| Literature DB >> 35805419 |
Hongpeng Guo1, Wenkai Zhao1, Chulin Pan1, Guijie Qiu1, Shuang Xu1, Shun Liu1.
Abstract
The adoption of conservation tillage technology can improve the production efficiency of black soils (mollisols), and it has great significance to ensure the sustainable development of agriculture. This paper takes farmers in the black soil region of Jilin Province as the research object, uses 442 survey data of farmers in seven municipal areas in the black soil region of Jilin Province, constructs a logistic-ISM model, first determines the influencing factors of farmers' adoption of conservation tillage technology, and then analyzes the hierarchical structure of each influencing factor. The results show that: (1) among the eight significant influencing factors of farmers' adoption of conservation tillage technology, age, whether they know the government's subsidies for conservation tillage and the number of labor force are the deep-rooted factors; (2) Education level, whether you know that the government is promoting conservation tillage, and the planting area are intermediate level factors; (3) whether they have received the technical services of conservation tillage and whether the cultivated land is scattered is the direct factors. Based on the significance analysis of the influencing factors of farmers' adoption of conservation tillage technology and the research on the action mechanism of the influencing factors of farmers' adoption of conservation tillage technology, this paper puts forward policy suggestions to improve the extension system of conservation tillage technology, improve the implementation of land transfer and subsidy policies, strengthen the ability of rural socialized services, and strengthen the publicity of black soils protection.Entities:
Keywords: Logistic-ISM model; black soil region; conservation tillage; farmers’ behavior
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805419 PMCID: PMC9266123 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137762
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Variable description and descriptive dtatistics.
| Variables | Variable Name | Variable Definition | Mean | S.D. | Expected Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | Whether conservation tillage technology is adopted (Y) | Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.78 | 0.42 | |
| Personal and family characteristics | Age | Actual age/age | 43.91 | 9.86 | + |
| Gender | Male = 1; Female = 2 | 1.41 | 0.49 | + | |
| Education level | illiteracy = 1, primary school = 2, | 3.17 | 0.94 | + | |
| Whether they have a part-time job or not | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.54 | 0.50 | + | |
| Labor force | Actual household labor force population/person | 2.51 | 1.03 | ? | |
| Years of planting | Years engaged in farming/year | 18.85 | 9.65 | − | |
| Cultivated land characteristics | Planting area | Actual planting area/m2 | 12.60 | 31.07 | + |
| Whether the cultivated land has slope | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.52 | 0.50 | − | |
| Whether cultivated land is scattered | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.36 | 0.48 | − | |
| Types of crops planted | corn = 1, soybean = 2, rice = 3, wheat = 4, other = 5 | 1.37 | 0.61 | ? | |
| Farming cognition | Fertilizing measures | Chemical fertilizer = 1, organic fertilizer = 2, | 1.45 | 0.70 | + |
| Whether they have received the technical service of conservation tillage | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.46 | 0.50 | + | |
| Whether the following conservation tillage measures are known | Less tillage and no tillage = 1, | 2.44 | 1.13 | + | |
| External factors | Whether the government publicity about conservation tillage is known | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.36 | 0.48 | + |
| Whether the government’s subsidies for conservation tillage are known | Yes = 1, No = 2 | 1.50 | 0.50 | + | |
| Whether they are satisfied with the local agricultural machinery service | Very satisfied = 1, satisfied = 2, | 2.38 | 0.93 | + |
Note: in the expected impact, “+” indicates that it may be a positive impact, “−” indicates that it may be a negative impact, “?” indicates that the impact is unknown.
Results of the regression model.
| Independent Variable | Coef. | Std. Err. | z | Odds Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.050 | 0.019 | 2.57 | 0.010 *** | 1.051 |
| Gender | −0.170 | 0.303 | −0.56 | 0.575 | 0.844 |
| Education level | 0.370 | 0.177 | 2.1 | 0.036 ** | 1.448 |
| Whether they have a part-time job | 0.508 | 0.309 | 1.64 | 0.101 | 1.662 |
| Labor force | −0.484 | 0.156 | −3.1 | 0.002 *** | 0.616 |
| Years of planting | −0.027 | 0.018 | −1.48 | 0.140 | 0.974 |
| Planting area | −0.029 | 0.009 | −3.34 | 0.001 *** | 0.971 |
| Whether the cultivated land has a slope | 0.101 | 0.300 | 0.34 | 0.737 | 1.106 |
| Whether the cultivated land is scattered | −0.879 | 0.304 | −2.89 | 0.004 *** | 0.415 |
| Types of crops planted | 0.441 | 0.304 | 1.45 | 0.147 | 1.554 |
| Fertilizing measures | −0.008 | 0.204 | −0.04 | 0.968 | 0.992 |
| Whether they have received the technical service of conservation tillage | −0.122 | 0.123 | −0.99 | 0.321 | 0.885 |
| Whether the following conservation tillage measures are known | 0.696 | 0.306 | 2.27 | 0.023 ** | 2.006 |
| Whether the government publicity about conservation tillage is known | 0.735 | 0.334 | 2.2 | 0.028 ** | 2.086 |
| Whether the government’s subsidies for conservation tillage are known | 0.851 | 0.303 | 2.81 | 0.005 *** | 2.342 |
| Whether they are satisfied with the local agricultural machinery service | 0.182 | 0.173 | 1.05 | 0.295 | 1.199 |
| constant | −3.088 | 1.690 | −1.83 | 0.068 | 0.046 |
| —2 Log Likelihood | 317.991 | ||||
| Pseudo | 0.324 | ||||
| Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | ||||
Note: ** and *** are significant at the levels of 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Logical relationship of influencing factors.
| A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | S0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | V | V | V |
| |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | V | 0 |
| ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | A | V |
| |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | A |
| ||||
| 0 | V | 0 |
| |||||
| 0 | V |
| ||||||
| V |
| |||||||
|
|
Figure 1Interpretative structural model of the influencing factors.