IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae15/211860.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding farmer cooperatives’ self-inspection behavior to guarantee agri-product safety in China

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou, Jie-hong
  • Yan, Zhen
  • Li, Kai

Abstract

The presence of toxic agri-products, and chemical contamination remain for the existence of smallholder farmers, who are not educated to use agricultural inputs correctly. This inability raises the issue of safety control in the agricultural sector. We proposes that cooperatives’ self-inspection of agricultural products before they enter the market can better organize small farmers to utilize a standardized production and safety management system. An Ordered Logistic Regression Model is employed to estimate the factors that influence cooperatives' choices of inspection frequency. The results show that the respondents expressed a medium to high level of implementing self-inspection but a lower level of concern in testing products by batch. The regression results indicate that subjective norms, the perceived behavioral control of managers, input management, and production documentation significantly affect cooperatives’ self-inspection behavior. The future implementation of safety inspection depends on the extent to which subjective norms, ability, and internal rules can improve agri-product safety in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou, Jie-hong & Yan, Zhen & Li, Kai, 2015. "Understanding farmer cooperatives’ self-inspection behavior to guarantee agri-product safety in China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211860, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae15:211860
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.211860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/211860/files/Zhou-Understanding%20adoption%20of%20farmer%20cooperative_s%20self-inspection-458.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.211860?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deepananda Herath & Zuhair Hassan & Spencer Henson, 2007. "Adoption of Food Safety and Quality Controls: Do Firm Characteristics Matter? Evidence from the Canadian Food Processing Sector," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(3), pages 299-314, September.
    2. Cook, A. J. & Kerr, G. N. & Moore, K., 2002. "Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 557-572, October.
    3. Zhou, Jiehong & Jensen, Helen H. & Liang, J., 2012. "Implementation of Food safety and quality standards: A case study of vegetable processing industry in Zhejiang, China," Staff General Research Papers Archive 35615, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Antle, John M., 2001. "Economic analysis of food safety," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 19, pages 1083-1136, Elsevier.
    5. Jia, Xiangping & Huang, Jikun, 2011. "Contractual arrangements between farmer cooperatives and buyers in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 656-666.
    6. Mario Mazzocchi & Alexandra Lobb & W. Bruce Traill & Alessio Cavicchi, 2008. "Food Scares and Trust: A European Study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 2-24, February.
    7. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    8. Massoud Karshenas & Paul L. Stoneman, 1993. "Rank, Stock, Order, and Epidemic Effects in the Diffusion of New Process Technologies: An Empirical Model," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(4), pages 503-528, Winter.
    9. Loader, Rupert & Hobbs, Jill E., 1999. "Strategic responses to food safety legislation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 685-706, December.
    10. Jill E. Hobbs, 2003. "Information, Incentives and Institutions in the Agri-food Sector," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 51(3), pages 413-429, November.
    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. Michele Graffeo & Lucia Savadori & Katya Tentori & Nicolao Bonini & Rino Rumiati, 2009. "Consumer decision in the context of a food hazard: the effect of commitment," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 8(1), pages 59-76, June.
    2. Zerbini, Cristina & Luceri, Beatrice & Vergura, Donata Tania, 2017. "Leveraging consumer’s behaviour to promote generic drugs in Italy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(4), pages 397-406.
    3. Heikkila, Jaakko & Pouta, Eija & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Makela, Johanna, 2010. "Consumer Intentions Of Buying Poultry Meat Under Perceived Biological, Chemical Or Technological Risk In Finland," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116403, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Heikkila, Jaakko & Pouta, Eija & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Makela, Johanna, 2011. "Consumer risk perceptions of zoonotic, chemical and gm risks: the case of poultry purchase intentions in Finland," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114551, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Jaakko Heikkilä & Eija Pouta & Sari Forsman-Hugg & Johanna Mäkelä, 2013. "Heterogeneous Risk Perceptions: The Case of Poultry Meat Purchase Intentions in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Luigi Cembalo & Daniela Caso & Valentina Carfora & Francesco Caracciolo & Alessia Lombardi & Gianni Cicia, 2019. "The “Land of Fires” Toxic Waste Scandal and Its Effect on Consumer Food Choices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
    7. Schuitema, Geertje & Anable, Jillian & Skippon, Stephen & Kinnear, Neale, 2013. "The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 39-49.
    8. Costanza Nosi & Antonella D’Agostino & Margherita Pagliuca & Carlo Alberto Pratesi, 2017. "Securing Retirement at a Young Age. Exploring the Intention to Buy Longevity Annuities through an Extended Version of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    9. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2014. "Will consumers use biodiesel? Assessing the potential for reducing CO2 emissions from private transport in Spain," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182802, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Lee, Karen M.Y. & Lee, John C.K. & Ma, Anson T.H. & Cheung, Lewis T.O., 2019. "Does human rights awareness spur environmental activism? Hong Kong’s ‘country park’ controversy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    11. Pi-Yueh Cheng & Mei-Chin Chu, 2014. "Behavioral Factors Affecting Students’ Intentions to Enroll in Business Ethics Courses: A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory Using Self-Identity as a Moderator," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 35-46, September.
    12. Yazdanpanah, Masoud & Komendantova, Nadejda & Ardestani, Roshanak Shafiei, 2015. "Governance of energy transition in Iran: Investigating public acceptance and willingness to use renewable energy sources through socio-psychological model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 565-573.
    13. De Cannière, Marie Hélène & De Pelsmacker, Patrick & Geuens, Maggie, 2009. "Relationship Quality and the Theory of Planned Behavior models of behavioral intentions and purchase behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 82-92, January.
    14. Saeed Gholamrezai & Vahid Aliabadi & Pouria Ataei, 2021. "Understanding the pro-environmental behavior among green poultry farmers: Application of behavioral theories," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16100-16118, November.
    15. Malik Orou Seko & Nibangue Laré & Walter Ossebi & Gilbert Fokou & Daouda Dao & Bassirou Bonfoh, 2022. "Determinants of Intention to Consume Dibiterie Meat towards the Risks of Non-Communicable Diseases in the Dakar Region, Senegal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, September.
    16. Ellen Townsend & Scott Campbell, 2004. "Psychological Determinants of Willingness to Taste and Purchase Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1385-1393, October.
    17. Xiaowei Wen & Sangluo Sun & Lin Li & Qinying He & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Avian Influenza—Factors Affecting Consumers’ Purchase Intentions toward Poultry Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-13, October.
    18. Ilknur Ayar & Ahmet Gürbüz, 2021. "Sustainable Consumption Intentions of Consumers in Turkey: A Research Within the Theory of Planned Behavior," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    19. Patel, Jayesh D. & Trivedi, Rohit H. & Yagnik, Arpan, 2020. "Self-identity and internal environmental locus of control: Comparing their influences on green purchase intentions in high-context versus low-context cultures," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. Amina Rizwan & Faisal Mustafa, 2022. "Fintech Attaining Sustainable Development: An Investor Perspective of Crowdfunding Platforms in a Developing Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries; International Development; Land Economics/Use;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae15:211860. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.