Volume 29 Issue 9
Sep.  2021
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
ZHAO X Y, ZHENG J, ZHANG M Y, LI H H. Mechanism of green production decision-making under the improved theory of planned behavior framework for new agrarian business entities[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2021, 29(9): 1636−1648 doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.210215
Citation: ZHAO X Y, ZHENG J, ZHANG M Y, LI H H. Mechanism of green production decision-making under the improved theory of planned behavior framework for new agrarian business entities[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2021, 29(9): 1636−1648 doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.210215

Mechanism of green production decision-making under the improved theory of planned behavior framework for new agrarian business entities

doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.210215
Funds:  This study was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (19BGL160)
More Information
  • Corresponding author: E-mail: 434614337@qq.com
  • Received Date: 2021-04-10
  • Accepted Date: 2021-04-30
  • Available Online: 2021-07-26
  • Publish Date: 2021-09-06
  • Increasing demand for green agricultural products means that the traditional smallholder farm industry cannot meet customers’ requirements, which has encouraged new agrarian business entities to engage in green production. This study used micro survey data from 293 vegetable family farms in Shandong Province to construct a model and empirically test the decision-making mechanism of green production for new agrarian business entities. Based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), this study added the decision-making process of “environment → cognition” to the TPB to investigate the premise that the “external environment is consistent and stable,” and constructed a decision-making framework mechanism of “external environment → internal cognition → behavioral intention → behavior implementation”. We tested the decision-making framework using structural equation modeling (SEM) and a multi-group analysis method. The conclusions were as follows: 1) from the perspective of the mechanism of action, the external environment (market incentive and government regulation) impacted behavior implementation through the mediating role of internal cognition (behavior attitude and control cognition) and behavioral intention. The relevant hypotheses were significant, and the decision-making model had a good explanatory power for the pre-, during-, and post-green production behavior implementation of vegetable family farms. 2) The influence effects of market incentive, government regulation, behavior attitude, control cognition, and behavior intention were 0.393, 0.177, 0.260, 0.423, and 0.296, respectively. Between the external environmental factors, market incentive was more important than government regulation; while between the internal cognitive factors, control cognition was more important than behavior attitude. Overall, market incentives and control cognition had the greatest effects, followed by behavior and attitude. There were two important decision-making paths: market incentive → control cognition → behavior implementation and market incentive → behavior attitude → behavior implementation. 3) As per factor loading, the load coefficients of industrial cooperation and consumption demand, ecological compensation and technical training, economic value cognition, and behavioral obstacle cognition were the key factors of market incentive, government regulation, behavior attitude, and control cognition, which were important factors in forming the internal cognition of the external environment. Combined with the effects of the potential variables, more attention should be given to the influence of industrial cooperation, consumer demand, behavior obstacle cognition, and economic value cognition on the implementation of green production behavior. 4) The green production decision-making mechanism of family farms with different scales and number of generations of farmers differed. The behavioral intention of small farms did not have a significant impact on behavior implementation, and the behavior attitude of the older generation and small farms did not have a significant effect on behavioral intention. The behavior attitude of large farms did not have a significant effect on behavior implementation, and government regulations did not have a significant effect on behavior and attitude of small farms. Therefore, we should strengthen policy guidance and support for cultivating the market environment, reducing endowment constraints, enhancing economic performance, and rationalizing the decision-making mechanisms to promote green transformation for different types of family farms.
  • loading
  • [1]
    蔡颖萍, 杜志雄. 家庭农场生产行为的生态自觉性及其影响因素分析−基于全国家庭农场监测数据的实证检验[J]. 中国农村经济, 2016, (12): 33−45

    CAI Y P, DU Z X. Analysis of ecological consciousness of family farm production behavior and its influencing factors — Based on the empirical test of national family farm monitoring data[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2016, (12): 33−45
    [2]
    周洁红, 唐利群, 李凯. 应对气候变化的农业生产转型研究进展[J]. 中国农村观察, 2015, (3): 74−86

    ZHOU J H, TANG L Q, LI K. Research progress of agricultural production transformation in response to climate change[J]. China Rural Survey, 2015, (3): 74−86
    [3]
    陈首珠. 生态文明视阈下的农业生产方式转型研究[J]. 前沿, 2012, (18): 83−85

    CHEN S Z. Research on transformation of agricultural production mode from the perspective of ecological civilization[J]. Forward Position, 2012, (18): 83−85
    [4]
    谭天明. 应重视在农业生产环节解决食品安全问题[J]. 经济纵横, 2011, (9): 86−88

    TAN T M. Attention should be paid to solving food safety issues in agricultural production[J]. Economic Review, 2011, (9): 86−88
    [5]
    陈汉平. 转型与升级: 我国农业家庭经营的必由之路−基于农业现代化的视角[J]. 江苏师范大学学报: 哲学社会科学版, 2015, 41(4): 132−137

    CHEN H P. Transformation and upgrading: the indispensable road to agricultural household operation in China — Perspective in development of agricultural modernization[J]. Journal of Jiangsu Normal University: Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition, 2015, 41(4): 132−137
    [6]
    李文明, 罗丹, 陈洁, 等. 农业适度规模经营: 规模效益、产出水平与生产成本−基于1552个水稻种植户的调查数据[J]. 中国农村经济, 2015, (3): 4−17

    LI W M, LUO D, CHEN J, et al. Moderate scale operation of agriculture: scale efficiency, output level and production cost — Based on survey data of 1552 rice growers[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2015, (3): 4−17
    [7]
    朱启臻, 胡鹏辉, 许汉泽. 论家庭农场: 优势、条件与规模[J]. 农业经济问题, 2014, 35(7): 11−17

    ZHU Q Z, HU P H, XU H Z. Discussion about family farm: advantage, requirement and scale[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2014, 35(7): 11−17
    [8]
    闵继胜, 孔祥智. 新型农业经营主体的模式创新与农业清洁生产−基于黑龙江仁发农机专业合作社的案例分析[J]. 江海学刊, 2017, (4): 67−73 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-856X.2017.04.011

    MIN J S, KONG X Z. Mode innovation of new-type agricultural management entities and agricultural clean production: case study based on Renfa Professional Cooperatives of Agricultural Machinery of Heilongjiang Province[J]. Jianghai Academic Journal, 2017, (4): 67−73 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-856X.2017.04.011
    [9]
    蔡荣, 汪紫钰, 钱龙, 等. 加入合作社促进了家庭农场选择环境友好型生产方式吗?−以化肥、农药减量施用为例[J]. 中国农村观察, 2019, (1): 51−65

    CAI R, WANG Z Y, QIAN L, et al. Do cooperatives promote family farms to choose environmental-friendly production practices? An empirical analysis of fertilizers and pesticides reduction[J]. China Rural Survey, 2019, (1): 51−65
    [10]
    王建华, 晁熳璐, 浦徐进. 农业生产随意性行为演化及其理论嬗变−基于不同类型农业生产主体的案例考察[J]. 自然辩证法通讯, 2017, 39(3): 111−120

    WANG J H, CHAO M L, PU X J. Evolution of arbitrary behavior in agricultural production and its theoretical evolution: based on the case study of the different types of agricultural production[J]. Journal of Dialectics of Nature, 2017, 39(3): 111−120
    [11]
    孔庆洋, 闵继胜. 风险、技术与中国新型农业经营主体化肥使用量[J]. 安徽师范大学学报: 人文社会科学版, 2020, 48(6): 87−97

    KONG Q Y, MIN J S. Risk, technology and the amount of fertilizer used by Chinese new agricultural management entities[J]. Journal of Anhui Normal University: Human & Socical Sciences, 2020, 48(6): 87−97
    [12]
    高杨, 赵端阳, 于丽丽. 家庭农场绿色防控技术政策偏好与补偿意愿[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(10): 1837−1848

    GAO Y, ZHAO D Y, YU L L. Family farms’ policy preferences and willingness to accept compensation on green pest control techniques[J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(10): 1837−1848
    [13]
    曹裕, 杜志伟, 万光羽. 不同农药残留标准下家庭农场种植行为选择[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2018, 38(6): 1492−1501

    CAO Y, DU Z W, WAN G Y. Family farms’ choice of cropping behavior under different pesticide residue standards[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2018, 38(6): 1492−1501
    [14]
    曹铁毅, 王雪琪, 邹伟. 家庭农场测土配方施肥行为分析−基于人力资本和社会资本禀赋[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(5): 117−123

    CAO T Y, WANG X Q, ZOU W. Analysis on the behavior of soil testing and formula fertilization of family farm — Based on human capital and social capital endowment[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(5): 117−123
    [15]
    夏雯雯, 杜志雄, 郜亮亮. 土地经营规模对测土配方施肥技术应用的影响研究−基于家庭农场监测数据的观察[J]. 中国土地科学, 2019, 33(11): 70−78

    XIA W W, DU Z X, GAO L L. Study on the impact of land operational scale on the application of formula fertilization technology by soil testing: based on the observation from family farm monitoring data[J]. China Land Science, 2019, 33(11): 70−78
    [16]
    高杨, 张笑, 陆姣, 等. 家庭农场绿色防控技术采纳行为研究[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(5): 934−944

    GAO Y, ZHANG X, LU J, et al. Research on adoption behavior of green control techniques by family farms[J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(5): 934−944
    [17]
    AJZEN I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior[M]//KUHL J, BECKMANN J. Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg: Springer, 1985: 11–39
    [18]
    侯博, 应瑞瑶. 分散农户低碳生产行为决策研究−基于TPB和SEM的实证分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2015, (2): 4−13

    HOU B, YING R Y. Research on decision-making of low-carbon production behavior of dispersed farmers — Based on empirical analysis of TPB and SEM[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2015, (2): 4−13
    [19]
    李明月, 陈凯. 农户绿色农业生产意愿与行为的实证分析[J]. 华中农业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2020, (4): 10−19

    LI M Y, CHEN K. An empirical analysis of farmers’ willingness and behaviors in green agriculture production[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University: Social Sciences Edition, 2020, (4): 10−19
    [20]
    张董敏, 齐振宏, 李欣蕊, 等. 农户两型农业认知对行为响应的作用机制−基于TPB和多群组SEM的实证研究[J]. 资源科学, 2015, 37(7): 1482−1490

    ZHANG D M, QI Z H, LI X R, et al. ‘Two Types’ agriculture: farmer cognition and behavioral responses based on TPB and Multi-group SEM[J]. Resources Science, 2015, 37(7): 1482−1490
    [21]
    周翼虎, 方婷婷, 李丽. 基于TAM-TPB框架的农户宅基地退出决策机理研究[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 43(1): 148−160

    ZHOU Y H, FANG T T, LI L. Decision-making mechanism of farmers’ homestead exit based on the TAM-TPB framework[J]. Resources Science, 2019, 43(1): 148−160
    [22]
    秦曼, 杜元伟, 万骁乐. 基于TPB-NAM整合的海洋水产企业亲环境意愿研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2020, 30(9): 75−83

    QIN M, DU Y W, WAN X L. Research on pro-environment willingness of marine aquatic enterprises based on TPB-NAM integration[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2020, 30(9): 75−83
    [23]
    曹慧, 赵凯. 农户化肥减量施用意向影响因素及其效应分解−基于VBN-TPB的实证分析[J]. 华中农业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2018, (6): 29−38

    CAO H, ZHAO K. Influence factors and effect decomposition of households’ intention of chemical fertilizer reduction: an empirical analysis based on VBN-TPB[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University: Social Sciences Edition, 2018, (6): 29−38
    [24]
    KARIMI S, SAGHALEINI A. Factors influencing ranchers’ intentions to conserve rangelands through an extended theory of planned behavior[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021, 26(3/4): e01513
    [25]
    LOU T, WANG D, CHEN H, et al. Different perceptions of belief: Predicting household solid waste separation behavior of urban and rural residents in China[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(18): 7778 doi: 10.3390/su12187778
    [26]
    WANG M Y, LIN S M. Intervention strategies on the wastewater treatment behavior of Swine farmers: An extended model of the theory of planned behavior[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(17): 6906 doi: 10.3390/su12176906
    [27]
    何悦, 漆雁斌. 农户绿色生产行为形成机理的实证研究−基于川渝地区860户柑橘种植户施肥行为的调查[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 30(2): 493−506

    HE Y, QI Y B. An empirical study on the formation mechanism of farmers’ green production behavior: Based on the investigation of fertilization behavior of 860 citrus growers in Sichuan and Chongqing[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2019, 30(2): 493−506
    [28]
    王海涛, 王凯. 养猪户安全生产决策行为影响因素分析−基于多群组结构方程模型的实证研究[J]. 中国农村经济, 2012, (11): 21−30

    WANG H T, WANG K. Entrepreneurial behavior of pig farmers under a milk quota system: Goals, objectives and attitudes[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2012, (11): 21−30
    [29]
    BERGEVOET R H M, ONDERSTEIGN C J M, SAATKAMPHW H W, et al. Entrepreneurial behavior of dutch dairy farmers under a milk quota system: Goals, objectives and attitudes[J]. Agricultural Systems, 2004, 80(1): 1−21 doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2003.05.001
    [30]
    LÄPPLE D. Comparing attitudes and characteristics of organic, former organic and conventional farmers: Evidence from Ireland[J]. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2013, 28(4): 329−337 doi: 10.1017/S1742170512000294
    [31]
    姚柳杨, 赵敏娟, 徐涛. 经济理性还是生态理性?农户耕地保护的行为逻辑研究[J]. 南京农业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2016, 16(5): 86−95

    YAO L Y, ZHAO M J, XU T. Economic rationality or ecological literacy? logic of peasant households’ soil conservation practices[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University: Social Sciences Edition, 2016, 16(5): 86−95
    [32]
    KOESLING M, FLATEN O, LIEN G. Factors influencing the conversion to organic farming in Norway[J]. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 2008, 7(1/2): 78 doi: 10.1504/IJARGE.2008.016981
    [33]
    孙小燕, 刘雍. 土地托管能否带动农户绿色生产?[J]. 中国农村经济, 2019, (10): 60−80

    SUN X Y, LIU Y. Can land trusteeship drive farmers’ green production?[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2019, (10): 60−80
    [34]
    刘可, 齐振宏, 黄炜虹, 等. 资本禀赋异质性对农户生态生产行为的影响研究−基于水平和结构的双重视角分析[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019, 29(2): 87−96

    LIU K, QI Z H, HUANG W H, et al. Research on the influence of capital endowment heterogeneity on farmers’ ecological production: analysis from horizontal and structural perspectives[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2019, 29(2): 87−96
    [35]
    罗小锋, 杜三峡, 黄炎忠, 等. 种植规模、市场规制与稻农生物农药施用行为[J]. 农业技术经济, 2020, (6): 71−80

    LUO X F, DU S X, HUANG Y Z, et al. Planting scale, market regulation and rice farmers’ biological pesticide application behavior[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2020, (6): 71−80
    [36]
    李芬妮, 张俊飚, 何可. 非正式制度、环境规制对农户绿色生产行为的影响−基于湖北1105份农户调查数据[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(7): 1227−1239

    LI F N, ZHANG J B, HE K. Impact of informal institutions and environmental regulations on farmers’ green production behavior: Based on survey data of 1105 households in Hubei Province[J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(7): 1227−1239
    [37]
    王太祥, 滕晨光, 张朝辉. 非正式社会支持、环境规制与农户地膜回收行为[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(8): 109−115

    WANG T X, TENG C G, ZHANG Z H. Informal social support, environmental regulation and farmers’ film recycling behavior[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(8): 109−115
    [38]
    周洁红. 生鲜蔬菜质量安全管理问题研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2005

    ZHOU J H. Research on the quality and safety management of fresh vegetables[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2005
    [39]
    代云云, 徐翔. 农户蔬菜质量安全控制行为及其影响因素实证研究−基于农户对政府、市场及组织质量安全监管影响认知的视角[J]. 南京农业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2012, 12(3): 48−53

    DAI Y Y, XU X. Study on the farmers behavior in controlling vegetable quality and safety and their influencing factors: based on the regulatory impact of government, market and organization[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University: Social Sciences Edition, 2012, 12(3): 48−53
    [40]
    BANDURA A. Toward a unifying theory of behavirol change[J]. Psychological Review, 1977: 84
    [41]
    HAYAMI Y. Japanese Agriculture under Siege[M]. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1988.
    [42]
    刘丽, 郝净净, 姜志德. 基于TPB框架的农户水土保持耕作技术采用意愿及代际差异研究−基于黄土高原3省6县的实证[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(5): 51−57

    LIU L, HAO J J, JIANG Z D. Farmer’s willingness to adopt soil and water conservation tillage technology and intergenerational differences—based on the empirical evidence of 6 counties in Loess Plateau[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(5): 51−57
    [43]
    曹慧, 赵凯. 耕地经营规模对农户亲环境行为的影响[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(4): 740−752

    CAO H, ZHAO K. Farmland scale and farmers’ pro-environmental behavior: Verification of the inverted U hypothesis[J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(4): 740−752
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(2)  / Tables(6)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (259) PDF downloads(31) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return