Study on the Influence of Policy Guidance and Market-Driven Factors on Farmers’ Behavior Regarding Black Soil Protection

Abstract

Enhancing black soil quality is essential for ensuring national food security and promoting sustainable economic development in Northeast China. This paper utilizes survey data from farmers in the typical black soil region of the Sanjiang Plain to establish a structural equation model. This study explores the theoretical mechanisms and practical logic behind the influence of policy guidance and market-driven factors on farmers’ black soil protection behavior. The research findings are as follows: The effect values of policy guidance and market-driven factors on farmers’ black soil protection behavior are 0.042 and 0.195, respectively, with the influence of market-driven factors being more significant. The linkage effect value between policy guidance and market-driven factors in promoting farmers’ black soil protection behavior is 0.396. There are differences in the influence pathways of policy guidance and market-driven factors on the black soil protection behavior of different types of farmers. Farmers managing dryland and those with smaller-scale operations are more significantly affected by both policy guidance and market-driven factors, with a noticeable linkage effect between the two. However, the issue of degradation in black soil quality remains severe, and the awareness of black soil conservation among farmers still requires reinforcement. Future research should continue to explore the driving mechanisms behind farmers’ behaviors regarding black soil conservation and compare the actual effects and efficacy of various black soil conservation techniques through impact evaluations. This will facilitate the continuous improvement of mechanisms for black soil protection, ensuring the sustainable development of black soil quality, ecology, and biodiversity.

1. Introduction

Black soil is a precious natural resource that has made significant contributions to human survival and development. As one of the world’s four major black soil regions, the black soil area in Northeast China serves as a critical commodity grain base for the country. It accounts for one-quarter of the nation’s total grain production and one-third of the total grain transfer, making it a “ballast stone” for stable grain production and supply, thus providing crucial support for national food security [1]. However, due to long-term unreasonable and excessive exploitation, global climate warming, insufficient awareness and motivation for black soil protection among agricultural producers, and a lack of accountability, the quality of black soil has severely degraded [2,3], threatening national food security and the economic development of the Northeast region. With the promulgation of a series of policies and regulations, such as the “Northeast Black Soil Conservation Tillage Action Plan (2020–2025)” and the “Black Soil Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China”, the protection of black soil in Northeast China has been elevated to a national level and has entered a stage of legal regulation.

Drawing on definitions related to the protection of arable land in the “Practical Dictionary of Land and Resources” and regulations from the “Black Soil Protection Law”, black soil protection refers to the conservation and maintenance of the ecological environment, biodiversity, and the sustainable agricultural development of black soil. The aim is to preserve the quantity and quality of black soil as well as to maintain its ecological balance and sustainable agricultural development, ensuring the long-term and sustainable use of black soil. The key to preventing the degradation of black soil quality is to have the users of black soil cease destructive behaviors and adopt corresponding protective measures. As the main stakeholders in black soil utilization, it is crucial to enhance farmers’ awareness of black soil protection and guide them to participate in protective behaviors. Existing research primarily focuses on factors influencing farmers’ perceptions of the importance of farmland protection [4], willingness to pay [5], and actual adoption of farmland protection technologies [6]. These studies are mainly influenced by the individual and family characteristics of respondents [7], farmer differentiation [8], land tenure security [9], contract stability [10], agricultural social services [11], and policy tools [12].

In recent years, with the government’s increased emphasis on protecting the black soil in Northeast China, scholars have conducted empirical analyses on farmers’ black soil protection behaviors from perspectives such as perceived benefits [13], capital endowment [14], social networks [15], policy incentives [16], and market-driven factors [17]. They have also suggested leveraging the internet to strengthen the publicity of black soil protection policies, standardizing the land transfer market and fostering the development of new agricultural business entities to promote farmers’ protective behaviors. This study defines policy guidance as the government’s direction, regulation, and stimulation of the development, structure, and scale of economic and social activities through the formulation and implementation of a series of policies, plans, and measures. The purpose of policy guidance is to achieve national macroeconomic goals, promote economic and social sustainable development, and improve public welfare [18]. Market-driven refers to the utilization of the market’s self-regulating mechanisms, interacting through the prices of goods and services, supply and demand relationships, and competition among market participants [19], which spontaneously incentivize the protection behavior of farmers towards black soil. These incentives are closely related to the price, supply and demand, competition, and risk factors under China’s socialist economic system [20].

From a research perspective, existing studies often analyze the influencing mechanisms of farmers’ farmland and black soil protection behaviors from a single viewpoint. However, promoting black soil protection among farmers requires not only the “external force” of national policies and regulations but also the “pull force” of benefits formed by market mechanisms such as market prices and supply–demand dynamics. Few studies have examined the influencing mechanisms of farmers’ black soil protection behaviors from the dual perspectives of government policy guidance and market-driven forces, which are closely related to these behaviors.

Regarding the research subjects, there is a noticeable lack of studies focusing on the black soil in Northeast China that incorporate both policy guidance and market-driven factors into the cognitive, willing, and actual behavioral processes driving farmers’ black soil protection.

In light of this, the following two questions are proposed: (1) What factors influenced by policy guidance and market-driven forces affect farmers’ black soil protection behaviors? (2) What are the causal relationships and behavioral logic between policy guidance, market-driven forces, and farmers’ black soil protection behaviors?

To answer these questions, this paper incorporates policy guidance and market-driven forces into the theoretical analysis framework of farmers’ black soil protection behaviors based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Attitude–Situation–Behavior Theory. Using survey data from farmers in typical black soil regions, a multi-group structural equation model is constructed to empirically test the influence mechanisms of policy guidance and market-driven forces on farmers’ black soil protection behaviors. This provides both a theoretical and practical basis for promoting farmers’ proactive participation in black soil protection and preventing the degradation of black soil quality.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses

The Theory of Planned Behavior posits that individual behavior is influenced by the perception of behavior and subjective norms, which ultimately affect behavioral intentions and actual behavior [21]. Simultaneously, the Attitude–Situation–Behavior Theory suggests that individual behavior is influenced by both internal factors and external environmental factors, and this influence is dynamic [22]. Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, farmers’ black soil protection behavior is a dynamic process, and cognition and willingness precede behavior; in other words, farmers’ black soil protection behavior is conscious and typically occurs when there is willingness [23]. Aligning the Attitude–Situation–Behavior Theory with the process of farmers’ black soil protection behavior, attitude refers to farmers’ cognition and willingness toward black soil protection, situation encompasses external factors such as policy guidance and market-driven forces, and behavior entails the adoption of black soil protection technologies. After understanding the significance of black soil protection, farmers evaluate the value of protecting black soil, considering benefits, technologies, responsibilities, ecological environment, and increased productivity [24,25]. Consequently, they gradually develop the willingness to participate in and promote black soil protection [26], leading to the adoption of corresponding protective measures. However, in terms of the farmers’ behavioral process, their cognition of black soil protection can also directly influence their actual behavior [27].

1. Due to the positive externalities associated with short-term black soil protection, combined with the “Attitude–Situation–Behavior” theory, the introduction of advanced black soil protection technologies requires “external forces” such as national policies and regulations to promote implementation [28]. Therefore, the issuance of relevant policies for black soil protection is crucial. The Theory of Planned Behavior emphasizes three factors: attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The government adopts a series of policy tools, including publicity, training, subsidies, and constraints [12,29], to internalize the externalities of black soil protection behavior to the maximum extent. This aims to enhance farmers’ satisfaction with policy subsidies and services [30], strengthen their awareness of rights and responsibilities regarding black soil protection, mitigate the inhibitory effect of additional private costs on farmers’ black soil protection behavior, and consequently increase farmers’ willingness to protect black soil and promote their protective behaviors. Based on this, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

H1. 

Policy guidance can direct the behavior of farmers in protecting black soil and have a promotive effect on the process of black soil protection by farmers.

2. In the practice of black soil protection, the relationship between farmers and organizations promoting black soil protection technologies, such as farmer cooperatives and leading enterprises, is not one of cooperation but rather a market relationship [31]. Whether farmers engage in black soil protection behavior depends on the comparison of costs and benefits associated with adopting black soil protection technologies. Market-driven forces refer to the factors driving farmers to implement black soil protection behavior within the market environment of agricultural production and management [17,32]. Through the interaction of market prices, market supply and demand, market competition, and market risk factors, market-driven forces reduce the costs of farmers’ black soil protection behavior and increase their income, thereby forming an equilibrium state in which farmers voluntarily adopt black soil protection technologies.

Firstly, market price factors are crucial incentives for farmers to adopt black soil protection technologies. Farmers adjust their production and management behaviors based on expected agricultural product prices and income [33], with expected income being estimated by farmers based on the previous year’s planting income.

Secondly, market supply and demand factors establish the linkage between black soil protection technology services, the supply of production materials, and farmers’ demand for black soil protection technology services through market equilibrium prices. Therefore, both the supply of black soil protection technology services and production materials and farmers’ demand for black soil protection technology services affect farmers’ black soil protection behavior [17].

Thirdly, market competition is based on market activities formed by price mechanisms, primarily involving market competition among rural land transfer markets, agricultural product and agricultural material markets, and agricultural production social service entities [34,35,36]. A higher degree of marketization in rural land transfer markets is conducive to achieving the scale management of black soil and increasing the adoption rate of black soil protection technologies. The higher the degree of free competition among agricultural production material sales entities and agricultural production social service entities in which farmers are involved, the easier it is for farmers to access price information related to market supply and demand for agricultural products, black soil protection technology services, etc. This enhances farmers’ bargaining power in selling agricultural products and purchasing agricultural materials, reduces transaction costs, and promotes farmers’ black soil protection behavior.

Finally, market risk refers to the multiple risk factors farmers face in adopting black soil protection technologies. Rational farmers are more likely to adopt black soil protection technologies with lower risks and higher returns. Entities providing black soil protection technology services and entities selling agricultural production materials in the market have the closest relationship with farmers. The higher the level of trust farmers have in them, the easier it is to achieve cooperation, thereby promoting the adoption of black soil protection technologies by farmers [37,38]. Similarly, the higher the level of trust farmers have in the entire agricultural product trade market, the more it promotes farmers’ black soil protection behavior [39]. Based on this, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

H2: 

Market-driven factors can motivate farmers’ behaviors in protecting black soil and have a promotive effect on the process of black soil protection by farmers.

3. The process of farmers’ black soil protection behavior is jointly influenced by government policies and the market [40]. Policies can optimize the direction and efficiency of agricultural development by determining target market prices under WTO agricultural agreement rules and improving the allocation environment of production factors. Conversely, the efficient allocation of agricultural market production factors also affects policy orientation. Under the current socialist market economic system in China, whether government policy guidance and market-driven forces can be comprehensively utilized to maximize farmers’ interests will ultimately determine the actual behavior of farmers in black soil protection. In other words, the key to promoting farmers’ black soil protection behavior lies in combining government policy guidance with market-driven forces to reconstruct the incentive mechanism for farmers’ black soil protection behavior. Based on this, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

H3: 

There is a mutually reinforcing interactive relationship between policy guidance and market-driven forces, and this synergy promotes the process of farmers’ black soil protection behaviors.

Based on the above theoretical analysis and research hypotheses, this paper constructs a theoretical framework for analyzing the impact of policy guidance and market-driven forces on farmers’ black soil protection behavior, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Data Sources and Variable Selection

3.1. Data Sources

The data used in this article were collected by the research team from a survey of farmers conducted in June and July 2022 in typical counties and cities of the Sanjiang Plain, one of the core areas of the Northeast black soil region—Huanan County, Fujin City, Baoqing County, and Jixian County. The surveys were obtained through face-to-face interviews. The Sanjiang Plain has a black soil area of 3.042 million hectares, accounting for 16% of the total arable land area in the typical black soil region of Northeast China. Flat arable land accounts for 88.6% of the area. Dryland, irrigated land, and paddy fields account for 47.8%, 0.2%, and 52%, respectively, making it a key protected area for black soil according to the “Regulations on the Protection and Utilization of Black Soil in Heilongjiang Province”.

To ensure the reliability and extrapolation of the survey results, a stratified random sampling method was used. Firstly, 4–5 townships were randomly selected in each county (city), then 2–3 villages were selected in each township, and finally, approximately 20 households were randomly surveyed in each village. In this study, a total of 687 questionnaires were collected. After removing invalid samples, 676 valid questionnaires were obtained, resulting in a validity rate of 98.40%.

3.2. Basic Statistical Characteristics of Sampled Households

Among the respondents in the sample (

Table 1. Basic Situation of Sample Farmers.

Variables	Classification	Number of Households	Percentage (%)	Variables	Classification	Number of Households	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	502	74.260	Operational Scale (hm2)	≤2	91	13.462
	Female	174	25.740		2 < x ≤ 3.333	57	8.432
Age (year)	≤30	5	0.740		3.333 < x ≤ 6.667	123	18.195
	30 < x ≤ 40	78	11.538		6.667 < x ≤ 13.333	212	31.361
	40 < x ≤ 50	214	31.657		13.333 < x ≤ 20	107	15.828
	50 < x ≤ 60	236	34.911		>20	86	12.722
	>60	143	21.154	Last Year’s Planting Income (ten thousand yuan)	≤3	71	10.503
Educational Level	No Formal Education	46	6.805		3 < x ≤ 5	62	9.172
	Primary School	240	35.503		5 < x ≤ 10	105	15.533
	Junior High School	342	50.592		10 < x ≤ 20	173	25.592
	High School (including Technical and Vocational High School)	41	6.065		20 < x ≤ 30	120	17.751
	College and Above	7	1.036		30 < x ≤ 40	62	9.172
Years of Farming Experience (year)	≤10	31	4.586		>40	83	12.278
	10 < x ≤ 20	130	19.231	Proportion of Last Year’s Planting Income to Total Household Income	≤20%	24	3.550
	20 < x ≤ 30	226	33.432		20% < x ≤ 40%	60	8.876
	30 < x ≤ 40	174	25.740		40% < x ≤ 60%	87	12.870
	>40	115	17.012		60% < x ≤ 80%	165	24.408
Type of Farmland	Dryland	426	63.018		>80%	340	50.296
	Paddy field	250	36.982

Data source: farmer survey questionnaire.

), there is a higher proportion of male farmers, accounting for 74.260% of the total sample, with ages primarily between 41 and 60 years, comprising 66.568% of the sample. The educational level of the sample households is generally low, with the majority having secondary education, accounting for 50.592%, and 35.503% having primary education. The length of farming experience is relatively long, with 33.432% having 21–30 years and 31.657% having 31–40 years of farming experience, indicating substantial agricultural experience. The proportion of farmers with an operating scale between 6.667 and 13.333 hectares was the highest at 31.361%. Farmers with an operating scale of less than 2 hectares accounted for 13.462%, and those with more than 20 hectares accounted for 12.722%. The sample covered a wide range of planting areas. The highest proportion of households had an annual planting income between CNY 100,000 and 200,000, making up 25.592% of the total sample, and nearly half of the sample, 50.296%, had last year’s planting income constituting more than 80% of their total income, indicating that the majority of their income comes from agricultural sources. In terms of farmland management types, there are 426 households managing dryland and 250 managing paddy fields, accounting for 63.018% and 36.982%, respectively (households cultivating both types are categorized based on the larger cultivated area), Black soil conservation techniques adopted by the sampled farmers include dryland black soil conservation techniques and paddy field black soil conservation techniques. Overall, the study sample is fairly representative.

3.3. Model Setting

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a model established on theoretical foundations to validate research hypotheses. It consists of a structural model and a measurement model, utilizing the covariance matrix and factor analysis to measure the relationships between latent variables and observed variables. The issues of policy guidance, market-driven forces, and farmers’ cognition and willingness for black soil protection, which are difficult to directly observe, can be effectively addressed using SEM. This approach enables a clear depiction of farmers’ actual behavior in black soil protection. Therefore, the structural equation model constructed in this study is as follows [41]:

$$\eta =A\eta +\gamma \theta +\omega$$

(1)

$$Y=\Lambda y\eta +ϵ$$

(2)

$$X=\Lambda x\mu +\delta$$

(3)

Equation (1) represents the structural model, indicating the linear relationship between latent variables, where A is the correlation coefficient matrix of η; γ represents the influence of θ on η; η is the endogenous latent variable; θ is the exogenous latent variable; ω is the random disturbance term; Y and X are observed variables; and ε and δ are measurement errors. Equations (2) and (3) are measurement equations, representing the linear relationship between latent variables and observed variables, where Λy is the loading matrix of Y on η and Λx is the loading matrix of X on μ.

3.4. Variable Selection

Farmers’ black soil protection behavior refers to the dynamic process from farmers’ cognition of black soil protection to their willingness and actual behavior of black soil protection. Based on theoretical analysis, farmers’ cognition of black soil protection is divided into five categories: the cognition of black soil protection benefits, technical cognition, ecological environment cognition, responsibility obligation cognition, and yield increase cognition. Farmers’ willingness for black soil protection is divided into participation willingness and promotion willingness. Farmers’ actual behavior of black soil protection is a combination of various protection technologies adopted by operating farmers. According to the “14th Five-Year Plan for Black Soil Protection in Heilongjiang Province”, whether to adopt soil fertility improvement technologies (returning straw to the field, low-temperature decomposition technology of functional microbial agents in straw, returning organic fertilizer to the field, increasing the application of household fertilizer), the degree of the adoption of soil fertility improvement technologies, whether to adopt ecological protection technologies (soil testing and formula fertilization, scientific pesticide use, pesticide packaging and agricultural film recycling, water-saving irrigation), and the degree of the adoption of ecological protection technologies are represented by four indicators.

Policy guidance refers to the government’s guidance, regulation, and incentive measures on farmers’ black soil protection behavior through the formulation and implementation of a series of policies and plans [18]. In combining this research conclusion, the following nine indicators are selected: the degree of policy propaganda, farmers’ satisfaction with black soil protection policies, the intensity of subsidies for black soil protection policies, the intensity of the constraints of black soil protection policies, the punishment intensity of policies against black soil destruction, the level of training for black soil protection policies, the effectiveness of services provided by black soil protection policies, whether farmers’ black soil protection behavior receives policy subsidies, and whether black soil is in the project area of black soil protection policies.

Market-driven forces refer to a collection of price-driven factors, supply and demand-driven factors, competition-driven factors, and risk-driven factors closely related to farmers’ black soil protection behavior [19,20]. In combining this research conclusion, the following twelve indicators are selected: expected grain prices for the current year, expected agricultural income for the current year, the previous year’s planting income (market price factor), the degree of demand for black soil protection technology services by farmers, the degree of the supply of black soil protection technology services in the market, the degree of demand for large agricultural machinery for providing black soil protection technology by farmers, the degree of the supply of production materials for black soil protection technology in the market (market supply and demand factors), the degree of land transfer marketization, the convenience of obtaining market information on agricultural product supply and demand, the convenience of obtaining market information on agricultural product prices, the degree of free competition in the market for agricultural production socialization service providers, bargaining power when selling agricultural products, bargaining power when purchasing agricultural inputs (market competition factors), the trust level of farmers in black soil protection technology service providers, the trust level of farmers in market entities selling agricultural production materials, and the trust level of farmers in agricultural product trading markets (market risk factors). This study follows the logical paradigm where policy guidance and market forces jointly influence farmers' perceptions, intentions, and actual behaviors in black soil conservation. It includes five latent variables and 36 observed variables (

Table 2. Variable Definitions and Descriptive Statistics.

Latent Variable	Observational Variable	Variable Definition	Minimum Value	Maximum Value	Mean	Standard Deviation
Farmers’ Black Soil Protection Cognition	RZ1	Farmers’ awareness of whether adopting black soil conservation techniques can improve economic benefits	0	1	0.509	0.500
	RZ2	Farmers’ understanding of black soil conservation techniques	0	1	0.601	0.490
	RZ3	Farmers’ awareness of whether adopting black soil conservation techniques can improve ecological benefits	0	1	0.712	0.453
	RZ4	Farmers’ understanding of the responsibility and obligation to protect black soil	0	1	0.947	0.225
	RZ5	Farmers’ awareness of whether adopting black soil conservation techniques can increase land yield	0	1	0.771	0.421
Farmers’ Black Soil Protection Willingness	YY1	Farmers’ willingness to participate in black soil conservation	0	1	0.717	0.451
	YY2	Farmers’ willingness to promote black soil conservation	0	1	0.661	0.474
Farmers’ Actual Black Soil Protection Behavior	XW1	Adoption of land fertility improvement techniques by farmers	0	1	0.734	0.442
	XW2	Degree of adoption of land fertility improvement techniques by farmers	1	5	1.959	0.749
	XW3	Adoption of ecological conservation techniques by farmers	0	1	0.621	0.485
	XW4	Degree of adoption of ecological conservation techniques by farmers	1	5	1.796	0.746
Policy guidance	ZC1	Level of policy promotion	1	5	3.494	1.150
	ZC2	Satisfaction of farmers with black soil conservation policies	1	5	3.414	0.941
	ZC3	Intensity of subsidies for black soil conservation policies	1	5	2.831	0.877
	ZC4	Intensity of constraints in black soil conservation policies	1	5	4.095	0.827
	ZC5	Intensity of penalties for damaging black soil conservation policies	1	5	4.516	0.806
	ZC6	Level of training in black soil conservation policies	1	5	2.189	1.200
	ZC7	Effectiveness of services in black soil conservation policies	1	5	3.393	0.877
	ZC8	Whether farmers’ black soil conservation behaviors receive policy subsidies	0	1	0.175	0.380
	ZC9	Whether the land is in the project area of black soil conservation policies	0	1	0.371	0.484
Market price-driving factors	JG1	Expected grain prices for the current year	1	5	3.185	0.699
	JG2	Expected agricultural income for the current year	1	5	2.695	0.989
	JG3	Previous year’s planting income	1	5	2.559	1.042
Market supply and demand-driving factors	GQ1	Degree of farmers’ demand for black soil conservation technology services	1	5	3.678	0.787
	GQ2	Degree of supply of black soil conservation technology services in the market	1	5	3.728	0.904
	GQ3	Degree of farmers’ demand for large-scale agricultural machinery for providing black soil conservation technology	1	5	3.859	1.066
	GQ4	Degree of supply of production materials for black soil conservation technology in the market	1	5	4.433	0.642
Market competition-driving factors	JZ1	Degree of land transfer marketization	1	5	1.929	0.854
	JZ2	Convenience of obtaining supply and demand information for agricultural products in the market	1	5	3.778	1.097
	JZ3	Convenience of obtaining market prices for agricultural products	1	5	3.935	1.041
	JZ4	Degree of free competition in the market for socialized agricultural service providers	1	5	3.722	0.917
	JZ5	Bargaining power when selling agricultural products	1	5	2.719	1.205
	JZ6	Bargaining power when purchasing agricultural inputs	1	5	3.115	1.230
Market risk-driving factors	FX1	Degree of trust of farmers in providers of black soil conservation technology services	1	5	3.225	1.130
	FX2	Degree of trust of farmers in market entities selling agricultural production materials	1	5	3.806	0.972
	FX3	Degree of trust of farmers in agricultural product trading markets	1	5	3.703	1.003

Note: The assignment of relevant variables is as follows: RZ1, RZ2, RZ3, RZ4, RZ5, YY1, YY2, XW1, XW3, ZC8, ZC9: 0 = no, 1 = yes; XW2, XW4, ZC1, ZC2, ZC3, ZC4, ZC5, ZC6, ZC7, ZC8, ZC9, JG1, JG2, JG3, GQ1, GQ2, GQ3, GQ4, JZ1, JZ2, JZ3, JZ4, JZ5, JZ6, FX1, FX2, FX3: 1 = very low; 2 = low; 3 = moderate; 4 = high; 5 = very high; data source: farmer survey questionnaire.

), primarily measured using a five-point Likert scale and secondary indicators.

4. Empirical Results and Analysis

Using SPSS 15 and AMOS 24 software, the Cronbach’s α value and the KMO value of the selected latent variables were tested. Cronbach’s α value for all questionnaire indicators was 0.748, and the KMO value was 0.690. Specifically, Cronbach’s α value for the latent variable “policy guidance” was 0.551, with a KMO value of 0.644; for “market drivers”, Cronbach’s α value was 0.674, with a KMO value of 0.632; for the process of farmers’ black soil conservation behavior, Cronbach’s α value was 0.656, with a KMO value of 0.634. All of these values passed the reliability and validity tests, enabling a subsequent analysis [13].

After modifying the initial structural equation model diagram of the paths through which policy guidance and market drivers influence farmers’ black soil conservation behavior, insignificant observed variables and their corresponding latent variables—ZC8, JG3, GQ1, GQ4, JZ3, JZ6, FX1, and RZ2—were removed. Additionally, residual variable paths with large covariance values were added. The values of each indicator selected using the modified model met the recommended reference standards [42], and the overall fit of the model was good, as detailed in

Table 3. Fit Test of the Modified Model.

Indicator	Reference Standards	Measured Results	Fitting Results
CMIN/DF	1–3 Excellent, 3–5 Good	3.376	Good
RMSEA	<0.05 Excellent, <0.08 Good	0.059	Good
AGFI	>0.9 Excellent, >0.8 Good	0.863	Good
CFI	>0.9 Excellent, >0.8 Good	0.844	Good
PNFI	>0.5 Assessment of model fit to standards	0.712	Accepted

. Furthermore, after modification, Cronbach’s α value for all indicators was 0.723, and the KMO value was 0.675. Cronbach’s α value for the latent variable “policy guidance” was 0.562, with a KMO value of 0.646, while for “market drivers”, Cronbach’s α value was 0.624, with a KMO value of 0.589. For the process of farmers’ black soil conservation behavior, Cronbach’s α value was 0.675, with a KMO value of 0.637. These values still passed the reliability and validity tests.

Figure 2 is a path diagram illustrating the effects of policy guidance and market drivers on farmers’ conservation behaviors regarding black soil after modification.

Table 4. Analysis results of the paths through which policy guidance and market drivers influence farmers’ conservation behaviors regarding black soil.

Pathway	Path Standardized Coefficients	p	Results
Awareness of black soil conservation ← Policy guidance	0.339	***	Acceptance
Awareness of black soil conservation ← Market drive	0.249	**	Acceptance
Willingness to conserve black soil ← Awareness of black soil conservation	0.731	***	Acceptance
Willingness to conserve black soil ← Policy guidance	0.207	**	Acceptance
Actual behavior of black soil conservation ← Willingness to conserve black soil	0.092	*	Acceptance
Actual behavior of black soil conservation ← Market drive	0.178	*	Acceptance
Policy guidance ←→ Market-drive	0.396	**	Acceptance

Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively; lower superficial case sampling.

displays the analysis results of the paths through which policy guidance and market drivers influence farmers’ conservation behaviors regarding black soil. The conservation behavior of farmers regarding black soil involves a process from awareness to intention and then to actual behavior. Both policy guidance and market drivers can influence this process of farmers’ conservation behavior regarding black soil.

4.1. Empirical Results Analysis

1.

Analysis of the Impact of Policy Guidance on Farmers’ Black Soil Protection Behavior

Combining Figure 2 with Table 4, it is observed that farmers’ black soil protection behavior is a process from cognition to willingness and then to actual behavior. Policy guidance has a significantly positive impact on farmers’ cognition and willingness to protect black soil. The impact of policy guidance on farmers’ actual black soil protection behavior exists through two pathways: ① Policy Guidance → Farmers’ Black Soil Protection Cognition → Farmers’ Willingness to Protect Black Soil → Farmers’ Actual Black Soil Protection Behavior, with an indirect effect value of 0.023. Policy propaganda and training related to black soil protection can enhance farmers’ understanding of the responsibility, rights, and ecological environment related to black soil protection. Coupled with government policy incentives and constraints, this reduces the positive externality of black soil protection, increases farmers’ participation and promotion willingness in black soil protection, and promotes farmers’ actual behavior in protecting black soil. ② Policy Guidance → Farmers’ Willingness to Protect Black Soil → Farmers’ Actual Soil Protection Behavior, with an indirect effect value of 0.019. The higher the intensity of policy propaganda, subsidies, training, and punitive constraints related to black soil protection, the greater the participation and promotion willingness of farmers in black soil protection. Overall, policy guidance can stimulate and constrain the process of farmers’ black soil protection behavior, with a total effect value of 0.042, confirming Hypothesis 1. Training, subsidies, and constraints provided by policy guidance are important influencing factors for farmers’ black soil protection behavior, assisting farmers in better understanding, supporting, and participating in the protection and sustainable management of black soil.

2.

Analysis of the Impact of Market Drivers on Farmers’ Black Soil Protection Behavior

Market drivers have a significantly positive impact on farmers’ cognition and actual behavior in black soil protection. The impact of market drivers on farmers’ black soil protection behavior exists through two pathways: ① Market Drivers → Farmers’ Black Soil Protection Cognition → Farmers’ Willingness to Protect Black Soil → Farmers’ Actual Black Soil Protection Behavior, with an indirect effect of 0.017. Market prices, by associating agricultural product quality with purchase and sale prices, prompt farmers to re-evaluate their perception of the value of black soil protection. When the market reflects that protecting black soil can yield higher economic returns, farmers are more motivated to take corresponding actions. When information related to black soil protection is abundant and the supply of black soil protection technology services increases, it indicates an increase in farmers’ market demand, a higher awareness of their responsibility and rights in black soil protection, and a tendency to adopt black soil protection technology. Additionally, joining agricultural social service organizations can mitigate the risk of price fluctuations when farmers sell agricultural products or purchase agricultural inputs. When farmers have a high level of trust in the entities providing black soil protection technology services, the market entities selling agricultural production materials, and the entire agricultural product trading market, they are more willing to participate, driving farmers’ participation in black soil protection and enhancing their understanding of black soil protection. ② Market Drivers → Farmers’ Actual Black Soil Protection Behavior, with a direct effect of 0.178. As rational smallholders, when farmers operate in a high-quality and high-price market and can purchase agricultural production socialization services at relatively low prices, they immediately engage in actual black soil protection behavior without needing to undergo changes at the cognitive level. Overall, market drivers positively promote farmers’ black soil protection behavior, with a total effect of 0.195, thereby confirming Hypothesis 2. Market drivers enhance the value of agricultural products, reduce production and information costs, and provide economic incentives to farmers, thereby promoting farmers’ adoption of black soil protection behavior.

The impact of market drivers on farmers’ black soil protection behavior is higher than that of policy guidance. Compared to government policy subsidies, farmers rely more on income from selling agricultural products in the market. Market prices, supply and demand, competition, and risk factors are directly related to economic incentives. When there is a high demand for black soil products in the market, farmers are more motivated to adopt black soil protection technology to improve the quality of agricultural products. This economic incentive is more direct and attractive than the subsidies provided by government policies. Additionally, market-driven factors are usually more immediate and flexible, allowing farmers to adjust their agricultural production and black soil protection behavior according to market demand changes. In contrast, the formulation and implementation of government policies typically require time and may not be able to adapt to changes in the market environment in a timely manner.

3.

Analysis of the Interactive Effects of Policy Guidance and Market Drivers

Policy guidance and market drivers mutually exert significant positive effects, with an effect value of 0.396. Their interaction significantly influences farmers’ behaviors toward black soil conservation. Hypothesis 3 is confirmed. The incentive and constraint model formed by policy guidance and market drivers is a crucial mechanism promoting farmers’ behaviors in black soil conservation. Policy propaganda and training can guide farmers to adopt planting methods that meet market demand, thereby increasing agricultural productivity and quality, enhancing competitiveness and income in agricultural product markets, and strengthening farmers’ enthusiasm and initiative for black soil conservation. When market demand is insufficient or prices are low, farmers may lack enthusiasm and initiative, which could affect the implementation of soil conservation practices to some extent. However, policy subsidies can offset this impact. Meanwhile, government departments regulate agricultural input and output markets, cooperatives, and farmer behavior, forming a synergistic mechanism between policy guidance and market drivers to promote the organic integration of black soil conservation technology and farmer behavior, maximize farmer benefits, and promote black soil conservation behaviors.

4.2. Policy Guidance, Market Driving, and Their Effects on the Pathways of Farmers’ Black Soil Conservation Behavior: A Multi-Group Analysis

Different types of farmland require different black soil conservation techniques, and the influence of policy guidance and market driving on farmers’ black soil conservation behavior will also vary due to factors such as comparative benefits [43]. Meanwhile, based on comparative static analysis methods, larger-scale farming operations have a higher dependence on farmland and place more emphasis on black soil conservation and utilization, whereas smaller-scale farmers’ choices of black soil techniques are more influenced by market factors, resulting in greater differences in the adoption of techniques [17]. Under policy guidance and market driving, farmers of different scales will exhibit different black soil conservation behaviors. Due to significant differences in the scale of farmland cultivation among sampled farmers, the median method was used to group them based on the distribution of sample data (the 0.5 quantile point of the sample being 8.67 hectares) [44].

1.

Group Analysis of Different Black Soil Cultivation Types

Fit indices such as CMIN/DF, RMSEA, AGFI, CFI, and PGFI for the grouping of policy guidance, market driving, and farmers’ black soil conservation behavior based on different types of black soil cultivation land were 2.261, 0.043, 0.825, 0.836, and 0.713, respectively, all passing the tests and indicating a high model fit.

Table 5. Group Analysis Results of Policy Guidance, Market Driving, and Their Effects on Farmers’ Black Soil Conservation Behavior Pathways Across Different Types of Black Soil Cultivation Land.

Pathway	Paddy Field		Dryland
	Path Standardized Coefficients	p	Path Standardized Coefficients	p
Awareness of black soil conservation ← Policy guidance	0.302	**	0.342	***
Awareness of black soil conservation ← Market drive	0.197	0.379	0.269	**
Willingness to conserve black soil ← Awareness of black soil conservation	0.526	***	0.905	***
Willingness to conserve black soil ← Policy guidance	0.255	*	0.163	0.112
Actual behavior of black soil conservation ← Willingness to conserve black soil	0.088	0.326	0.115	*
Actual behavior of black soil conservation ← Market drive	0.142	0.333	0.188	*
Policy guidance ←→ Market drive	0.484	0.340	0.334	**

Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively; lower superficial case sampling.

below shows the results of the group analysis for different types of black soil cultivation land.

Farmers managing paddy fields showed no significant impact of black soil conservation willingness on actual conservation behavior, while for farmers managing dryland, this path had a significantly positive effect. Paddy fields and dryland agriculture are influenced by different policy factors, with current policies leaning more towards supporting and promoting black soil conservation in dryland agriculture, resulting in a more proactive attitude towards black soil conservation among dryland farmers. In the sample data, farmers managing paddy fields showed lower levels of soil improvement and ecological conservation behavior for black soil conservation, indicating that policy incentives had a limited impact on black soil conservation behavior among paddy field farmers. Moreover, the stable trend in rice market prices in recent years compounded the situation, leading to the insignificant influence of black soil conservation willingness on black soil conservation behavior among farmers managing paddy fields.

Market driving had a significantly positive impact on both black soil conservation cognition and actual behavior among farmers managing dryland but had no significant impact on those managing paddy fields. Comparatively, the market sales prices of dryland agricultural products fluctuate more and demand higher quality, thus relying more on soil quality and protection, making them more susceptible to market-driving factors. Additionally, 55.19% of the sampled farmers managing paddy fields chose manual transplanting, indicating a relatively low level of mechanization compared to dryland farming. Coupled with the multiple planting operations in paddy fields and the high input costs, such as labor, water, and electricity fees, overall, the influence of market driving on black soil conservation behavior among farmers managing paddy fields was not significant.

There was a significantly positive impact of policy guidance and market driving on black soil conservation behavior among farmers managing dryland, whereas this path was not significant among farmers managing paddy fields. With dryland covering a much larger area than paddy fields in Northeast China, farmers managing dryland have a certain advantage in policy support, such as subsidies for black soil conservation techniques like deep plowing and crop rotation, which are only available to them. Meanwhile, the subsidies received by farmers managing paddy fields and the lower market sales prices resulted in an unclear linkage between policy guidance and market driving among them.

2.

Different Business Scale Group Analysis

Fit indices of CMIN/DF, RMSEA, AGFI, CFI, and PGFI, which were constructed with business scale as a characteristic for policy guidance, market driving, and farmers’ black soil conservation behavior groups, were 2.209, 0.042, 0.831, 0.842, and 0.717, respectively. All of them passed the test, indicating a relatively high model fit.

Table 6. Group Analysis Results of Policy Guidance, Market Driving, and Farmers’ Black Soil Conservation Behavior Paths for Different Business Scale Groups.

Pathway	Small-Scale (below 8.67 hm2)		Large-Scale (8.67 hm2 and above)
	Path Standardized Coefficients	p	Path Standardized Coefficients	p
Awareness of black soil conservation ← Policy guidance	0.280	**	0.346	***
Awareness of black soil conservation ← Market drive	0.220	0.115	0.294	0.472
Willingness to conserve black soil ← Awareness of black soil conservation	0.719	***	0.734	***
Willingness to conserve black soil ← Policy guidance	0.230	**	0.193	*
Actual behavior of black soil conservation ← Willingness to conserve black soil	0.082	0.281	0.173	**
Actual behavior of black soil conservation ← Market drive	0.249	*	0.045	0.649
Policy guidance ←→ Market drive	0.405	*	0.421	0.472

Note: ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively; lower superficial case sampling.

presents the group analysis results for different business scales.

Small-scale farmers’ (below 8.67 hm²) willingness to conserve black soil has no significant impact on their actual conservation behavior. In contrast, large-scale farmers (8.67 hm² and above) in the Northeast black soil region have certain advantages in terms of economic strength and subsidy policies. For example, crop rotation subsidies require a minimum number of acres to qualify, giving large-scale farmers an advantage in implementing black soil conservation measures. Their conservation behaviors are more proactive and effective, resulting in a higher conversion rate of conservation intentions into actual behaviors. Consequently, the empirical model results are more significant for large-scale farmers. Market driving has a significantly positive impact on the actual conservation behavior of small-scale farmers. Compared to large-scale farmers, small-scale farmers have lower reliance on land income and are more sensitive to changes in market-related information. They can quickly adjust their planting structure and black soil conservation technologies according to market demand, leading to a significant influence of market-driving factors on their actual conservation behavior.

There is a mutually positive and significant relationship between policy guidance and market driving among small-scale farmers (below 8.67 hm²), while there is no significant relationship among large-scale farmers (8.67 hm² and above). Small-scale farmers have lower market access capabilities. In intense market competition, policy publicity and subsidies can improve the stability of farmers’ economic expectations, helping them better cope with market risks. In contrast, large-scale farmers are more competitive in the market, and policy guidance has a weaker influence on their actual decision-making behavior. Considering the actual operating conditions, the government should introduce more targeted supportive policies for small-scale farmers to ensure their livelihoods and development in the face of intense market competition.

5. Discussion

This paper establishes a theoretical framework for the influence of policy guidance and market-driven mechanisms on the conservation behaviors of farmers regarding black soil. The rationale is that while such behaviors can generate positive externalities for society, they also impose additional private costs, thus impacting the farmers’ motivation to engage in soil conservation. In the absence of a market mechanism centered around efficiency, black soil conservation tends to devolve into a planned behavior model under government intervention, significantly diminishing the farmers’ motivation and efficiency in conservation efforts and affecting the effectiveness of conservation policies. In the black soil regions of Northeast China, the promotion of conservation technologies among farmers is predominantly led by the government through policy advocacy and various incentive policies. From practical outcomes, it is observed that farmers engage in conservation behaviors primarily driven by policy subsidies, without forming a sustainable mechanism for black soil conservation. Hence, this study constructs a theoretical logic framework to analyze the role of the market in farmer-driven black soil conservation and proposes pathways for the impact of policy guidance and market drivers on these behaviors, clarifying the effect of these drivers on conservation activities. This analysis provides a crucial empirical basis for relevant departments to formulate black soil conservation policies. From the perspectives of policy guidance and market drivers, this paper proposes implementation pathways for farmer behaviors in black soil conservation, which are significant for enhancing farmers’ motivation, improving the quality of black soil farmland and ensuring national food security.

The conservation behaviors of farmers towards black soil are not static but rather a dynamic process. Farmers develop these behaviors through understanding the concept and recognizing the value of black soil protection, which leads to an assessment and gradually cultivates the intention to protect, culminating in the implementation of specific conservation practices. This process has been substantiated by numerous scholars [15,16,23], which involves the transition from the cognitive awareness of black soil protection to the intention and finally to the application of actual conservation techniques. The findings of this paper align with those of researchers such as Guo Q H, Pichón F.J., and Li Z P [44,45,46], demonstrating that farmer behaviors regarding black soil protection are influenced by government policies related to black soil conservation, the market prices of agricultural products, and an interplay of policy, economic factors, and farmer characteristics. There exists a synergistic relationship between policy guidance and market forces, which collectively impact farmer behaviors [47], indicating a joint effect in influencing conservation actions. Building on this foundation, this paper further verifies that the conservation behaviors of farmers exhibit variations across different types of farmland and operational scales. It highlights the need to cater to the specific needs of different types of farming operations. For instance, encouraging small-scale farmers (operating under 8.67 hectares) and those managing paddy fields to actively engage in socialized agricultural production services can lead to large-scale operations of black soil farmland, reducing production costs and fostering conservation behaviors among these groups. Furthermore, larger-scale farmers (over 8.67 hectares) and those managing drylands are encouraged to form agricultural cooperatives and other agricultural production entities. This promotes development among both paddy field operators and smaller-scale farmers, thereby enhancing black soil conservation behaviors from multiple perspectives.

According to a bibliometric analysis, this paper concludes that the study of the driving mechanisms and the evaluation of the effects of black soil conservation remains a future research hotspot. In recent years, this field has garnered attention due to its critical role in addressing global challenges such as food security, climate change, and sustainable development. Future research should prioritize breakthroughs in several key areas:

1. Continued emphasis on the study of driving mechanisms behind farmer behaviors in black soil conservation, incorporating multiple factors including policy subsidies, land rights, and social and market drivers to deeply understand their impact at different stages of farmer conservation behaviors.

2. Further in-depth study on evaluating the effects of black soil conservation, comparing changes in soil quality and biodiversity before and after adopting conservation technologies, and establishing effective evaluation systems and mechanisms for black soil conservation to promote the sustainable development of these practices.

3. The adoption of multidisciplinary research methods to address issues related to black soil conservation, integrating approaches from soil science, agricultural science, environmental science, economics, and sociology to formulate a comprehensive and effective black soil conservation mechanism. Focusing research on land use planning, biodiversity protection, and restoration methods can lead to more effective conservation and management strategies, ensuring the sustainable use and long-term protection of this valuable resource.

6. Conclusions

Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and the “Attitude–Situation–Behavior” Theory, this paper constructs a theoretical framework for analyzing the impact of policy guidance and market driving on farmers’ black soil conservation behavior. It uses a structural equation model combined with farmer survey data to explore the mechanism through which policy guidance and market driving affect farmers’ black soil conservation behavior, yielding the following conclusions:

1. The behavior of farmers towards the protection of black soil is a process that evolves from awareness to intention and finally to actual behavior. Both policy guidance and market forces can enhance these conservation actions. There are two pathways through which policy guidance influences farmers’ conservation behaviors: firstly, policy guidance impacts farmers’ awareness of black soil conservation, which then affects their willingness and consequently actual conservation actions; secondly, policy guidance can directly influence the farmers’ willingness and through this, their actual behaviors. Market forces also influence conservation behaviors through two pathways: by impacting farmers’ awareness, which then affects their willingness and ultimately their actual behaviors, and by directly influencing the actual conservation behaviors. Compared to policy guidance, the effects of market forces are more pronounced.

2. There is a synergistic relationship between policy guidance and market forces in influencing farmers’ behaviors towards black soil conservation. The impact of these drivers on conservation behaviors results from the combined efforts of government policies and market dynamics. In some aspects, policy guidance and market forces can mutually enhance each other, such as when policy guidance leads farmers to adopt planting methods that meet market demands, thereby increasing yield and product quality, which in turn enhances market competitiveness and farmers’ incomes and subsequently boosts their motivation and initiative towards soil conservation. However, there may also be constraints between policy guidance and market forces in certain situations. For example, when policy measures are not specific or effective enough, or when market demand is insufficient and prices are low, farmers might lack motivation and initiative, affecting the implementation of soil conservation behaviors. Nevertheless, policy subsidies can mitigate these impacts, with both forces collectively fostering conservation behaviors among farmers.

3. The impact of policy guidance and market forces on farmers’ black soil conservation behaviors varies significantly due to differences among farmers. Dryland farmers and those operating on a smaller scale are significantly influenced by policy guidance and market forces, with noticeable synergistic effects. When devising strategies to promote conservation behaviors among farmers with different types of black soil farmland, emphasis should be placed on policy guidance to actively engage paddy field operators in conservation efforts. While supporting the development of larger-scale farmers, more supportive policies should also be introduced for smaller-scale farmers to ensure their livelihood and development in the face of intense market competition and to enhance the role of market forces in promoting conservation behaviors among these smaller operators.