IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2011-d1042568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Management Behavior of Farmland Shelterbelt of Farmers in Ecologically Fragile Areas: Empirical Evidence from Xinjiang, China

Author

Listed:
  • Pengfei Cheng

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

  • Jie Li

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

  • Hongli Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Guanghua Cheng

    (School of Economics and Management, Huainan Normal University, Huainan 232038, China)

Abstract

The farmland shelterbelt is an important artificial ecological project for improving farmland microclimates, ensuring agricultural production, and promoting sustainable development in China’s ecologically fragile areas. Due to the quasi-public attribute, farmland shelterbelts were mainly constructed and managed by the government in the past. In recent years, the reform of the separation of three rights in collective forestland and the mechanism of “private supply of public goods” have prompted farmers to participate in the modern forest management system. However, there is a lack of consistency between farmers’ management intentions and actual contract operation and management behaviors, resulting in weakened management and protection in many places, which seriously restricts the construction efficiency of farmland shelterbelts. Therefore, based on the survey data and planning behavior theory (TPB) of 1106 farmers in 16 major agricultural production areas (counties) in Xinjiang, this study aims to explore the key factors affecting farmers ‘forestry management and production decision making and to verify the transformation mechanism of farmers’ behavior through path analysis. The results show that the management decisions of farmers in ecologically fragile areas follow the path form of “cognitive → intention → behavior”, in which the multi-dimensional cognition of farmers has a significant impact on farmers’ behavioral intention, while the effect on behavioral response is relatively small, which currently depends on the promotion of ecological compensation and government behavior. Finally, this study puts forward countermeasures and suggestions for continuously stimulating the farmers’ forest operation behavior and provides policy reference for promoting the sustainable development of farmland shelterbelts in ecologically fragile areas put forward countermeasures and suggestions for continuously stimulating farmers’ forestry behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Pengfei Cheng & Jie Li & Hongli Zhang & Guanghua Cheng, 2023. "Sustainable Management Behavior of Farmland Shelterbelt of Farmers in Ecologically Fragile Areas: Empirical Evidence from Xinjiang, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2011-:d:1042568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2011/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2011/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    2. Zheng, Xiao & Zhu, Jiaojun & Xing, Zefeng, 2016. "Assessment of the effects of shelterbelts on crop yields at the regional scale in Northeast China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 49-60.
    3. Kam, Timothy & Kao, Tina & Lu, Yingying, 2020. "Political dynamics, public goods and private spillovers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 237-254.
    4. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    5. Shan Ma & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Christina Jolejole-Foreman, 2012. "Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 604-626, September.
    6. Hans Wiesmeth, 2022. "Public Goods in Environmental Economics," Springer Texts in Business and Economics, in: Environmental Economics, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 123-144, Springer.
    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. Abdul Haris & Muhammad Munawir Syarif & Hamed Narolla & Rachmat Hidayat, 2024. "Multicriteria Analysis Model in Sustainable Corn Farming Area Planning," Papers 2404.01782, arXiv.org.
    2. Hong Sun & Feng Dai & Wenxing Shen, 2023. "How China’s Ecological Compensation Policy Improves Farmers’ Income?—A Test of Environmental Effects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.

    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. Petan Hamazakaza & Gillian Kabwe & Elias Kuntashula & Anthony Egeru & Robert Asiimwe, 2022. "Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Intensification in Maize-Based Farming Systems of Katete District in Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Giacomo Ravaioli & Tiago Domingos & Ricardo F. M. Teixeira, 2023. "A Framework for Data-Driven Agent-Based Modelling of Agricultural Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, March.
    3. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    4. Giefer, Madeline M. & An, Li & Chen, Xiaodong, 2021. "Normative, livelihood, and demographic influences on enrollment in a payment for ecosystem services program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    7. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    8. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    9. Mohammed Akhmaaj, Asmaeil Ali & Sharif, Mohamed Omar, 2024. "The effects of planned behavior model constructs and technology acceptance model constructs on online purchasing behavior: An empirical study on internet users in the Libya city of Tripoli," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    10. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    11. Kristin Thomas & Evalill Nilsson & Karin Festin & Pontus Henriksson & Mats Lowén & Marie Löf & Margareta Kristenson, 2020. "Associations of Psychosocial Factors with Multiple Health Behaviors: A Population-Based Study of Middle-Aged Men and Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Baker, Douglas & Washington, Simon & Turrell, Gavin, 2013. "Residential dissonance and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-28.
    13. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    14. Muhammad Shahid Qureshi & Saadat Saeed & Syed Waleed Mehmood Wasti, 2016. "Erratum to: The impact of various entrepreneurial interventions during the business plan competition on the entrepreneur identity aspirations of participants," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 6(1), pages 1-1, December.
    15. Marcén, Miriam & Molina, José Alberto & Morales, Marina, 2018. "The effect of culture on the fertility decisions of immigrant women in the United States," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 15-28.
    16. Julie Bayle-Cordier & Loïc Berger & Rayan Elatmani & Massimo Tavoni, 2023. "Breath, Love, Walk? The Impact of Mindfulness Interventions on Climate Policy Support and Environmental Attitudes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-29, July.
    17. Fanghella, Valeria & Ibanez, Lisette & Thøgersen, John, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    18. Szu‐Szu Ho & Rosie Stenhouse & Aisha Holloway, 2020. "Understanding HIV‐positive drug users’ experiences of taking highly active antiretroviral treatment: Identity–Values–Conscious engagement model," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9-10), pages 1561-1575, May.
    19. Alexandre Cabagnols & Ali Maâlej & Pierre Mauchand & Olfa Kammoun, 2022. "The determinants of entrepreneurial intention of scientist PhD students: analytical vs emotional formation of the intention," Insights into Regional Development, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 4(4), pages 63-82, December.
    20. Diwanji, Vaibhav S. & Cortese, Juliann, 2020. "Contrasting user generated videos versus brand generated videos in ecommerce," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(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:3:p:2011-:d:1042568. 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.