1. Introduction
Food security is of paramount importance to global sustainability and human well-being. Arable land serves as the cornerstone of food production, but the long-standing, high-intensity agricultural production model has resulted in severe land degradation [
1]. Alarming statistics reveal that nearly one-third of the world’s land has suffered degradation, presenting one of the most pressing challenges to global food security [
2]. The quality of arable land is pivotal for land productivity and national food security. Consequently, preserving and enhancing arable land quality have gradually evolved into critical strategic objectives for stabilizing the agricultural foundation and achieving sustainable agricultural development worldwide [
3,
4]. China, a significant grain importer and exporter, shoulders the responsibility of sustaining nearly 20% of the world’s population with only 9% of the world’s arable land. This underscores China’s profound role in combating hunger, realizing the United Nations’ ambitious 2030 sustainable development goals, and upholding global food security [
5]. Black soil refers to land dominated by black or dark black humus as the primary surface material (Chinese Academy of Sciences.
https://www.cas.cn/zt/kjzt/htlc/mtbd/202112/t20211227_4819755.shtml, accessed on 18 April 2024). Globally, black soils are mainly concentrated in Northeast China, the Mississippi River Basin in North America, and the Ukrainian plains, playing an important role in ensuring global food security. The northeastern region of China stands as one of the world’s three major black soil regions, boasting a total arable land area of approximately 278 million mu (about 18.5 million hectares). Within this region, Heilongjiang Province, accounting for a substantial 56.1% of the total, has consistently secured the top rank in China’s total grain production for 13 consecutive years, making it a linchpin in ensuring China’s food security and societal stability as of 2022 [
6]. Nonetheless, the prolonged focus on production-oriented development models has precipitated the rapid deterioration of black soil quality. Issues such as soil compaction, dwindling soil fertility, farmland pollution, and impaired ecological functions have become increasingly prevalent, leaving the black soil layer progressively “thinner, leaner, and harder” [
7]. This has raised significant concerns regarding arable land quality [
8,
9].
Conservation tillage techniques offer a suite of ecological, economic, and social benefits [
10,
11]. They can enhance soil physical and chemical properties, elevate soil fertility, and improve the ecological milieu of farmland. Simultaneously, they promote increased crop yields, labor efficiency, and the transition of agriculture toward sustainability [
12,
13]. Despite this, some scholars still question the effectiveness of conservation farming techniques. For instance, Rosa-Schleich believes that while cover crops provide ecological benefits, they impose high production costs on farmers, putting them at an economic disadvantage [
14]. Teklewold argues that implementing conservation farming techniques requires the application of herbicides (such as glyphosate) to kill weeds before planting crops with reduced or no tillage, which could have adverse environmental impacts [
15]. While we recognize that no technology can completely solve all problems for farmers, since the introduction of conservation farming techniques in the 1960s, these technologies have been highly regarded by the Chinese government, which has increased policy and financial support to promote their application and nationwide adoption [
16,
17]. Thus, we align with the mainstream academic view that the benefits of conservation farming outweigh its drawbacks, and we do not consider it a controversial issue worth debating. Based on this, we believe conservation farming is a typical intertemporal benefit of agricultural technology, where current investments yield returns over multiple future periods [
18]. Farmers are the basic units of agricultural production, the final decision-makers on adopting agricultural technologies, and direct beneficiaries of soil quality protection [
19]. Farmers are also consumers, and their agricultural production activities are predicated on the premise that these activities can essentially meet their survival needs [
20]. Therefore, even though farmers might subjectively want to take land protection measures, the lack of family resources (such as labor and capital) forces them to focus on immediate benefits when dealing with daily family expenses (such as daily consumption, social obligations, children’s education, etc.) or in the event of sudden large expenses. Especially for low-income groups with relatively scarce material resources, the survival conditions of living and working in agriculture inevitably lead to short-sighted behavior among farmers [
21]. However, farmers often exhibit “myopic” tendencies in their intertemporal technology choices, resulting in inadequate demand and enthusiasm for the adoption of conservation tillage technology [
22,
23]. This circumstance presents a significant obstacle to the widespread embrace of conservation tillage technology. In the current landscape, gaining a deeper understanding of farmers’ adoption behavior and the motivating factors behind their decisions concerning conservation tillage technology is imperative for achieving the sustainable utilization of arable land in the northeastern region and protect both China’s and global food security.
In a broad sense, conservation tillage technology encompasses a comprehensive array of techniques designed to safeguard the ecological environment of farmland while enhancing agricultural productivity [
24]. Its foundational methodologies encompass straw return, reduced or no-tillage practices, deep loosening, and integrated pest and disease control [
25]. Previous research predominantly centers on the analysis of farmers’ inclinations, behavioral attributes, and the determinants influencing the adoption of conservation tillage. The first two aspects typically commence with assessing the technology’s adoption impacts and the disparities between farmers’ intentions and actions. Concerning the adoption impacts, investigations reveal that farmers generally exhibit low adoption rates, abbreviated adoption durations, and limited enthusiasm for subsequent adoption stages [
26,
27,
28,
29]. Regarding the disconnect between farmers’ intentions and actions, research suggests the existence of group disparities. Farmers with heightened awareness and positive perceptions are less prone to this divergence [
30]. Enhancements in resource endowments, responsibilities, ecological awareness, and favorable attitudes can, to some extent, narrow this gap and promote the implementation of conservation tillage technology [
28,
31]. Influential factors encompass individual characteristics, familial attributes, resource endowments, regional attributes, and fundamental determinants [
8,
9,
13]. External elements, such as government subsidies and policy incentives [
32], also exert influence. The merits, potential risks, as well as cost comparisons, associated with conservation tillage technology significantly influence farmers’ intentions and behaviors related to adoption (e.g., the scope and duration of technology integration) [
33]. As a crucial component of conservation farming, straw returning involves covering the soil permanently with crop straws and stubbles [
34], which helps reduce surface erosion and nutrient loss, while also enhancing soil enzyme activity, promoting the activity of soil microbes, increasing total organic carbon content in the soil [
35], and effectively reducing the demand for chemical fertilizers. This, in turn, diminishes the reliance on chemical fertilizers, rendering straw return an effective technique for augmenting soil quality [
36].
Land approval refers to the government’s establishment of secure land contractual relationships with farmers through the execution of land contracts and the issuance of land contract certificates [
37,
38]. In rural China, land is collectively owned by village collectives, and various entities possess land use rights. Land property rights, in this context, are inherently ambiguous and unstable, representing a form of public property rights [
39]. Under the framework of public property rights, individuals lack control over others’ actions and are unable to prevent unauthorized land usage. This ambiguity complicates the perception of land as private property for land users [
40]. According to Hardin’s theory, unclear property boundaries in public resource management can lead to overexploitation and the pursuit of individual interests, ultimately resulting in resource depletion and the tragedy of the commons. Typically, this tragedy is averted through government regulations or the privatization of public resources [
41]. In China, land approval does not equate to land privatization. Instead, it grants farmers a legal concept known as usufructuary rights. Throughout the contract duration, farmers enjoy quasi-permanent usage rights, effectively transforming the land into “property with an owner.” This clear property arrangement objectively constrains village organizations from engaging in rent-seeking behaviors, land requisition, and adjustments. Consequently, it safeguards farmers’ exclusive rights to utilize, possess, and derive income from the land. Considering long-term interests, the clarity of property rights motivates farmers to prioritize investments in land preservation, thereby promoting the sustainable utilization of agricultural land.
The foundation of land protection lies in the anticipation of future land output revenue [
42]. The greater the stability of land rights, the more inclined farmers become to implement land protection measures [
43,
44] and to boost their investments in the adoption of conservation tillage practices [
45,
46]. To date, existing research has primarily focused on the impact of land approval on farmers’ decisions related to land transfer behavior [
47,
48,
49], with few studies delving into the relationship between land approval and the adoption of conservation farming techniques. Unlike other commodity transactions, the multifunctional attributes of agricultural land determine that farmers have an emotional and survival dependence on the land, especially in the current context of increasingly loose human–land relationships. Farmers who have the right to transfer land (The ‘Measures for the Management of Rural Land Contractual Management Right Transfer’ issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China on 1 March 2021, stipulates that ‘rural land contractual management right transfer (referred to as land transfer) refers to the act whereby the contracting party, under the premise that the contractual relationship between the contractor and the contract issuer remains unchanged, lawfully transfers part or all of the land management rights to another party for a certain period to independently conduct agricultural production and management.’ exhibit a “land-treasuring” behavior—they are reluctant to give up their land contracting rights [
50]. Consequently, it is imperative to discern whether the latest round of land approval will reinforce farmers’ “land conservation” tendencies and whether this specific sentiment will encourage farmers to prioritize land quality preservation and the adoption of conservation tillage techniques. Consequently, it is critical to elucidate the theoretical framework and pathways linking farmland tenure with farmers’ land quality preservation behavior, using straw return as an illustration to clarify the relationship between farmland tenure and the adoption of conservation tillage techniques. Further investigation into whether property rights clarity fosters farmers’ “land conservation” inclinations bears substantial theoretical and practical significance in comprehending farmers’ motivations and adoption behavior concerning land quality preservation decisions.
The organizational structure of the remaining sections in this paper is as follows:
Section 2 will furnish a succinct overview of the theoretical framework and research hypotheses.
Section 3 will provide a concise elucidation of the data sources, variable selection, and model setup.
Section 4 will comprehensively present the empirical findings of the study and undertake a thorough analysis. Finally,
Section 5 and
Section 6 will encapsulate the research findings and proffer pertinent policy recommendations.
5. Conclusions and Discussion
Property rights clarity is fundamental for delineating rights and responsibilities, serving as a crucial means to achieve sustainable resource utilization. In 2023, this study conducted a random sampling survey in Heilongjiang Province, China, employing the Probit model and methods for testing intermediate and moderating effects to derive the following conclusions: Land approval significantly stimulates farmers to adopt straw-returning technology. This highlights the pivotal role of clear and stable land property rights in encouraging farmers to embrace straw-returning practices. Land approval certification acts as a catalyst for reinforcing farmers’ endowment effects, motivating them to engage in land resource conservation. Specifically, endowment effects serve as intermediaries in the process of how land approval affects the adoption of straw-returning technology. Digital skills and farming scale exert negative moderating effects on the policy impacts of land approval concerning farmers’ adoption of straw-returning technology. The adoption of straw-returning technology correlates closely with various factors, including the age of farmers, the degree of land fragmentation within their families, whether any family member has received agricultural production training, and the extent of government policy promotion. Notably, older farmers and those with more fragmented land holdings exhibit a reduced propensity to implement straw-returning technology. Conversely, agricultural skills training and government technology promotion positively influence farmers’ adoption of straw-returning technology. These findings shed light on the multifaceted dynamics of land approval, property rights, digital skills, and other factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by farmers. Farmers are the direct adopters of straw-returning technology, and the government is the direct promoter. To achieve a transformation to conservation farming practices, it is essential to leverage the power of external economic entities (or organizations), such as through land consolidation and land transfer, to fully realize the synergistic benefits among “farmer–government–market” multiple entities.
The concept of collective land ownership inherently implies that, in the absence of clearly defined property boundaries and without intervention in individual behavior, there will inevitably be a dissipation of rents, resulting in economic inefficiency. Following Hardin’s theory, government regulations or the privatization of public resources become critical avenues for achieving efficient resource allocation. However, in a country like China, where land is collectively owned in rural areas, the costs associated with land privatization are often exorbitant. Hence, exploring the allocation of exclusive land use, possession, and benefit rights to individual farmers within the framework of collective land ownership represents an effective means of “privatizing” ambiguous public property within a legal context, essentially designating it as “private property”. This transformative process effectively converts what was previously considered “unowned” property rights into “owned” property rights. Land approval bestows upon farmers long-term usage rights and all associated rights to the land for the duration of the contract, thereby elucidating farmers’ freedom to manage their contracted land. This essentially imbues the land with the characteristics of “private property” for farmers. Grounded in property rights theory, the stability of these property rights and their potential legal interpretation as “ownership” serve to solidify farmers’ long-term investment expectations and stimulate their protective behavior toward farmland. This transmission pathway has garnered substantiation in prior studies. In a departure from existing research, this paper adopts a property rights perspective, taking into full consideration the bounded rationality of farmers and the multifaceted attributes of land, including its role in livelihoods and emotional significance. The paper aims to unveil the underlying mechanisms through which land property rights impact farmers’ decisions regarding farmland quality protection behaviors, offering valuable practical insights.