830), followed by government regulation (total utility of 0.676), community governance (total utility of 0.373), and finally, industrial organization-driven factors (total utility of 0.046), indicating that the market organization and the government departments are the most important external environmental forces affecting the decision-making of tea farmers’ green production behavior. The results provide valuable references for achieving effective multi-subjective governance and guiding/regulating tea farmers’ green production behavior. While strengthening the incentives and constraints of government regulations on tea farmers’ green production behavior, it is important to fully leverage the roles of market mechanisms, industrial organization-driven factors, and community governance in the governance of tea farmers’ green production behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinxiong Ji & Kaibin Zhuo & Yuxin Zeng & Jinglin Su & Yi Xie, 2023. "The Impact of Multi-Subjective Governance on Tea Farmers’ Green Production Behavior Based on the Improved Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:15811-:d:1277514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/15811/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/15811/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christiaans, Thomas & Eichner, Thomas & Pethig, Rudiger, 2007. "Optimal pest control in agriculture," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 3965-3985, December.
    2. KS Pietola & AO Lansink, 2001. "Farmer response to policies promoting organic farming technologies in Finland," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(1), pages 1-15, March.
    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. Cuong Le Van & Nguyen To The, 2019. "Farmers’ adoption of organic production," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 33-59, February.
    2. Feinerman, Eli & Gardebroek, Cornelis, 2005. "Stimulating Organic Farming Via Public Services and an Auction-Based Subsidy," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24723, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Moritz Flubacher & George Sheldon & Adrian Müller, 2015. "Comparison of the Economic Performance between Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms in the Swiss Mountain Region Using Matching and Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 7(1), pages 76-84.
    4. Bouali Guesmi & Teresa Serra & Amr Radwan & José María Gil, 2018. "Efficiency of Egyptian organic agriculture: A local maximum likelihood approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 441-455, March.
    5. Wollni, Meike & Andersson, Camilla, 2014. "Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 120-128.
    6. Subal Kumbhakar & Efthymios Tsionas & Timo Sipiläinen, 2009. "Joint estimation of technology choice and technical efficiency: an application to organic and conventional dairy farming," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 151-161, June.
    7. Laure Latruffe & Céline Nauges, 2014. "Technical efficiency and conversion to organic farming: the case of France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(2), pages 227-253.
    8. Hattam, Caroline & Holloway, Garth J., 2007. "Bayes Estimates of Time to Organic Certification," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7979, Agricultural Economics Society.
    9. Roman Ostapenko & Yuliia Herasymenko & Vitalii Nitsenko & Svitlana Koliadenko & Tomas Balezentis & Dalia Streimikiene, 2020. "Analysis of Production and Sales of Organic Products in Ukrainian Agricultural Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, April.
    10. Mohammad Khaledi & Simon Weseen & Erin Sawyer & Shon Ferguson & Richard Gray, 2010. "Factors Influencing Partial and Complete Adoption of Organic Farming Practices in Saskatchewan, Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(1), pages 37-56, March.
    11. Madau, Fabio A., 2005. "Technical Efficiency in Organic Farming: An Application on Italian Cereal Farms Using a Parametric Approach," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24545, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Doris Läpple, 2010. "Adoption and Abandonment of Organic Farming: An Empirical Investigation of the Irish Drystock Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 697-714, September.
    13. Zeng, Yangyi & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2021. "The effects of mental budgeting on the intentions to switch to low-toxicity pesticides: Evidence from vegetable farmers in Sichuan, China," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(3).
    14. Veldstra, Michael D. & Alexander, Corinne E. & Marshall, Maria I., 2014. "To certify or not to certify? Separating the organic production and certification decisions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 429-436.
    15. Desjeux, Yann & Dupraz, Pierre & Latruffe, Laure & Maigne, Elise & Cahuzac, Eric, 2014. "Evaluating the impact of rural development measures on farm labour use: a spatial approach," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182817, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Musshoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2005. "Switching from Conventional to Organic Farming – a Real Options Perspective," 89th Seminar, February 2-5, 2005, Parma, Italy 234633, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & José M. Gil, 2008. "Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 219-229, September.
    18. Wossink, Ada & Kuminoff, Nicolai V., 2005. "Valuing the Option to Switch to Organic Farming: An Application to U.S. Corn and Soybeans," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24716, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Nguyen Cong Dinh & Takeshi Mizunoya & Vo Hoang Ha & Pham Xuan Hung & Nguyen Quang Tan & Le Thanh An, 2023. "Factors influencing farmer intentions to scale up organic rice farming: preliminary findings from the context of agricultural production in Central Vietnam," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 749-774, September.
    20. Cobourn, Kelly M. & Goodhue, Rachael E. & Williams, Jeffrey C., 2009. "The Role of Harvest Timing in Pest Management: Grower Response to Infestation by the California Olive Fruit Fly," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49475, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:22:p:15811-:d:1277514. 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.