Perceived risk, environmental attitude and fertilizer application by vegetable farmers in China
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Perceived risk, environmental attitude and
fertilizer application by vegetable farmers in
China
..............................................................................................................................................................
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101/6098996 by guest on 16 January 2021
Zhaoyang Xiang1 , Qingsong Tian1,2, * and Qianling Li1
1
College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan,
430070, China; 2 Department of Business and Social Sciences, Dalhousie University, Truro,
Nova Scotia, B2N 5E3, Canada
.............................................................................................................................................
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the impact of three different perceived risk and environmental attitude on the
fertilizer reduction behavior in vegetable production and the interplay between perceived risk and environ-
mental attitude. We found that perceived economic risk can exert a significant and negative effect on farmers’
fertilizer reduction behavior (−0.39) and perceived social and psychological risks has a relatively weak
negative impact with coefficients of −0.25 and −0.23, respectively. A more friendly environmental attitude
can significantly and positively affect farmers’ fertilizer reduction behavior. Furthermore, environmental
attitude has a moderating effect on the association between perceived risk and farmer’s fertilizer reduction
behavior, but just significant for economic and social risk. In other words, a better environmental attitude
could reduce the negative effect of perceived risk. This study promoted our new understanding of the risk
perception’s impact on farmers’ behavior.
Keywords: perceived risk; fertilizer application; environmental attitude; vegetables; low carbon
*Corresponding author. Received 13 October 2020; revised 24 December 2020; editorial decision 22 December 2020; accepted 22
tqs@webmail.hzau.edu.cn December 2020
.................................................................................................................................................................................
1. INTRODUCTION fertilizer directly damages the environment [10] and pollutes the
main water and soil sources [8, 11]. Zhu and Chen [12] pointed
The wide concentration on low-carbon agriculture has renewed out that the total loss of nitrogen fertilizer from crops to the
interest in sustainable agricultural development [1, 2]. One of the environment was ∼19.1%, of which 5% entered the surface water
essential tasks in agricultural production is to enhance farmers’ by runoff, 2% passed down to the groundwater by leaching, 1.1%
low-carbon awareness and environment-protection behavior [3]. entered the atmosphere through denitrification process and 11%
However, farmers tend to apply high-dose chemical input to through ammonia (NH3) volatilization process. Although Chi-
ensure crop yield and production income, especially in developing nese government has implemented a series of policies to reverse
countries [4]. In China, the amount of consumed fertilizers has the increase in fertilizer use, thus far, the efficiency of these poli-
increased from 10.86 million tons to 59.12 million tons over the cies is unsatisfactory [13]. Thus, it is meaningful to understand
past 40 years with an annual average growth rate of 5.2%. China farmers’ attitudes and behavior on fertilizer application.
consumes nearly 1/3 of the world’s fertilizers, with less than 1/14 The existing literature emphasized explaining farmers’ behav-
of the world’s arable land [5, 6]. ior on agrochemical overuse from farmers’ knowledge and atti-
Despite the fact that fertilizers have a positive contribution tude based on the theory of planned behavior [2, 14, 15]. Farmers,
to agricultural production, the high-dose application has caused as the key decision-makers of fertilizer application, usually have
many ecological issues [7, 8]. Numerous studies showed that the limited knowledge about the fertilizer nutrients and accurate
application amount of fertilizers by farmers in China has exceeded application rate, and they tend to increase the dosage of fer-
the recommended amount. For example, Shi et al. [9] found that tilizer to ensure high yield [13]. Adnan et al. [15] argued that
the efficiency of average fertilizer production was only 75.4% at equipping farmers with skills and knowledge is considered as the
the national level and 44.8% at the provincial level. The overuse of key factor, as most farmers are unable to completely compre-
International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2021, 00, 1–8
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
doi:10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101 1Z. Xiang et al.
hend the “green” terminology. In addition to fertilizer knowledge, excessive accumulation of nutrients in soil and water pollution
the impact of farmers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes problems [24].
on chemical inputs is also recognized. For example, Kil et al. The article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the
[16] found that environmental attitudes were useful in predicting research hypotheses and data source, followed by empirical anal-
farmers’ environmental response behavior. Wang et al. [4] noted ysis. The final section is the conclusion.
that farmers with high knowledge of ecological value were more
willing to adopt low-carbon technologies.
Another psychological discussion focused on the adverse 2. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND DATA
effects of farmers’ risk attitudes and perceptions on reducing SOURCE
fertilizer input. Risk is concentered on a decision result’s
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101/6098996 by guest on 16 January 2021
uncertainty or the costs consequences of such results [17]. Risk 2.1. Research hypothesis
attitude refers to the attitude and preference of decision-makers 2.1.1. Perceived risk and fertilizer reduction behavior
under the situation of production uncertainty [18]. For example, Perceived Risk was originally derived from psychology, proposed
Just and David [19] mentioned that farmers’ risk attitudes play by Bauer [25], who argued that it is impossible to predict the
an important role in the adoption of agricultural technology. outcome in advance when an individual makes the decision.
An explanation by Ma et al. [20] is that risk-taking farmers are Therefore, the original concept of the risk refers to the outcome
more inclined to adopt new seeds or farming technologies and that cannot be accurately measured or predicted [26], and some
therefore improve the efficiency of fertilizer use. Gong et al. [21] latter studies divided perceived risk into different dimensions.
argued farmers tend to be risk aversion in China due to limited For example, Jacoby and Kaplan [27] categorized perceived risk
farmland, and their dependence on agricultural production into financial risk, function risk, body risk, psychological risk
income. Nevertheless, farmers may have a different perception and social risk and Peter and Tarpey [28] added time risk to the
on the future production risk, and the perception would change predecessors.
their behavior on fertilizer input as well. Farmers’ risk perceptions Combining agricultural production, we mainly consider three
reflect their perceptions of the possibility of adverse effects to essential risks: (1) economic risk means that a certain amount of
humans or the environment [13]. Lots of studies have investigated crop yield and production income may be lost due to reduced
the effects of farmers’ risk perception [22], but they generally fertilizers input; (2) social risk refers to that reducing fertilizer
adopted an overall risk perception or only economic risk and use might cause sneer, alienation and other disapproval from
rarely considered the farmers’ psychological and social risk. In friends and neighbors; and (3) psychological risk refers to the
rural China, farmers are often influenced by the behaviors and torment in the process of waiting for the results of fertilizer
attitudes of people in their surrounding environment, such as reduction or the self-emotion hurt caused by the wrong decision.
neighbors and friends [23], and the attitudes of these people For those decisions that may lead to less valuable or unpredictable
would put more pressure on farmers when they make decisions. outcomes, farmers would form different dimensions of perception
At the same time, farmers would also put pressure on themselves on risks, including economic loss, social pressure and self-torture
due to their dependence on agricultural production income. It [8]. When they have a higher perceived risk on the new decision,
means that social and psychological pressure of farmers should they might have a lower willingness to adopt the technologies [22].
not be overlooked. This implies that farmers are reluctant to reduce fertilizer appli-
This study aims to make two contributions to the previous cation due to the above concerns, especially when they cannot
literature. First, we construct economic risk, social risk and psy- fully understand the efficiency of fertilizer. Based on the above
chological risk, respectively, as the proxy of farmers’ risk percep- analyses, hypotheses are proposed:
tion to study the influence of different perceived risk on fertilizer
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Farmers’ perceived risk has a significant
reduction behavior. Second, we seek to investigate how environ-
negative impact on their fertilizer reduction behavior.
mental attitude affects the association between perceived risk and
fertilizer usage. In recent years, China highly values ecological and Hypothesis 1a (H1a). Farmers’ perceived economic risk has a
environmental protection and farmers’ environmental attitude is significant negative impact on their fertilizer reduction behavior.
highly enhanced guided by the conviction that lucid waters and
Hypothesis 1b (H1b). Farmers’ perceived social risk has a
lush mountains are invaluable assets. And a more friendly envi-
significant negative impact on their fertilizer reduction behavior.
ronmental attitude may weaken the inverse correlation between
risk perception and farmers’ fertilizer usage. Finally, we focus on Hypothesis 1c (H1c). Farmers’ perceived psychological risk
fertilizer use in vegetable production based on the importance has a significant negative impact on their fertilizer reduction
of vegetable production in China, which is rarely discussed by behavior.
previous literature. As Wang et al. [4] estimated, there are about
100 million small-scale farmers engaged in vegetable production 2.1.2. Environmental attitude and fertilizer reduction behavior
in China, producing approximately 0.679 billion tons of vegeta- Environmental attitude refers to the value and motivation
bles per year. And excessive use of fertilizer in vegetable pro- generated by participating in environmental improvement and
duction has brought various environmental challenges, including protection [29, 30]. Samuelson et al. [29] firstly showed that
2 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2021, 00, 1–8Vegetables farms’ fertilizer application in China
environmental attitude and belief significantly affect the house-
holds’ environmental behavior, as the environmental attitude
is the most important connection point in the environmental
awareness model. This suggests that improving the individual’s
environmental knowledge could promote positive environmental
behavior through the improvement of environmental attitude.
In addition, the theory of planned behavior also highlights
the connection between farmers’ environmental attitude and
fertilizer reduction behavior [3, 14, 31]. For example, farmers
with highly environmental concerns were more motivated to
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101/6098996 by guest on 16 January 2021
adopt environment-friendly production practices [15]. Kil et al.
[16] and Farani et al. [32] also found that environmental attitudes Figure 1. The theoretical research model.
were useful in predicting environmental response behavior. In
recent years, China highly values ecological and environmental
protection under the conviction that lucid waters and lush Based on the above arguments and hypothesis, this study
mountains are invaluable assets, which promotes farmers’ proposes the following theoretical research model, as shown in
environmental attitudes. Farmers’ environmental attitudes would Figure 1.
help farmers aware of the environmental importance and benefits
and further form their responsible behavior [33]. Based on the
above analyses, the following hypothesis is proposed: 2.2. Data source and sample description
2.2.1. Data source
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Farmers’ environmental attitude has a
We adopted the questionnaire-based interview to collect first-
significant positive impact on their fertilizer reduction behavior.
hand data. The data were collected from August to November
in 2017. To ensure the representative of samples, six cities were
2.1.3. Moderating role of environmental attitude selected under the guidance of the national vegetable industry
Under varying environmental attitude, the impact of perceived research team, including Wuhan, Yichang, Shouguang, Shang-
risk on their fertilizer reduction behavior also changed. Farmers hai, Zhangbei and Lanzhou. Among them, Wuhan and Shang-
with high environmental attitudes would pay more attention to hai mainly plant suburban vegetables to meet the daily needs
the ecological environment and comprehensively consider the of the surrounding cities, and the scale of vegetable cultivation
potential risk of fertilizer reduction and its positive effect on the is relatively small. Yichang is located in mountainous area and
environment [32]. Because they could regard the better environ- is characterized by growing alpine vegetables in high-altitude
ment as a social and ecological benefit, thereby making up for the regions. Shouguang is known as the “Vegetable Capital”, which
concerns of the potential economic and other loss, and reducing represents greenhouse vegetables. Zhangbei is an important field
the negative effect of perceived risk on fertilizer reduction behav- vegetable supply in high latitude regions for northern cities in
ior. The stronger environment-protect awareness, the weaker the China. Finally, Lanzhou is an important summer vegetable base
impact of farmers’ perceived risk on the reduction behavior. The and one of the important sources of western vegetables.
weaker the environmental attitude is, the stronger the impact of The major survey method was one-to-one direct interviews
the perceived risk on the reduction behavior of farmers. Thus, it between investigators and farmers in field or at home. The
can be concluded that environmental attitude plays a moderating questionnaire was filled out by well-trained graduate students
role between perceived risk and fertilizer reduction behavior. The to ensure authenticity and validity of the questionnaire. The
hypotheses are proposed as follows: variables involved in this study were measured by using mature 5-
point Likert scales (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree), which
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Farmers’ environmental attitude plays a
were developed by Gao [34] for the Perceptual Risk Question-
moderating role between their perceived risk and fertilizer reduc-
naire, Dunlap and Van Liere [31] for the Environmental Attitude
tion behavior.
Questionnaire and Shimp et al. [35] for the Farmers’ Fertilizer
Hypothesis 3a (H3a). Environmental attitude plays a moder- Reduction Behavior Questionnaire. The specific description of
ating role between farmers’ perceived economic risk and their questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.
fertilizer reduction behavior. To test our research hypothesis, we performed two groups of
regression models. (1) We tested the impact of perceived risk (H1)
Hypothesis 3b (H3b). Environmental attitude plays a moderat-
and environmental attitude (H2) on farmer’s fertilizer reduction
ing role between farmers’ perceived social risk and their fertilizer
behavior by regressing the farmers’ fertilizer reduction behavior
reduction behavior.
on three perceived risks and environmental attitudes. (2) We
Hypothesis 3c (H3c). Environmental attitude plays a moderat- further add the interaction terms between different perceived
ing role between farmers’ perceived psychological risk and their risks and environmental attitudes in regression model to test the
fertilizer reduction behavior. moderating role of environmental attitude (H3).
International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2021, 00, 1–8 3Z. Xiang et al.
Table 1. Basic characteristics of farmers.
Variable Index Number of Proportion/% Variable Index Number of Proportion/%
samples samples
Gender Male 240 81.40% Elementary school or 93 31.50%
below
Female 55 18.60% Education Junior high school 149 50.50%
level
18 ∼ 45 85 28.80% High school 48 16.30%
Age 46 ∼ 60 149 50.50% Undergraduate course 5 1.70%
>60 61 20.70%
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101/6098996 by guest on 16 January 2021
Planting 50 17 5.80%
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Factor Item Factor load Cronbach’ α Combination reliability Mean variation extraction value (AVE)
1 0.727
Economic risk 2 0.819 0.631 0.8024 0.576
3 0.727
1 0.757
Psychological risk 2 0.835 0.731 0.8481 0.651
3 0.826
1 0.643
Social risk 2 0.706 0.667 0.8019 0.504
3 0.695
4 0.789
1 0.710
2 0.827
Environmental attitude 3 0.770 0.838 0.888 0.614
4 0.829
5 0.776
1 0.850
Farmers’ fertilizer reduction behavior 2 0.941 0.935 0.9542 0.839
3 0.941
4 0.929
2.2.2. Sample description showing that the basic education level of the vegetable farmers
A total of 298 questionnaires were distributed in this survey, of is relatively low. In addition, the average vegetable planting scale
which 3 were invalid due to the non-standard filling or missing tends to be small, and 66.1% of farmers allocated vegetable area
key data. Therefore, 295 valid questionnaires were obtained. The less than 10 acres.
effective collection rate of the questionnaire was 98.49%. All the
descriptive and empirical analyses were achieved via SPSS 22.0. 3. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
Among these samples, 63 samples came from Wuhan Hubei,
50 samples were from Yichang Hubei, 44 samples came from 3.1. Reliability and validity test
Shouguang Shandong, 40 samples were from Shanghai, 41 sam- We first tested the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.
ples were from Zhangbei and 57 samples came from Lanzhou Reliability is used to test the consistency and stability of mea-
Gansu. surement over varying conditions [36]. Validity is concerned with
As shown in Table 1, male respondents accounted for 81.40%, the meaningfulness of each component in questionnaire [36].
indicating that vegetable production generally requires male As table 2 shown, the Cronbach’α coefficient values of economic
labor. The age between 46 and 60 or above accounted for 71.2%, risk, psychological risk, social risk, environmental attitude and
indicating that the aging of vegetable farmers is serious. As for farmers’ fertilizer reduction behaviors are 0.631, 0.731, 0.667,
the education level of the respondents, ∼82% of farmers in our 0.838 and 0.935, respectively. All the values are greater than 0.6,
samples only obtained junior high school education or below indicating good reliability [37]. The mean variation extraction
4 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2021, 00, 1–8Vegetables farms’ fertilizer application in China
Table 3. Regression analysis of the role of perceived risk.
Non-standardized coef. Std. error Standard coef. t-value Sig.
Constant 3.802 0.475 —- 8.004 0.000
Environmental 0.172 0.061 0.160 2.818 0.005
attitude
Economic risk −0.390 0.100 −0.304 −3.913 0.000
Social risk −0.250 0.097 −0.176 −2.571 0.011
Psychological risk −0.230 0.098 −0.186 −2.333 0.020
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101/6098996 by guest on 16 January 2021
Table 4. Moderating role 1 of environmental attitude
Non-standardized coef. Std. error Standard coef. t-value Sig.
Constant 3.407 0.337 — 10.111 0.000
Environmental attitude 0.190 0.060 0.177 3.152 0.002
Economic risk −0.287 0.072 −0.224 −3.989 0.000
Constant 4.296 0.356 — 12.056 0.000
Environmental attitude −0.236 0.094 −0.219 −2.499 0.013
Economic risk −0.612 0.089 −0.476 −6.867 0.000
Economic risk ∗ environmental attitude 0.145 0.026 0.549 5.687 0.000
values (AVE) are 0.576, 0.651, 0.504, 0.614 and 0.839, respectively. between independent variables and moderating variables signifi-
All of them are greater than 0.5, indicating a good measurement cantly affect dependent variables.
validity of our questionnaire. Therefore, we added the interaction term of environmental
attitude and three perceived risks into regression model. As shown
3.2. Hypothesis testing in Table 4, economic risk still has a significant negative impact
The results of first multiple regression analyses show the impact on farmers’ fertilizer reduction behavior, while the environmental
of perceived risk and environmental attitude on farmers’ fertilizer attitude has a significant positive impact on farmers’ fertilizer
reduction behavior. And the model goodness of fit is R2 =0.97, reduction behavior. Moreover, we found that the interaction term
suggesting a good fitting of multiple regression models. To this significantly and positively affects the farmers’ fertilizer reduction
specify, the estimated coefficients of three perceived risks are behavior at the 5% level. This means that environmental attitude
−0.39, −0.25, and −0.23 with a 5% significance level. It indicates plays a moderating role between farmers’ perceived economic risk
that a higher risk perception could lead to lower fertilizer reduc- and farmers’ reduction behavior, namely a more friendly environ-
tion behavior, namely the increase of perceived risk would hinder mental attitude would weaken the negative effect of economic risk.
farmers from reducing fertilizer input. Thus, H1a, H1b and H1c This verifies the H3a.
are verified. Moreover, perceived economic risk has a stronger Table 5 shows the interaction effects between environmental
impact on the farmers’ behavior than social risk and psychological attitude and social risk. As expected, the effects of perceived social
risk, as profit maximum is the main object of farmers in vegetable risk and environmental attitude are still significant, and their
production. However, our result is not consistent with Pan et al. interaction term also significantly affects the farmers’ fertilizer
[13] who found that risk perception on food quality and human reduction behavior at 5% level. This supports that environmental
health has a significantly negative effect on agricultural chemical attitude plays a moderating role between the farmer’s perceived
expenditure. An explanation is that they focused on consumer social risk and the farmer’s fertilizer reduction behavior, which
risk, but we mainly consider production risk that would account supports H3b.
for a higher weight in farmers’ production decisions. However, the results in Table 6 show that environmental atti-
Farmers’ environmental attitude has a positive and significant tude has no significant effect on the association between psycho-
effect on the fertilizer reduction behavior at 1% significance level. logical risk and farmers’ fertilizer reduction behavior. Specifically,
This is consistent with the finding by Farani et al. [32] who when we put the interaction term into the model, the P-value of
also found that environmental attitude positively influenced the the estimated coefficient is greater than 10%, which rejects the
farmers’ responsible environmental behavior. The hypothesis H2 significant moderating effect of environmental attitude. It suggests
is verified. that H3c is invalid. The possible explanation might be that the
We next test the moderating effects of environmental atti- vegetable farmers are generally old and rarely have part-time jobs,
tude. According to Baron and Kenny [38], the moderating effect making vegetable planting as their main source of income. When
must meet three conditions: First, independent variables signif- they make decisions on the adoption of new varieties and new
icantly affect dependent variables; Second, moderating variables technologies, they are under higher tremendous psychological
significantly affect dependent variables; Third, the interaction pressures. And even if they have a friendly environmental attitude,
International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2021, 00, 1–8 5Z. Xiang et al.
Table 5. Moderating role 2 of environmental attitude.
Non-standardized coef. Std. error Standard coef. t-value Sig.
Constant 2.996 0.361 — 8.293 0.000
Environmental attitude 0.208 0.061 0.194 3.392 0.001
Social risk −0.175 0.081 −0.123 −2.163 0.031
Constant 4.057 0.471 — 8.604 0.000
Environmental attitude −0.233 0.143 −0.216 −1.633 0.104
Social risk −0.432 0.109 −0.304 −3.947 0.000
Social risk ∗ environmental attitude 0.108 0.032 0.494 3.416 0.001
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101/6098996 by guest on 16 January 2021
Table 6. Moderating role 3 of environmental attitude.
Non-standardized coef. Std. error Standard coef. t-value Sig.
Constant 2.938 0.342 — 8.583 0.000
Environmental attitude 0.206 0.061 0.192 3.359 0.001
Psychological risk −0.151 0.07 −0.122 −2.142 0.033
Constant 3.232 0.483 — 6.697 0.000
Environmental attitude 0.106 0.131 0.099 0.811 0.418
Psychological risk −0.223 0.109 −0.180 −2.043 0.042
Psychological risk ∗ environmental attitude 0.024 0.028 0.121 0.864 0.388
these self-pressures cannot be relieved until they obtain a good the theory and previous research, perceived economic risk has a
harvest. Therefore, the environmental attitude of the farmers has significant negative impact on farmers’ fertilizer reduction behav-
no significant moderating effect on the farmers’ psychological risk ior. At the same time, perceived social risk and perceived psycho-
and fertilizer reduction behavior. logical risk both negatively affect fertilizer reduction behavior. An
Compared with the previous literature, our results further pro- important policy implication is that the local agricultural tech-
vide a more comprehensive understanding of the perceived risk nology department should strengthen guidance and knowledge
based on farmers’ consideration of cost-profit, social pressure and extension to reduce farmers’ concerns about potential economic
individual psychological pressure. Some literature focused on the losses and social pressures, and promote their confidence in fer-
farmers’ risk attitude and its impact on fertilizer use behavior [4, tilizer reduction decision. For example, on the basis of the soil
13]. And other studies have investigated farmers’ risk perception testing formula, the vegetable farmers enhance the information
from different perspectives, like cost expenditure [39], food health and knowledge on fertilizer nutrients and its function and reduce
risk [13] and environmental risk [2]. However, an important but the dependence on high-dose fertilizers. And these information
ignored factor is social and psychological risk. When farmers extensions could efficiently build a fertilizer reduction environ-
make decisions, they are often influenced by the attitude of people ment and alleviate farmers’ social and psychological pressure.
in their immediate environment, like neighbors and friends [23]. Based on the significant impact of perceived risk, we further
As Fukuyama [40] noted, family-based society is still the main add farmers’ environmental attitudes to analyze how perceived
relationship network in China, and the attitudes of friends and risk works under different environmental awareness. The results
neighbors occupy an important position in the decision-making show that environmental attitude has a certain moderating effect
of farmers. Thus, it is necessary to investigate farmers’ social and on the association between perceived risk and farmer’s fertilizer
psychological risks. Furthermore, we investigate the interaction reduction behavior, but mainly significant for economic and social
between perceived risk and environmental attitude, which was risk. Our policy implication is that publicity efforts should be
rarely discussed in previous studies. We conclude that farmers’ made by all relevant departments, especially the agricultural sec-
friendly environmental attitude would increase the weight on tor, to strengthen farmers’ environmental awareness. In addition
ecological value, and the adverse effects of perceived economic to traditional media, the new media such as Weibo and WeChat
and social risks on farmers’ fertilizer reduction behavior would are suggested to be used for extensive publicity of the ecological
be weakened. value of using “double reduction (reduction in fertilizers and pes-
ticides)”, to enhance vegetable farmers’ environmental awareness.
4. CONCLUSION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In this paper, we investigated the impact of three dimensions of This study was supported by the Earmarked Fund for Modern
perceived risks and environmental attitudes on fertilizer reduc- Agro-industry Technology Research System (grant no. CARS-
tion behavior in Chinese vegetable production. Consistent with 23-F01), National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant
6 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2021, 00, 1–8Vegetables farms’ fertilizer application in China
no.71873051) and Hubei Province Humanities and Social Sci- [18] Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale:
ences Key Research Base Dabie Mountain Tourism Economy and Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak
Cultural Research Center (grant no. 202014504). The authors 2002;15:263–90.
declare that there is no conflicts of interest. [19] Just RE, David Z. Stochastic structure, farm size and technology adoption
in developing agriculture. Oxf Econ Pap 1983;35:307–28.
[20] Ma L, Feng S, Reidsma P et al. Identifying entry points to improve fertilizer
use efficiency in Taihu Basin, China. Land Use Pol 2014;37:52–9.
REFERENCES [21] Gong Y, Baylis K, Kozak R, Bull G. Farmers’ risk preferences and pesticide
use decisions: Evidence from field experiments in China. Agric Econ
[1] Yang Y, Li Z, Zhang Y. Incentives or restrictions: olicy choices in farmers’ 2016;47:411–21.
chemical fertilizer reduction and substitution behaviors. Int J Low Carbon [22] Dessart FJ, Barreiro-Hurlé J, van Bavel R. Behavioural factors affecting the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101/6098996 by guest on 16 January 2021
Tech 2020;17:1–10. adoption of sustainable farming practice: A policy-oriented review. Eur
[2] Savari M, Gharechaee H. Application of the extended theory of planned Rev Agric Econ 2019;46:417–71.
behavior to predict Iranian farmers’ intention for safe use of chemical [23] Case A. Neighborhood influence and technological change. Reg Sci Urban
fertilizers. J Clean Prod 2020;163:1–13. Econ 1992;22:491–508.
[3] Adnan N, Nordin SM, Rasli AM. A possible resolution of Malaysian [24] Yan Z, Liu P, Li Y et al. Phosphorus in China’s intensive vegetable pro-
sunset industry by green fertilizer technology: Factors affecting duction systems: Overfertilization, soil enrichment, and environmental
the adoption among paddy farmers. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2019;26: implications. J Environ Qual 2013;42:982–9.
27198–224. [25] Bauer RA. Consumer behavior as risk taking, in dynamic marketing for a
[4] Wang SG, Mao YW, Liu Y, Lei H. Agricultural fertilizer application changing world. American Marketing Association. 1960;43:389–98.
efficiency and its enhancement effect and path: taking Jiangsu rice [26] Cox DF. 1967. Risk Taking and Information Handing in Consumer Behav-
planting as an example [in Chinese. Guizhou Agricultural Sci 2018;46: ior. Boston: School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
150–5. [27] Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L.B. The Components of Perceived Risk. Proceedings
[5] IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: of the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. Depart-
Cambridge University Press. ment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University Advertising Research
[6] Luan J, Qiu HJ, Jing Y et al. Decomposition and trend prediction of the Department, 1972;10, 382–393.
continued growth of chemical fertilizer application in China [in Chinese. [28] Peter JP, Tarpey SLX. A comparative analysis of three consumer decision
J Nat Res 2013;28:1869–78. strategies. J Consum Res 1975;2:29–37.
[7] Atafar Z, Mesdaghinia A, Nouri J et al. Effect of fertilizer application on [29] Samuelson C, Biek M. Attitudes towards energy conservation: a confirma-
soil heavy metal concentration. Environ Monit Assess 2010;160:83. tory factor analysis. J Appl Soc Psychol 1991;21:549–68.
[8] Ying R, Zhou L, Hu W, Pan D. Agricultural technical education [30] Aregay FA, Minjuan Z, Tao X. Knowledge, attitude and behavior of farm-
and agrochemical use by rice farmers in China. Agribusiness 2017;33: ers in farmland conservation in China: An application of the structural
522–36. equation model. J Environ Plan Manag 2018;61:249–71.
[9] Shi CL, Zhu JF, Luan J. Fertilizing technical efficiency and its [31] Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The new environmental paradigm. J Environ
determinants: based on Rice farmers’ data in four provinces Educ 1978;9:10–9.
[in Chinese. [in Chinese. J Agro Forest Econ Manag 2015;14: [32] Farani AY, Mohammadi Y, Ghahremani F. Modeling farmers’ responsible
234–42. environmental attitude and behavior: A case from Iran. Environ Sci Pollut
[10] Gu B, Sutton MA, Chang SX et al. Agricultural ammonia emissions Res 2019;26:28146–61.
contribute to China’s urban air pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2014;12: [33] Lin ST, Niu HJ. Green consumption: Environmental knowledge, environ-
265–6. mental consciousness, social norms, and purchasing behavior. Bus Strateg
[11] Sun S, Delgado MS, Sesmero JP. Dynamic adjustment in agricultural Environ 2018;27:1679–88.
practices to economic incentives aiming to decrease fertilizer application. [34] Gao HX. 2009. Perspective of Consumers’ Perceived Risks and Behavioral
J Environ Manage 2016;177:192–201. Patterns [in Chinese]. Beijing: Sci. Press.
[12] Zhu ZL, Chen DL. Nitrogen fertilizer use in China—contributions to food [35] Shimp T, Alican K. The theory of reasoned action applied to coupon usage.
production, impacts on the environment strategies. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst J Consum Res 1984;11:795–809.
2002;63:117–27. [36] Drost EA. Validity and reliability in social science research. Educ Res
[13] Pan D, He M, Kong F. Risk attitude, risk perception, and farmers’ pesticide Perspect 2011;38:105.
application behavior in China: A moderation and mediation model. J Clean [37] Gliem J A, Gliem R R. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cron-
Prod 2020;22:1–12. bach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-
[14] Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Org Behav Human Decision to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education,
Process 1991;50:179–211. 2003.
[15] Adnan N, Nordin SM, Ali M. A solution for the sunset industry: adoption [38] Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
of green fertilizer technology amongst Malaysian paddy farmers. Land Use social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid-
Pol 2018;79:575–84. erations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;51:1173.
[16] Kil N, Holland SM, Stein TV. Structural relationships between environ- [39] Hou Y, Velthof GL, Case SDC et al. Stakeholder perceptions of manure
mental attitudes, recreation motivations, and environmentally responsible treatment technologies in Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. J
behaviors. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 2014;7:16–25. Clean Prod 2018;172:1620–30.
[17] Masoud EY. The effect of perceived risk on online shopping in Jordan. Eur [40] Fukuyama F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity.
J Manag Bus Econ 2013;6:76–87. New York, NY: Free Press.
International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2021, 00, 1–8 7Z. Xiang et al.
Environmental attitude
1 The vegetables I eat in daily life have excessive pesticide and fertilizer residues, which makes me nervous.
2 The agricultural film and plastic left in the agricultural production process pollute the rural ecological environment, which makes me sad.
3 The rural ecological environment pollution cannot be solved, which makes me distressed.
4 Rural environmental pollution threatens the surrounding animals and plants, which makes me angry.
Perceived economic risk
1 The cost of applying farm manure is relatively high and not cost-effective.
2 Applying farm manure cannot help me increase yield.
3 Reducing chemical fertilizers will greatly reduce the yield of vegetables.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa101/6098996 by guest on 16 January 2021
Perceived social risk
1 I will be blamed by my families if the expected yield is not achieved due to reducing chemical fertilizers.
2 I will be mocked by other farmers if the expected yield is not achieved due to reducing chemical fertilizers.
3 I will be satirized by my neighbors if the expected benefits are not achieved due to reducing chemical fertilizers.
Perceived psychological risk
1 I will be worried about the process of waiting for harvesting after adopting reducing chemical fertilizers.
2 I will be stressed if reducing chemical fertilizers may reduce the vegetable yield.
3 Mistakes in production decisions caused by reducing chemical fertilizers will make me doubt my ability.
Fertilizer reduction behavior
1 In vegetable production, I have already begun to reduce chemical fertilizers.
2 In vegetable production, I plan to reduce the application of chemical fertilizers in the next year for environmentally friendly agricultural production.
3 In vegetable production, I predict that I will reduce chemical fertilizers in the next year.
4 In vegetable production, I have plans to reduce chemical fertilizers in the next year.
8 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2021, 00, 1–8You can also read
