Abstract
The land use changes and farmers’ unreasonable land use behaviors continue to threaten China’s agricultural land, exacerbating the impact of pollution. The factors that persuade farm households to perform pro-environmental actions are preliminary efforts to strengthen environmental protection. The current study aims to better understand how the dual interest preferences of rural households are interrelated and influence their environmental behavior. A structured questionnaire was employed to collect the primary data from 4 provinces in China to develop new methods to measure the dual interest preferences of farmers and to study their impact on pro-environmental behaviors. The structural equation model (SEM) in Stata14 was used to analyze the relationship between latent and observed variables and to understand their impact on farmers’ environmental behavior. The results showed that all the observed variables have the expected signs and have a significant relationship with their latent variables. With the coefficients of 0.76, 0.88, and 0.64, the underlying variables related to the households’ dual interest preferences are statistically significantly correlated. The coefficient 0.34 of the latent variable ensures a direct and significant impact on farm households’ pro-environmental behavior, suggesting that non-uniformity preferences or conflicts exist between the short- and long-term economic interests. Similarly, a positive and significant coefficient of 0.28 suggests the non-uniformity of preferences in short-term economic and social interests. All the fitness indices ensured that our model fits well. To improve the environment and land quality, the current research has policy implications for the adoption of environment-friendly pesticide and organic fertilizers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ali G (2018) Climate change and associated spatial heterogeneity of Pakistan: empirical evidence using multidisciplinary approach. Sci Total Environ 634:95–108
Ali G, Pumijumnong N, Cui S (2018) Valuation and validation of carbon sources and sinks through land cover/use change analysis: the case of Bangkok metropolitan area. Land Use Policy 70:471–478
Ali G, Abbas S, Pan Y, Chen Z, Hussain J, Sajjad M, Ashraf A (2019a) Urban environment dynamics and low carbon society: multi-criteria decision analysis modeling for policy makers. Sustain Cities Soc 51:101763
Ali G, Yan N, Hussain J, Xu L, Huang Y, Xu S, Cui S (2019b) Quantitative assessment of energy conservation and renewable energy awareness among variant urban communities of Xiamen, China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 109:230–238
Banzhaf E, Kabisch S, Knapp S, Rink D, Wolff M, Kindler A (2017) Integrated research on land-use changes in the face of urban transformations–an analytic framework for further studies. Land Use Policy 60:403–407
Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York
Bosse DA, Phillips RA (2016) Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Acad Manag Rev 41:276–297
Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions 154:136–136
Chandio AA, Jiang Y, Rauf A, Mirani AA, Shar RU, Ahmad F, Shehzad K (2019) Does energy-growth and environment quality matter for agriculture sector in Pakistan or not? An application of cointegration approach. Energies 12:1879
Chen L, Wang J, Fu B, Qiu Y (2001) Land-use change in a small catchment of northern Loess Plateau, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 86:163–172
China Environmental Awareness Program, CEAP. 2007. Environmental survey released in Beijing. Retrieved January 27, 2015, from http://www.chinaceap.org/news/viewen.asp?id¼187
Chuang Y, Xie X, Liu C (2016) Interdependent orientations increase pro-environmental preferences when facing self-interest conflicts: the mediating role of self-control. J Environ Psychol 46:96–105
Czap NV, Czap HJ, Lynne GD, Burbach ME (2015) Walk in my shoes: nudging for empathy conservation. Ecol Econ 118:147–158
Darnhofer I, Schneeberger W, Freyer B (2005) Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: farmer types and their rationale. Agric Hum Values 22:39–52
Evans L, Maio GR, Corner A, Hodgetts CJ, Ahmed S, Hahn U (2013) Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nat Clim Chang 3:122
Farrow K, Grolleau G, Ibanez L (2017) Social norms and pro-environmental behavior: a review of the evidence. Ecol Econ 140:1–13
Feng Z, Yang Y, Zhang Y, Zhang P, Li Y (2005) Grain-for-green policy and its impacts on grain supply in West China. Land Use Policy 22:301–312
Frederiks ER, Stenner K, Hobman EV (2015) Household energy use: applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41:1385–1394
Gifford R, Nilsson A (2014) Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol 49:141–157
Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Van den Bergh B (2010) Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J Pers Soc Psychol 98:392
Hancock GR (2003) Fortune cookies, measurement error, and experimental design. J Mod Appl Stat Methods 2:3
Hongdou L, Shiping L, Hao L (2018) Existing agricultural ecosystem in China leads to environmental pollution: an econometric approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:24488–24499
Howley P, Buckley C, Donoghue CO, Ryan M (2015) Explaining the economic ‘irrationality’of farmers' land use behaviour: the role of productivist attitudes and non-pecuniary benefits. Ecol Econ 109:186–193
Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 6:1–55
Kaplan D (2008): Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions, 10. Sage Publications
Khan I, Zhao M (2019) Water resource management and public preferences for water ecosystem services: a choice experiment approach for inland river basin management. Sci Total Environ 646:821–831
Khan I, Zhao M, Khan SU, Yao L, Ullah A, Xu T (2018) Spatial heterogeneity of preferences for improvements in river basin ecosystem services and its validity for benefit transfer. Ecol Indic 93:627–637
Khan I, Javed T, Khan A, Lei H, Muhammad I, Ali I, Huo X (2019) Impact assessment of land use change on surface temperature and agricultural productivity in Peshawar-Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:33076–33085 1–10
Kim J (2013) The effects of elderly patients’ dental satisfaction on revisit intention with the application of SEM (structural equation model). Inha university, South Korea
Kline RB (2011): Principles and practice of structural equation. Modeling.(3nd)
Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23:1028–1038
Lee J, Choi M, Park SH, Kim H-R, Lee H-E (2015) The effects of individual, occupational, and supportive factors on successful return to work using a structural equation model. Ann Occup Environ Med 27:21
Li T, Long H, Zhang Y, Tu S, Ge D, Li Y, Hu B (2017) Analysis of the spatial mismatch of grain production and farmland resources in China based on the potential crop rotation system. Land Use Policy 60:26–36
MacCallum RC, Austin JT (2000) Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annu Rev Psychol 51:201–226
Nevitt J, Hancock GR (2001) Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model 8:353–377
Ratkiewicz A, Hopkins LB, Bleuel D, Cassata W, Cerjan C, Dauffy L, London R, Meeker D, Velsko C, Yeamans C (2018) Activation of enriched environmental xenon by 14-MeV neutrons. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 317:169–175
StataCorp L (2013): Stata statistical software: release 10 College Station. Texas
Sutherland L-A (2011) “Effectively organic”: Environmental gains on conventional farms through the market? Land Use Policy 28:815–824
Ullah R, Shivakoti GP, Ali G (2015) Factors effecting farmers’ risk attitude and risk perceptions: the case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction 13:151–157
Van Riper CJ, Kyle GT (2014) Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a national park: a latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. J Environ Psychol 38:288–297
Van Vugt M, Griskevicius V, Schultz PW (2014) Naturally green: harnessing stone age psychological biases to foster environmental behavior. Soc Issues Policy Rev 8:1–32
Vanclay F (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Aust J Exp Agric 44:213–222
Waheed R, Chang D, Sarwar S, Chen W (2018) Forest, agriculture, renewable energy, and CO2 emission. J Clean Prod 172:4231–4238
Westland JC (2016): Structural equation models. Springer
Yamane T (1967) Statistics, an introductory analysis, 2nd edn. Horper and Row, New York
Yazdanpanah M, Forouzani M (2015) Application of the theory of planned behaviour to predict Iranian students’ intention to purchase organic food. J Clean Prod 107:342–352
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to convey their thanks to the editorial team of this journal and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that have helped in the considerable improvement of the manuscript.
Funding
The authors received funding support from the China Scholarship Council. The survey was sponsored by the project supported by the National Natural Social Science Foundation of China (No. 17BJY067).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Responsible editor: Baojing Gu
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lei, H., Khan, I. & Li, S. The inhabitants’ dual interest preferences and their impact on pro-environmental behavior in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 12308–12319 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07760-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07760-1