Uncovering the Deviation of Farmers’ Green Manure Planting Willingness and Behavior
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Hypothesis and Framework
2.1. The Influence of Family Endowment
2.1.1. Human Capital Endowment
2.1.2. Social Capital Endowment
2.1.3. Natural Capital Endowment
2.1.4. Economic Capital Endowment
2.2. The Moderating Effect of Ecological Cognition
2.3. Framework of the Study
3. Survey Design and Research Models
3.1. Study Region
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Variables and Research Model
3.3.1. Variable Construction
3.3.2. Research Model
4. Results
4.1. Statistical Characteristics of the Surveyed Farmers
4.2. The Statistical Description of Farmers’ DWB
4.3. The Determinants of DWB
4.4. The Moderating Effect of Ecological Cognition on DWB
4.5. Multi-Group Heterogeneity Analysis
4.5.1. The Impact of Social Networks on Farmers
4.5.2. The Scale of Cultivated Land
5. Discussions and Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Marie, R.; Marie, D.; Laurent, T. Organic fertilizers, green manures and mixtures of the two revealed their potential as substitutes for inorganic fertilizers used in pineapple cropping. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 257, 108691. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, Z.-L.; Chai, Q.; Cao, W.D.; Yu, A.Z.; Zhao, C.; Xie, J.H.; Yin, W.; Hu, F.L. Ecosystem service function of green manure and its application in dryland agriculture of China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 31, 1389–1402. [Google Scholar]
- Raheem, A.; Zhang, J.; Huang, J.; Jiang, Y.; Siddik, M.A.; Deng, A.; Gao, J.; Zhang, W. Greenhouse gas emissions from a rice-rice-green manure cropping system in South China. Geoderma 2019, 353, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badaruddin, M.; Meyer, D.W. Green-manure legume effects on soil nitrogen, grain yield, and nitrogen nutrition of wheat. Crop Sci. 1990, 30, 819–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brennan, E.B.; Smith, R.F. Winter Cover Crop Growth and Weed Suppression on the Central Coast of California. Weed Tech. 2005, 19, 1017–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, R.; Geng, Y.; Liu, Y.Y.; Tao, X.Q.; Xue, B. Consumers’ perception, purchase intention, and willingness to pay for carbon-labeled products: A case study of Chengdu in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1664–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, B. Brief introduction of the role of green manure in agricultural production in China. Soil Fertil. 1980, 5, 16–18. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, W.D.; Bao, X.G.; Xu, C.X.; Nie, J.; Gao, Y.J.; Geng, M.J. Reviews and prospects on science and technology of green manure in China. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2017, 23, 1450–1461. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, W.J.; Yan, T.W. Study on the consistency of farmers’ straw returning willingness and behavior under the dual drive of ability and opportunity—A case study of Hubei Province. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 2020, 47–55, 163–164. [Google Scholar]
- Li, M.; Wang, J.; Zhao, P.; Chen, K.; Wu, L. Factors affecting the willingness of agricultural green production from the perspective of farmers’ perceptions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 140289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, J.; Yin, C.B.; Duan, Z.L. Discussion on the ecological compensation standard of green manure planting based on the willingness of fruit farmers to pay. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2020, 28, 448–457. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.L.; Zhou, J. Information ability, cognition and behavior change of vegetable farmers using pesticides: An empirical test based on data of vegetable farmers in shandong province. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2016, 5, 22–31. [Google Scholar]
- Li, F.; Ren, J.; Wimmer, S.; Yin, C.; Li, Z.; Xu, C. Incentive mechanism for promoting farmers to plant green manure in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Y.; Guo, J.; Li, C.; Xu, X.; Sun, Z.; Xu, Z.; Feng, L.; Zhang, L. Influencing factors of farmers’ cognition on agricultural mulch film pollution in rural China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Despotovic, J.; Rodic, V.; Caracciolo, F. Farmers’ environmental awareness: Construct development, measurement, and use. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C. Modifying an American Consumer Behavior Model for Consumers in Confucian Culture: The Case of Fishbein Behavioral Intentions Model. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 1991, 3, 27–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwepker, C.H.; Cornwell, T.B. An Examination of Ecologically Concerned Consumers and their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products. J. Public Policy Mark. 1991, 10, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhodes, R.E.; de Bruijn, G.-J. How big is the physical activity intention-behaviour gap? A meta-analysis using the action control framework. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2013, 18, 296–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhi, J.-G.; Yan, T.-W.; Yang, G. The paradox between farmers’ willingness and their behaviors of straw-return-to-field practice from the perspective of family endowment and the analysis of the moderating effects of farmers’ ecological cognition. Res. Agric. Mod. 2020, 41, 999–1010. [Google Scholar]
- Ntakirutimana, L.; Li, F.; Huang, X.; Wang, S.; Yin, C. Green Manure Planting Incentive Measures of Local Authorities and Farmers’ Perceptions of the Utilization of Rotation Fallow for Sustainable Agriculture in Guangxi, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Becker, M.; Ladha, J.K.; Ali, M. Green manure technology: Potential, usage, and limitations. A case study for lowland rice. Plant Soil 1995, 174, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mubarik, A. Evaluation of green manure technology in tropical lowland rice systems. Field Crops Res. 1999, 61, 61–78. [Google Scholar]
- Huffman, W.E.; Orazem, P.F. Agriculture and Human Capital in Economic Growth: Farmers, Schooling and Nutrition; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Bourdieu, P. The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education; Richardson, J., Ed.; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, X.H.; Lu, Q.; Wang, L.L. Capital endowment, ecological cognition and farmers’ adoption behavior of soil and water conservation technology—Based on the moderating effect of ecological compensation policy. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2020, 1, 33–44. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Z.L.; Yang, Y.Y. Family Endowment, Family Decision-making and the Return of Rural Migrant Labor. Sociol. Res. 2012, 3, 157–181. [Google Scholar]
- Démurger, S.; Xu, H. Return migrants: The rise of new entrepreneurs in rural China. World Dev. 2011, 39, 1847–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giulietti, C.; Ning, G.; Zimmerman, K. Self-employment of rural-to-urban migrants in China. Int. J. Manpow. 2012, 33, 96–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wachenheim, C.; Fan, L.; Zheng, S. Adoption of unmanned aerial vehicles for pesticide application: Role of social network, resource endowment, and perceptions. Technol. Soc. 2020, 64, 101470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Qi, Z.H.; Meng, X.H.; Zhang, D.M.; Wu, L.Y. Study on the influence of family endowments on the environmental behavior of massive pig farmers under the situation of ecological compensation policy: Based on the survey of 248 massive pig farmers in Hubei Province. Issues Agric. Econ. 2015, 6, 82–91. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.Y.; Shi, Z.L. Family Endowment and Return Migration in Rural China. Popul. Res. 2012, 36, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.; Xue, C.X.; Yao, S.B.; Zhu, R.X. The Adoption Behavior of Households’ Conservation Tillage Technology:An Empirical Analysis based on Data Collected from 476 households on the Loess Plateau. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2017, 1, 44–57. [Google Scholar]
- Feder, G. Farm size, risk aversion and the adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 1980, 32, 263–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaliba, A.R.M.; Featherstone, A.M.; Norman, D.W. A stall-feeding management for improved cattle in semiarid central Tanzania: Factors influencing adoption. Agric. Econ. 1997, 17, 133–146. [Google Scholar]
- Bebbington, A. Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Dev. 1999, 27, 2021–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Liu, B.; Yu, L.; Yang, H.; Yin, S. Social capital, land tenure and the adoption of green control techniques by family farms: Evidence from Shandong and Henan Provinces of China. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paswan, A.; Sinha, A.; Basu, D. Diffusion of Agricultural Technologies through Social Network Analysis in Selected Villages of Bihar, India. J. Glob. Commun. 2018, 11, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, H.; Zhou, L.; Ifft, J.; Ying, R.Y. Risk preferences, production contracts and technology adoption by broiler farmers in China. China Econ. Rev. 2019, 54, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feder, G.; O’Mara, G.T. On information and innovation diffusion: A Bayesian approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1982, 64, 145–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miranowski, J.; Shortle, J. Effects of Risk Perceptions and Other Characteristics of Farmers and Farm Operations on the Adoption of Conservation Tillage Practices; Iowa State University, Department of Economics: Ames, IA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Sidibé, A. Farm-level adoption of soil and water conservation techniques in northern Burkina Faso. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 71, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumita, C.; Ushio, S.; Ashraful, I.; Idriss, B. Importance of policy for energy system transformation: Diffusion of PV technology in Japan and Germany. Energy Policy 2014, 68, 285–293. [Google Scholar]
- Dinar, A.; Yaron, D. Adoption and abandonment of irrigation technologies. Agric. Econ. 1992, 6, 315–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greiner, R.; Gregg, D. Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservationpractices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotchen, M.J.; Reiling, S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, W.; Luo, X.; Li, R.; Xue, L.; Huang, L. The paradox between farmer willingness and their adoption of green technology from the perspective of green cognition. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 1573–1583. [Google Scholar]
- Gonick, L.; Smith, W.; Smith, W. The Cartoon Guide to Statistics; HarperPerennial: New York, NY, USA, 1993; p. 141e142. [Google Scholar]
- Pituch, K.A.; Stevens, J.P.; Whittaker, T.A. Intermediate Statistics: A Modern Approach; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hemming, K.; Girling, A.J.; Sitch, A.J.; Marsh, J.; Lilford, R.J. Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2011, 11, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wen, Z.L.; Zhou, J.T.; Zhang, L. A Comparison and Application of Moderating Effect and Mediating Effect. Acta Psychol. News 2005, 37, 268–274. [Google Scholar]
- Besley, T.; Case, A. Does Electoral Accountability Affect Economic Policy Choices? Evidence from Gubernatorial Term Limits. Q. J. Econ. 1995, 100, 769–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foster, A.D.; Rosenzweig, M.R. Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture. J. Political Econ. 1995, 103, 1176–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, G.; Lu, Q.; Capareda, S.C. Social network and extension service in farmers’ agricultural technology adoption efficiency. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, 78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, K.; Zhang, J.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, L. Households’ willingness to accept compensation for agricultural waste recycling: Taking biogas production from livestock manure waste in Hubei, P.R. China as an example. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omotilewa, O.J.; Ricker-Gilbert, J.; Ainembabazi, J.H. Subsidies for Agricultural Technology Adoption: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment with Improved Grain Storage Bags in Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 101, 753–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J.S.; Norstrom, F.; Ng, N. disibility and ageing in China and India decomposing the effects of gender and residence. Result from the WHO study on global ageing and adult health (SAGE). BMC Geriatr. 2017, 17, 197. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, Q.H.; Li, S.P.; Li, H. Adoption behaviors of farmers’chemical fertilizer reduction measures based on the perspective of social norms. J. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2018, 32, 50–55. [Google Scholar]
Abbreviations | Explanation |
---|---|
GMPW | Green manure planting willingness |
GMPB | Green manure planting behavior |
DWB | Deviation from green manure planting willingness and behavior |
RGMPW | Ratio of farmers’ green manure planting willingness |
RGMPB | Ratio of farmers’ green manure planting behavior |
RDWB | Ratio of farmers’ deviation from GMPW and GMPB |
Eco-compensation | Ecological compensation |
GMP | Green manure planting |
The high ecological cognition group | The H-ECC group |
The low ecological cognition group | The L-ECC group |
Variable | Variable Definition and Unit | Min | Max | Average | Standard Deviation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | DWB | Whether there is a deviation from GMPW and GMPB? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) | 0 | 1 | 0.420 | 0.494 |
Family endowment | GEN | Gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male) | 0 | 1 | 0.304 | 0.461 |
AGE | Age (year) | 21 | 78 | 51.687 | 10.017 | |
EDU | Education (1 = Elementary school and below, 2 = Junior middle school, 3 = Senior middle school, 4 = College degree and above) | 1 | 4 | 1.780 | 0.806 | |
PAT | Are you a part-time farmer ? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) | 0 | 1 | 0.320 | 0.466 | |
APC | Have you joined an agricultural professional cooperative? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) | 0 | 1 | 0.320 | 0.468 | |
SOT | The extent to which farmers are affected by the social network (1 = no impact, 2 = little impact, 3 = uncertain impact, 4 = minor impact, 5 = huge impact) | 1 | 5 | 3.600 | 1.113 | |
CUS | Families’ cultivated field scale (ha) | 0.013 | 66.667 | 3.668 | 119.415 | |
CUQ | What do you think of the quality of your farmland? (1 = very poor, 2 = relatively poor, 3 = average, 4 = relatively good, 5 = very good) | 1 | 5 | 3.490 | 0.828 | |
THI | Total annual household income (×104 CNY) | 0.04 | 23.56 | 4.681 | 6.698 | |
ECOC | Are you willing to accept eco-compensation to adopt green manure? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) | 0 | 1 | 0.110 | 0.311 | |
Ecological cognition | IAPQ | What is the effect of green manure in improving the quality of agricultural products? (1 = cannot improve at all, 2 = improve less, 3 = average improvement, 4 = improve greatly, 5 = improve very much) | 1 | 5 | 3.300 | 1.039 |
ICUQ | What is the effect of green manure in improving the quality of cultivated field? (1 = cannot improve at all, 2 = improve less, 3 = average improvement, 4 = improve greatly, 5 = improve very much) | 1 | 5 | 3.940 | 0.922 | |
SFEA | What is the effect of green manure in saving the amount of fertilizer used in agricultural production? (1 = cannot save at all, 2 = save less, 3 = general save, 4 = save more, 5 = save a lot) | 1 | 5 | 3.230 | 1.167 | |
Regional variable | LOCA1 | 1 = Wuwei, 0 = others | 0 | 1 | 0.180 | 0.385 |
LOCA2 | 1 = Jingning, 0 = others | 0 | 1 | 0.220 | 0.413 | |
LOCA3 | 1 = Yongjing, 0 = others | 0 | 1 | 0.300 | 0.457 | |
LOCA4 | 1 = Shandan, 0 = others | 0 | 1 | 0.310 | 0.462 |
Index | Definition | Number | Ratio% |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | male | 231 | 69.58 |
female | 101 | 30.42 | |
Age(year) | ≤30 | 10 | 3.01 |
31–40 | 31 | 9.34 | |
41–50 | 96 | 28.92 | |
51–60 | 135 | 40.66 | |
>60 | 60 | 18.07 | |
Education level | Elementary school and below | 145 | 43.67 |
Junior middle school | 122 | 36.75 | |
Senior middle school | 58 | 17.47 | |
College degree and above | 7 | 2.11 | |
Whether part-time | No | 227 | 68.37 |
Yes | 105 | 31.63 | |
Total annual household income (×104 CNY) | ≤5 | 210 | 63.25 |
(5–10] | 86 | 25.90 | |
(10–20] | 29 | 8.73 | |
>20 | 7 | 2.11 | |
Cultivated land area (ha) | ≤1.33 | 224 | 67.47 |
(1.33–2.67] | 36 | 10.84 | |
(2.67–4] | 13 | 3.92 | |
>4 | 59 | 17.77 |
Index | Question Item | Definition | Number | Ratio % |
---|---|---|---|---|
GMPW | Are you willing to plant green manure? | Yes | 216 | 65.06 |
No | 116 | 34.94 | ||
GMPB | Do you want to plant green manure? | Yes | 77 | 23.19 |
No | 255 | 76.81 | ||
DWB | Is there a deviation of willingness and behavior? | Yes | 139 | 41.87 |
No | 193 | 58.13 |
Variables | Coefficients | Standard Deviation | Average Marginal Effects |
---|---|---|---|
SEX | 0.049 | 0.295 | 0.0105 |
log(AGE) | −0.397 ** | 0.164 | −0.0208 |
PAT | −0.313 | 0.271 | −0.0672 |
EDU | −0.298 * | 0.173 | −0.0032 |
Log(CUS) | 0.616 *** | 0.108 | 0.1034 |
CUQ | −0.214 | 0.155 | −0.0459 |
SOT | −0.688 *** | 0.133 | −0.1474 |
APC | −0.175 | 0.293 | −0.0375 |
THI | 0.004 | 0.018 | 0.0008 |
ECOC | −0.592 * | 0.233 | −0.127 |
WUWEI | −0.191 | 0.405 | −0.041 |
JIGNNING | −0.593 | 0.413 | −0.1272 |
YONGJING | −0.512 | 0.400 | −0.1097 |
SHANDAN | 0 (omitted) | ---- | 0 (omitted) |
constant | −2.28 | −2.92 |
Variables | The Group of Low Ecological Cognition | The Group of High Ecological Cognition | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Coef. | Std. Err. | Coef. | Std. Err. | |
SEX | 0.333 | 0.439 | 0.211 | 0.445 |
log(AGE) | −0.278 | 0.995 | −0.671 | 0.939 |
PAT | −0.335 | 0.433 | −0.321 | 0.365 |
EDU | −0.062 | 0.304 | −0.026 | 0.225 |
Log(CUS) | 0.336 * | 0.181 | 0.308 * | 0.165 |
CUQ | −0.065 | 0.232 | −0.444 ** | 0.213 |
SOT | −0.598 *** | 0.189 | −0.827 *** | 0.230 |
APC | −0.471 | 0.491 | −0.242 | 0.435 |
THI | 0.015 | 0.030 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
ECOC | −0.558 | 0.601 | −1.804 *** | 0.629 |
WUWEI | 0.361 | 0.572 | −0.581 | 0.691 |
JIGNNING | −0.525 | 0.672 | −1.051 * | 0.615 |
YONGJING | 0.182 | 0.661 | −1.544 ** | 0.666 |
SHANDAN | 0 (omitted) | |||
constant | −4.546 | 4.652 | 2.614 | 4.188 |
Variables | The Affected Farmers by Social Network | The Scale of Cultivated Land | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Low-Affected Farmers | High-Affected Farmers | Small-Scale Farmers | Large-Scale Farmers | |
Family endowment | ||||
SEX | 0.895 (0.893) | −0.038 (0.347) | 0.117 (0.377) | −0.902 (0.700) |
log(AGE) | −2.423 (1.769) | 0.539 (0.740) | 0.655 (0.813) | −0.929 (1.375) |
PAT | 0.389 (0.774) | 0.346 (0.307) | 0.250 (0.364) | 0.135 (0.480) |
EDU | 1.283 ** (0.602) | −0.127 (0.195) | 0.049 (0.228) | −0.408 (0.346) |
APC | −2.112 (1.406) | −0.220 (0.344) | −0.261 (0.406) | −0.200 (0.536) |
SOT | -- | -- | −0.699 *** (0.180) | −0.755 *** (0.286) |
LOG(CUS) | 0.880 ** (0.410) | −0.085 (0.130) | -- | -- |
CUQ | 0.211 (0.449) | −0.320 * (0.171) | −0.455 ** (0.191) | 0.180 (0.305) |
THI | −0.091 (0.084) | 0.006 (0.019) | 0.113 * (0.059) | −0.008 (0.023) |
ECOC | −1.119 (1.350) | −0.564 (0.448) | 0.081 (0.0.550) | −1.613 * (0.925) |
Ecological cognition | ||||
IAPQ | 0.150 (0.384) | −0.002 (0.154) | 0.071 (0.176) | 0.007 (0.256) |
ICUQ | −0.470 (0.413) | −0.262 (0.167) | −0.247 (0.200) | −0.258 (0.280) |
SFEA | −0.169 (0.368) | −0.384 *** (0.129) | 0.496 *** (0.173) | 0.160 (0.195) |
WUWEI | 3.061 ** (1.454) | −0.757 (0.487) | 0.028 (0.611) | 0.147 (0.683) |
JINGNING | 3.473 ** (1.636) | −0.984 ** (0.481) | −0.204 (0.611) | −2.580 ** (1.170) |
YONGJING | 3.160 * (1.874) | −0.687 (0.505) | −0.142 (0.583) | −1.051 (0.741) |
SHANDAN | 0(omitted) | |||
Constant | 0.464 (8.069) | −0.033 (3.248) | −5.462 (3.710) | 2.408 (5.742) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ren, J.; Li, F.; Yin, C.; Zhang, J. Uncovering the Deviation of Farmers’ Green Manure Planting Willingness and Behavior. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114315
Ren J, Li F, Yin C, Zhang J. Uncovering the Deviation of Farmers’ Green Manure Planting Willingness and Behavior. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114315
Chicago/Turabian StyleRen, Jing, Fuduo Li, Changbin Yin, and Jiudong Zhang. 2022. "Uncovering the Deviation of Farmers’ Green Manure Planting Willingness and Behavior" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114315