郑军1,,,
张明月1,
李画画2
1.山东农业大学经济管理学院 泰安 271000
2.山东科技大学财经学院 泰安 271000
基金项目:国家社会科学基金项目(19BGL160)资助
详细信息
作者简介:赵晓颖, 主要研究方向为农业资源与环境保护。E-mail: muandshuiping@163.com
通讯作者:郑军, 主要研究方向为农业资源与环境保护。E-mail: 434614337@qq.com
中图分类号:F323.3计量
文章访问数:40
HTML全文浏览量:15
PDF下载量:15
被引次数:0
出版历程
收稿日期:2021-04-10
录用日期:2021-04-30
网络出版日期:2021-07-26
刊出日期:2021-09-06
Mechanism of green production decision-making under the improved theory of planned behavior framework for new agrarian business entities
ZHAO Xiaoying1, 2,,ZHENG Jun1,,,
ZHANG Mingyue1,
LI Huahua2
1. College of Economics and Management, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271000, China
2. College of Finance and Economics, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Tai’an 271000, China
Funds:This study was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (19BGL160)
More Information
Corresponding author:E-mail: 434614337@qq.com
摘要
HTML全文
图
参考文献
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件
访问统计
摘要
摘要:面对传统小农经营方式无法满足农业可持续发展的现实困境, 激励新型农业经营主体从事绿色生产具有重要研究价值和时代意义。本文在计划行为理论(TPB)基础上, 构建“外部环境→内在认知→行为意向→行为实施”的绿色生产决策机制框架, 并利用山东省293家蔬菜家庭农场的微观数据进行了实证检验。结果显示: 1)从作用机制来看, 外部环境通过内在认知和行为意向的中介作用对行为实施产生影响, 相关假设均通过显著性检验, 决策模型具有较好的解释力。2)从影响效应来看, 市场激励、政府规制、行为态度、控制认知和行为意向对行为实施的影响效应分别为0.393、0.177、0.260、0.423和0.296, 总体来看, 市场激励和控制认知2类因素的影响效应最大, 其次为行为态度。3)从因素载荷来看, 产业合作和消费需求、生态补偿和技术培训、经济价值认知和行为障碍感知, 分别是形成市场激励、政府规制、行为态度和控制认知的关键因素。4)从组群分析来看, 不同规模和不同代际的家庭农场, 其绿色生产决策机制有一定差异性。应从培育市场环境、降低禀赋约束、立足经济导向和坚持分类施策等方面引导家庭农场的绿色生产转型。
关键词:计划行为理论(TPB)/
蔬菜家庭农场/
绿色生产/
决策机制/
市场激励/
政府规制/
新型农业经营主体
Abstract: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.
Key words:Theory of planned behavior (TPB)/
Vegetable family farms/
Green production/
Decision-making mechanism/
Market incentive/
Government regulation/
New agrarian business entity
HTML全文
图1市场激励、政府规制条件下家庭农场绿色生产行为决策机制的理论模型
Figure1.Theoretical model of decision-making mechanism for green production behavior of family farms under the conditions of market incentives and government regulation
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片
图2蔬菜家庭农场绿色生产决策模型的路径及估计参数结果
**、***分别表示在P<5%和P<1%水平显著。
Figure2.Path and estimated parameter results of the green production decision-making model for vegetable family farms
** and *** indicate significance at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively.
下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片表1家庭农场绿色生产决策模型相关变量定义及描述性统计分析结果
Table1.Variable definition and descriptive statistical analysis results of family farm green production in decision-making model
| 潜变量 Latent variable | 维度 Dimension | 测量题项 Measurement item | 均值 Mean value | 标准差 Standard deviation |
| 行为态度 Attitude (ATT) | 经济价值 Economic value | 我认为绿色生产能增加蔬菜种植收入(ATT1) I think green production can increase income from vegetable production. (ATT1) | 3.65 | 1.077 |
| 生态价值 Ecological value | 我认为绿色生产能减少环境污染和健康风险(ATT2) I think green production can reduce environmental pollution and health risks. (ATT2) | 4.34 | 0.948 | |
| 声誉价值 Reputation value | 我认为绿色生产是提高农场声誉的途径(ATT3) I think green production is the way to improve the reputation of the farm. (ATT3) | 3.89 | 0.951 | |
| 控制认知 Personal behavior control (PBC) | 生产认知 Production cognition | 我了解蔬菜绿色生产的过程和技术手段(PBC1) I understand the green vegetable production process and technical means. (PBC1) | 3.25 | 0.992 |
| 障碍感知 Obstacle perception | 我认为农场的信息、资金、劳动力条件符合绿色生产要求(PBC2) I think the information, capital and labor conditions of the farm meet the requirements of green production. (PBC2) | 3.18 | 1.075 | |
| 控制评价 Control evaluation | 我有能力承受绿色生产的技术风险(PBC3) I have the ability to bear the technical risk of green production. (PBC3) | 3.40 | 1.088 | |
| 市场激励 Market incentives (MI) | 消费需求 Consumer demand | 消费者对绿色蔬菜需求量大(MI1) Consumers have a large demand for green vegetables. (MI1) | 3.38 | 1.030 |
| 产业合作 Industrial cooperation | 合作社或企业对农场提供绿色生产支持(MI2) Cooperatives or enterprises provides green production support for farms. (MI2) | 3.04 | 0.993 | |
| 检测追溯 Testing and tracing | 下游收购商的质量检测和产品追溯严格(MI3) Downstream purchasers have strict quality inspection and product traceability. (MI3) | 2.93 | 1.091 | |
| 同行影响 Peer influence | 其他种植蔬菜的农场(户)都逐渐向绿色生产转型(MI4) Other farm(er)s growing vegetables are gradually transforming to green production. (MI4) | 3.19 | 1.005 | |
| 政府规制 Government regulation (GR) | 宣传引导 Propaganda and guidance | 政府重视对绿色生产方式的宣传引导(GR1) The government attaches importance to the publicity and guidance of green production mode. (GR1) | 3.49 | 1.039 |
| 技术培训 Technical training | 政府经常提供绿色生产方式的技术培训(GR2) The government often provides technical training for green production mode. (GR2) | 3.55 | 0.945 | |
| 生态补贴 Ecological subsidy | 政府对绿色投入品、高效设备和生产服务的补贴力度大(GR3) Government subsidies for green inputs, efficient equipment and production services are high. (GR3) | 3.35 | 0.946 | |
| 法规约束 Regulatory constraints | 政府法律法规对农场对化学品施用、废弃物回收约束力大(GR4) Government laws and regulations have great binding force on chemical application and waste recycling. (GR4) | 3.41 | 0.971 | |
| 行为意向 Behavioral intention (BI) | 产前投入 Preplant investment | 蔬菜种植过程中, 我愿意投入绿色环保品(BI1) In the process of vegetable planting, I am willing to invest in green products. (BI1) | 3.61 | 1.103 |
| 产中管理 Management in production | 蔬菜种植过程中, 我愿意采纳高效药肥管理方式(BI2) In the process of vegetable planting, I am willing to adopt high-efficiency medicine and fertilizer management. (BI2) | 3.47 | 1.093 | |
| 产后处置 Postproduction treatment | 蔬菜种植过程中, 我愿意清理及回收利用废弃物(BI3) In the process of vegetable planting, I am willing to clean up and recycle waste. (BI3) | 3.21 | 1.135 | |
| 行为实施 Behavior (BH) | 产前投入 Preplant investment | ①使用高毒农药1)=0; 使用常规农药=0.5; 使用绿色农药=1。②全部使用化肥=0; 有机肥施用量2)<22 500 kg?hm?2=0.5; 有机肥施用量≥22 500 kg?hm?2=1。③地膜厚度3)<0.005 mm=0; 地膜厚度[0.005~0.01 mm)=0.5; 地膜厚度≥0.1 mm=1。根据①、②和③计算平均分。(BH1) ① Using high toxic pesticides1)=0; using conventional pesticides=0.5; using green pesticides=1. ② Using chemical fertilizer only=0; application amount of organic fertilizer2)<22 500 kg?hm?2=0.5; the application amount of organic fertilizer≥22 500 kg?hm?2=1. ③ Film thickness3)<0.005 mm=0; film thickness [0.005?0.01 mm)=0.5; film thickness≥0.1 mm=1. The score is the average of ①, ② and ③. (BH1) | 1.99 | 0.568 |
| 产中管理 Management in production | ①不采纳测土配方和绿色防控技术=0; 采纳其中1种=0.5; 采纳2种=1。②无农药和化肥使用记录=0; 有其中1种=0.5; 有2种=1。③不使用水肥一体化或无人机等高效施药设备=0; 使用其中1种=0.5; 使用2种=1。根据①、②和③计算平均分。(BH2) ① Not adopting soil testing formula and green prevention and control technology=0; adopting one of them=0.5; adopting two=1. ② No record of pesticide and chemical fertilizer use=0; one of them=0.5; two of them=1. ③ Not use high-efficiency spraying equipment such as water fertilizer integration or UAV=0; use one of them=0.5; use two of them=1. The score is average of ①, ② and ③. (BH2) | 2.01 | 0.553 | |
| 产后处置 Postproduction treatment | ①地膜焚烧、填埋或弃置田间=0; 地膜清理至固定地点4)=0.5; 地膜回收=1。②药肥包装焚烧、填埋或弃置田间=0; 包装清理至固定地点=0.5; 包装回收=1。③蔬菜秸秆焚烧、填埋或弃置田间=0; 秸秆清理至固定地点=0.5; 秸秆资源化利用=1 根据①、②和③计算平均分(BH3)。 ① Burning, burying or abandoning plastic film in field=0; cleaning plastic film to fixed place4)=0.5; recycling plastic film=1. ② Burning, landfilling or abandoning the fertilizer package in the field=0; cleaning the package to a fixed place=0.5; recycling the package=1. ③ Burning, burying or abandoning of vegetable straw in the field=0; cleaning the straw to a fixed place=0.5; straw resource utilization=1. The score is the average of ①, ② and ③. (BH3) | 1.95 | 0.565 | |
| 1)高毒农药指禁止在蔬菜中使用的农药; 绿色农药指A级绿色蔬菜生产中允许使用的农药; 常规农药指除高毒和绿色农药外其他农药。2)据专家建议, 如果使蔬菜地土壤有机质提升, 有机肥施用量投入22 500 kg?hm?2。3)2017的新国标要求地膜厚度不得小于0.01 mm, 0.005 mm及以下为超薄地膜。4)将地膜、包装、秸秆等废弃物带回家中或放置垃圾箱视为清理至固定地点。1) High toxic pesticides refer to the pesticides prohibited to be used in vegetables; green pesticides refer to the pesticides allowed to be used in the production of A-class green vegetables; conventional pesticides refer to other pesticides except high toxic and green pesticides. 2) According to experts, if the organic matter of vegetable soil is improved, at least 22 500 kg of organic fertilizer should be input per hectare..3) The new national standard of 2017 requires that the film thickness should not be less than 0.01 mm, and 0.005 mm and below are ultra-thin films. 4) In this paper, plastic film, packaging, straw and other wastes are taken home or placed in dustbin as cleaning to a fixed place. | ||||
下载: 导出CSV表2蔬菜家庭农场绿色生产决策模型各题项的信度及效度检验
Table2.Reliability and validity test of each item of green production decision-making model for vegetable family farms
| 潜变量 Latent variable | 测量题项 Measurement item | 因素负荷量 Factor load | 题目信度 Squared multiple correlation (SMC) | 组合信度 Combination reliability (CR) | 平均变异萃取量 Average variation extraction (AVE) |
| 行为态度 Attitude (ATT) | ATT1 | 0.698 | 0.575 | 0.725 | 0.468 |
| ATT2 | 0.721 | 0.331 | |||
| ATT3 | 0.630 | 0.426 | |||
| 控制认知 Personal behavior control (PBC) | PBC1 | 0.575 | 0.487 | 0.702 | 0.444 |
| PBC2 | 0.758 | 0.520 | |||
| PBC3 | 0.653 | 0.397 | |||
| 市场激励 Market incentives (MI) | MI1 | 0.733 | 0.537 | 0.815 | 0.525 |
| MI2 | 0.769 | 0.591 | |||
| MI3 | 0.697 | 0.486 | |||
| MI4 | 0.697 | 0.486 | |||
| 政府规制 Government regulation (GR) | GR1 | 0.694 | 0.482 | 0.815 | 0.526 |
| GR2 | 0.771 | 0.594 | |||
| GR3 | 0.777 | 0.604 | |||
| GR4 | 0.652 | 0.425 | |||
| 行为意向 Behavioral intention (BI) | BI1 | 0.859 | 0.738 | 0.898 | 0.748 |
| BI2 | 0.949 | 0.901 | |||
| BI3 | 0.778 | 0.605 | |||
| 行为实施 Behavior (BH) | BH1 | 0.878 | 0.563 | 0.893 | 0.737 |
| BH2 | 0.937 | 0.878 | |||
| BH3 | 0.750 | 0.771 |
下载: 导出CSV表3蔬菜家庭农场绿色生产决策模型的整体适配度检验
Table3.Overall fitness test of green production decision-making model for vegetable family farms
| 统计检验指标 Statistical test index | 绝对适配度指标 Absolute fitness index | 增值适配度指标 Value-added fitness index | 精简适配度指标 Streamlined fitness index | ||||||||
| x2/df | RMSEA | GIF | AGIF | TLI | IFI | CFI | PNFI | PCFI | |||
| 模型估计值 Model estimate | 2.036 | 0.060 | 0.900 | 0.868 | 0.930 | 0.942 | 0.941 | 0.751 | 0.793 | ||
| 判断标准 Judgment criteria | <3 | <0.8 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.5 | >0.5 | ||
| 检验结果 Result | 理想 Ideal | 理想 Ideal | 可接受 Acceptable | 可接受 Acceptable | 理想 Ideal | 理想 Ideal | 理想 Ideal | 理想 Ideal | 理想 Ideal | ||
下载: 导出CSV表4蔬菜家庭农场绿色生产决策模型的假说验证与路径系数
Table4.Hypothesis verification and path coefficients of green production decision-making model for vegetable family farms
| 路径假设 Path hypothesis | 非标准化估计系数 Nonstandard estimation coefficient | 标准化估计系数 Standardized estimation coefficient | C.R.(t值) Combination reliability (t-value) |
| BI←ATT | 0.236** | 0.171 | 1.969 |
| BH←ATT | 0.131*** | 0.214 | 2.644 |
| BI←PBC | 0.690*** | 0.316 | 4.232 |
| BH←PBC | 0.244*** | 0.398 | 3.512 |
| ATT←MI | 0.450*** | 0.484 | 4.848 |
| PBC←MI | 0.467*** | 0.632 | 6.025 |
| ATT←GR | 0.223*** | 0.235 | 2.564 |
| PBC←GR | 0.206*** | 0.273 | 3.137 |
| BH←BI | 0.120*** | 0.269 | 4.161 |
| **、***分别表示在P<5%和P<1%水平显著; 非标准估计系数表示自变量改变1个单位时, 因变量或中间变量的改变量; 标准化估计系数表示自变量改变1个标准差时, 因变量或中间变量的改变量。** and *** indicate significance at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively. The nonstandard estimation coefficient represents the change of dependent variable or intermediate variable when the independent variable changes one unit; the standardized estimation coefficient represents the change of dependent variable or intermediate variable when the independent variable changes one standard deviation. | |||
下载: 导出CSV表5蔬菜家庭农场绿色生产决策模型各潜变量对行为实施的直接效应、间接效应和总效应
Table5.Direct effect, indirect effect and total effect of each latent variable on behavior implementation in green production decision model of vegetable family farms
| 路径假设 Path hypothesis | 直接效应 Direct effect | 间接效应 Indirect effect | 总效应 Total effect |
| BH←ATT | 0.214 | 0.046 | 0.260 |
| BH←PBC | 0.316 | 0.107 | 0.423 |
| BH←GR | — | 0.177 | 0.177 |
| BH←MI | — | 0.393 | 0.393 |
| BH←BI | 0.269 | — | 0.269 |
| 表内数据为标准化估计系数。The data in the table are standardized estimation coefficients. | |||
下载: 导出CSV表6不同组群蔬菜家庭农场绿色生产决策模型的估计结果
Table6.Estimated results of green production decision-making model of vegetable family farms in different groups
| 路径假设 Path hypothesis | 代际差异 Intergenerational difference | 规模差异 Scale difference | |||
| 新一代(年龄<48岁) New generation (<48) | 老一代(年龄≥48岁) Older generation (≥48) | 小型农场(<6 hm2) Small farm (<6 hm2) | 大型农场(≥6 hm2) Large scale farm (≥6 hm2) | ||
| BI←ATT | 0.459*** | 0.076 | 0.024 | 0.342*** | |
| BH←ATT | 0.304** | 0.279** | 0.232* | 0.139 | |
| BI←PBC | 0.191* | 0.414*** | 0.536*** | 0.213* | |
| BH←PBC | 0.235** | 0.262** | 0.412*** | 0.267** | |
| ATT←MI | 0.59*** | 0.478*** | 0.563*** | 0.335** | |
| PBC←MI | 0.574*** | 0.647*** | 0.689*** | 0.522*** | |
| ATT←GR | 0.217* | 0.225* | 0.188 | 0.395*** | |
| PBC←GR | 0.226* | 0.305** | 0.264** | 0.360** | |
| BH←BI | 0.266*** | 0.273*** | 0.138 | 0.402*** | |
| *、**、***分别表示在P<0.1、P<0.05和P<0.01水平显著; 表内数据为标准化估计系数。*, ** and *** indicate significance at P<0.1, P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively. The data in the table are standardized estimation coefficients. | |||||
下载: 导出CSV参考文献
| [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] | L?PPLE 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 |
