Sustainable Development of Rural Human Settlements in the Information Age: Can Internet Use Drive Farmers to Participate in Garbage Classification?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis
4. Research Design
4.1. Data Sources
4.2. Variable Selection
4.2.1. Explained Variable
4.2.2. Key Explanatory Variable
4.2.3. Mediation Variable
4.2.4. Control Variable
4.3. Model Selection
4.3.1. Bivariate Probit Model
4.3.2. Endogeneity Test
4.3.3. Mediation Effect Model
5. Analysis of Results
5.1. Describe the Statistical Analysis
5.2. Analysis of the Influence of Internet Use on Farmers’ Garbage Classification Willingness and Behavior
5.3. Analysis of the Influence of the Internet on Farmers’ Garbage Classification Willingness and Behavior Deviation
5.4. Endogeneity Test
5.5. Robustness Test
5.6. Heterogeneity Analysis of Different Internet Access Modes
5.7. Mechanism Analysis
6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bai, R.; Lin, B. Are residents willing to pay for garbage recycling: Evidence from a survey in Chinese first-tier cities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 95, 106789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Lai, K.; Wang, B.; Wang, Z. From intention to action: How do personal attitudes, facilities accessibility, and government stimulus matter for household waste sorting? J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, M.; Feng, Q. Does Social Capital Promote Garbage Classification? Evidence From China. SAGE Open 2021, 11, 21582440211040780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Luo, X.; Zhang, J. Social supervision, group identity and farmers’ domestic garbage centralized disposal behavior: Mediating and moderating effects based on face concept. China Rural Obs. 2019, 02, 18–33. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.; Yi, S.; Holsen, T.M.; Seo, Y.; Choi, E. Estimation of CO2 emissions from waste incinerators: Comparison of three methods. Waste Manag. 2018, 73, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jia, Y.; Zhao, M. The impact of domestic waste pollution perception and social capital on farmers ’waste classification level: Based on 1374 survey data of farmers in Shaanxi Province. Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 2370–2381. [Google Scholar]
- Govindan, K.; Zhuang, Y.; Chen, G. Analysis of factors influencing residents’ waste sorting behavior: A case study of Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 349, 131126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cudjoe, D.; Nketiah, E.; Obuobi, B.; Adjei, M.; Zhu, B.; Adu-Gyamfi, G. Predicting waste sorting intention of residents of Jiangsu Province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 366, 132838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, A.; Gao, Q.; Shi, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhang, L. Research on the status quo and related factors of domestic waste management services in rural areas: An empirical analysis based on 101 villages in 5 provinces. Agric. Econ. 2016, 37, 30–38+111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, J.; Gong, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, L.; Sun, Y. Can policy implementation increase public waste sorting behavior? The comparison between regions with and without waste sorting policy implementation in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Lv, J.; Han, X. Research on the influence of Internet use on the Willingness of farmers to separate and dispose household solid waste: Data analysis from CLDS. Res. Agric. Mod. 2021, 42, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Cheng, M.; Wei, X.; Gong, X.; Zhang, S. Internet use and the satisfaction with governmental environmental protection: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1025–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Ning, G. Internet and Non-farm employment of rural labor in China. Sci. Financ. Econ. 2017, 07, 50–63. [Google Scholar]
- Ogutu, S.O.; Okello, J.J.; Otieno, D.J. Impact of Information and Communication Technology-Based Market Information Services on Smallholder Farm Input Use and Productivity: The Case of Kenya. World Dev. 2014, 64, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Bao, X.; Guo, S.; Deng, X.; Song, J.; Xu, D. Internet use and land transfer in: Empirical evidence from China’s rural panel data. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 88288–88301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peng, D.; Li, Y.; Li, C. Research on the impact of Internet use on environmental protection attitudes and environmental literacy. Financ. Sci. 2019, 8, 97–109. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Cheng, M.; Wang, F.; Yu, N. Internet use encourages pro-environmental behavior: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Huang, S.; Chen, S.; Huang, K. How Environmental Policies Affect Farmers’ Willingness to sort Household Garbage: An Analysis of the mediating effect based on social norms and value cognition. World Agric. 2022, 05, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Dong, X. The dilemma and mechanism innovation of rural solid waste control in our country: Based on the investigation of rural solid waste control in Hebei, Zhejiang, Guangxi and other places. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 43, 66–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, L.; Zhao, X. Classified management of rural domestic waste: Model comparison and policy enlightenment: A case study of four ecological conservation areas in Beijing. China Rural Obs. 2020, 2, 16–33. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Bi, F.; Han, Z.; Qin, Y.; Wang, H.; Wu, W. Garbage source classification performance, impact factor, and management strategy in rural areas of China: A case study in Hangzhou. Waste Manag. 2019, 89, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, J.; Tang, K.; Qian, X.; Sun, F.; Zhou, W. Behavioral change in waste separation at source in an international community: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Waste Manag. 2021, 135, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kang, J.; Wang, C.; Shen, Z.; Lv, X. Study on farmers’ willingness and behavior differences on domestic waste classification disposal: A case study of Zhejiang Province. Resour. Dev. Mark. 2018, 34, 1726–1730+1755. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, M.; Liu, H.; Ouyang, Z. Characteristics and driving factors of coastal rural domestic waste of the Yellow River Delta in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 353, 131670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Ling, M.; Lu, Y.; Shen, M. External influences on forming residents’ waste separation behaviour: Evidence from households in Hangzhou, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 63, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ao, Y.; Zhu, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Chang, Y. Identifying the driving factors of rural residents’ household waste classification behavior: Evidence from Sichuan, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Long, X.; Li, L.; Wang, Q.; Ding, X.; Cai, S. Extending theory of planned behavior in household waste sorting in China: The moderating effect of knowledge, personal involvement, and moral responsibility. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 7230–7250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Li, R.; Ma, Y. The contradiction between willingness and behavior: A study on the sorting mechanism of urban residents’ domestic waste. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2015, 25, 168–176. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Hao, M.; Ye, Z.; Wei, X. Research on garbage sorting behavior and environmental awareness of Beijing residents. China Youth Politics Dly. 2008, 06, 114–119. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Yang, S.; Li, J.; Zhou, K. From intention to behavior: Comprehending residents’ waste sorting intention and behavior formation process. Waste Manag. 2020, 113, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, P.; Li, W.; Yang, W. Adolescents’ Social Media Use and Their Voluntary Garbage Sorting Intention: A Sequential Mediation Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Chan, H.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, Y. Research on the influence of digital literacy on farmers’ willingness and behavior of household garbage classification. J. Jiangsu Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 24, 35–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, S.; Qing, C.; Guo, S.; Deng, X.; Song, J.; Xu, D. Why “Say One Thing and Do Another” a Study on the Contradiction between Farmers’ Intention and Behavior of Garbage Classification. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, L.; Qin, P. Practice dilemma and obligation approach of household waste classification. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2019, 29, 118–126. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mccombs, M. Agenda setting function of mass media. Public Relat. Rev. 1977, 3, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hajcak, G.; Olvet, D.M. The persistence of attention to emotion: Brain potentials during and after picture presentation. Emotion 2008, 8, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, T.; Hu, J.; Luo, J. The influence of social capital on farmers’ willingness and behavior of agricultural credit guarantee financing. Res. Agric. Mod. 2022, 43, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, M.; Yang, L.; Pan, L. The application of Persuasion Knowledge Model in the field of health communication—A case study of Public Service Advertisement of garbage classification in Hefei City. Mod. Commun. (J. Commun. Univ. China) 2019, 41, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
- Paul, C.S.; Kalof, L.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G. Values, Beliefs, and Proenvironmental Action: Attitude Formation Toward Emergent Attitude Objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 1611–1636. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, X.; Wang, H.; Lu, W. Discussion on the collection and classification of municipal solid waste in our country. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 32, 200–202. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, W.; Qing, C.; Deng, X.; Song, J.; Xu, D. How does Internet use affect farmers’ low-carbon agricultural technologies in southern China? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2023, 30, 16476–16487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, D.; Gao, H. Credit market and agricultural land use right circulation: An empirical analysis based on bivariate Probit model. J. World Econ. 2012, 02, 60–73. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, X.; Xu, D.; Zeng, M.; Qi, Y. Does Internet use help reduce rural cropland abandonment? Evidence from China. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, J.; Zhao, L.; Liu, Y.; You, W. Social learning, herd psychology and stock market participation decision. Financ. Res. 2013, 7, 153–165. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, Z.; Ye, B. Mediating effect analysis: Method and model development. Prog. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 22, 731–745. [Google Scholar]
Categories | Variables | Variable Meaning and Assignment | Mean | Sd |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | Garbage classification willingness | Whether farmers are willing to separate garbage | 0.90 | 0.30 |
Garbage classification behavior | Whether the farmer conducts garbage classification | 0.53 | 0.50 | |
Independent variable | Internet use | Whether farmers use the internet | 0.46 | 0.50 |
Mediation variable | Knowledge cognition | Do you understand the classification of rural household garbage? (1 = never heard of, 5 = well understood) | 3.21 | 1.17 |
Behavioral cognition | Can household garbage classification be appreciated and praised? (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) | 4.15 | 0.86 | |
Environmental cognition | Do you agree that household garbage classification plays a positive role in improving the rural environment? (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) | 4.26 | 0.94 | |
Control variable | Age of head of household | Actual age (years) | 63.49 | 10.54 |
Gender of the head of household | Male = 1, female = 0 | 0.92 | 0.26 | |
The education level of the household head | Years of education (years) | 7.25 | 3.66 | |
Health of householder | 1 = incapacity to work; 2 = difference; 3 = medium; 4 = good; 5 = best | 4.00 | 1.10 | |
Cadre | 1 = Yes, 0 = no | 0.16 | 0.36 | |
Number of the household labor force | Number of workers aged 16–64 | 2.45 | 1.46 | |
Basic household income | Unit: Yuan | 7.88 | 3.69 | |
Permanent resident population | Unit: Person | 3.06 | 1.60 |
Variables | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Std. Err | Coefficient | Std. Err | |
Internet use | 0.341 *** | (0.083) | 0.324 *** | (0.060) |
Age of head of household | −0.002 | (0.005) | −0.009 *** | (0.003) |
Gender of the head of household | 0.064 | (0.136) | 0.052 | (0.104) |
The education level of the household head | 0.031 | (0.032) | 0.075 *** | (0.026) |
Health of householder | 0.031 *** | (0.011) | 0.009 | (0.008) |
Number of the household labor force | 0.036 | 0.029 | −0.001 | 0.022 |
Basic household income (logarithm) | 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
Permanent resident population | 0.025 | 0.027 | 0.066 *** | 0.019 |
Cadre | 0.428 *** | 0.128 | 0.298 *** | 0.078 |
athrho | 1.024 *** (0.081) | |||
Wald test (p value) | 0.000 | |||
Log pseudolikelihood | −2023.4978 | |||
chi2 | 177.214 | |||
N | 2228 |
Variables | (0,0) | (0,1) | (1,0) | (1,1) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Marginal Effect | Std. Err | Marginal Effect | Std. Err | Marginal Effect | Std. Err | Marginal Effect | Std. Err | |
Internet use | −0.054 *** | 0.012 | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.075 *** | 0.022 | 0.130 *** | 0.023 |
Age of head of household | 0.000 | 0.001 | −0.000 | 0.000 | 0.003 *** | 0.001 | −0.004 *** | 0.001 |
Gender of the head of household | −0.010 | 0.021 | −0.000 | 0.001 | −0.011 | 0.037 | 0.021 | 0.041 |
The education level of the household head | −0.005 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.024 | 0.010 | 0.029 *** | 0.010 |
Health of householder | −0.005 *** | 0.002 | −0.000 ** | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Number of the household labor force | −0.005 | 0.004 | −0.000 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.000 | 0.009 |
Basic household income (logarithm) | −0.002 | 0.002 | −0.000 | 0.000 | −0.002 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Permanent resident population | −0.004 | 0.004 | −0.000 | 0.000 | −0.022 *** | 0.007 | 0.026 *** | 0.008 |
Cadre | −0.066 *** | 0.019 | −0.002 | 0.001 | −0.052 * | 0.031 | 0.120 *** | 0.031 |
Variables | Internet Use | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Std. Err. | Coefficient | Std. Err. | Coefficient | Std. Err. | |
Internet usage rate | 0.757 *** | 0.068 | ||||
Internet use | 0.986 *** | 0.381 | 2.262 *** | 0.325 | ||
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
chi2 | 58.093 | 122.271 | ||||
The first-stage F value | 68.38 | 68.38 | ||||
Wald test (p value) | 6.68 (0.0098) | 48.52 (0.0000) | ||||
Weak IV AR Test (p value) | 6.83 (0.0090) | 70.79 (0.0000) | ||||
N | 2228 |
Variables | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Std. Err. | Marginal Effect | Std. Err. | Coefficient | Std. Err. | Marginal Effect | Std. Err. | |
Internet use | 0.331 *** | 0.086 | 0.055 *** | 0.014 | 0.325 *** | 0.022 | 0.123 *** | 0.022 |
Control variables | Yes | Yes | ||||||
chi2 | 74.706 | 142.710 | ||||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.0510 | 0.0467 | ||||||
N | 2228 | 2228 |
Access to the Internet | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mobile internet access | 0.342 *** | 0.232 *** | ||||
(0.085) | (0.059) | |||||
Computer internet access | −0.281 | 0.166 | ||||
(0.198) | (0.162) | |||||
Mixed internet access | 0.649 * | 0.509 *** | ||||
(0.376) | (0.166) | |||||
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||
athrho | 1.036 *** (0.081) | 1.028 *** (0.081) | 1.033 *** (0.081) | |||
Wald test (p value) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||
Log pseudolikelihood | −2029.494 | −2039.4788 | −2035.9522 | |||
chi2 | 145.567 | 164.712 | 142.394 |
Variables | Internet Use → Knowledge Cognition n → Garbage Classification Willingness and Behavior | Internet Use → Behavioral Cognition → Garbage Classification Willingness and Behavior | Internet Use → Environmental Cognition → Garbage Classification Willingness and Behavior | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | |
Knowledge Cognition | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior | Behavioral Cognition | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior | Environmental Cognition | Garbage Classification Willingness | Garbage Classification Behavior | |
Internet use | 0.549 *** | 0.200 ** | 0.179 *** | 0.187 ** | 0.321 *** | 0.312 *** | 0.311 *** | 0.307 *** | 0.302 *** |
(0.085) | (0.090) | (0.063) | (0.089) | (0.086) | (0.059) | (0.090) | (0.088) | (0.060) | |
Knowledge cognition | 0.444 *** | 0.528 *** | |||||||
(0.037) | (0.028) | ||||||||
Behavioral cognition | 0.396 *** | 0.154 *** | |||||||
(0.041) | (0.032) | ||||||||
Environmental cognition | 0.444 *** | 0.196 *** | |||||||
(0.036) | (0.029) | ||||||||
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||||
athrho | 0.864 *** | 1.017 *** | 1.023 *** | ||||||
(0.084) | (0.083) | (0.086) | |||||||
Wald test (p value) | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | ||||||
Log pseudolikelihood | 157.441 | 243.228 | 232.206 | ||||||
Chi2 | 341.352 | 560.568 | 81.716 | 255.588 | 99.153 | 315.867 | |||
N | 2228 | 2228 | 2228 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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
Xu, D.; Qing, C.; Chen, Y.; He, J.; Zhang, F. Sustainable Development of Rural Human Settlements in the Information Age: Can Internet Use Drive Farmers to Participate in Garbage Classification? Agriculture 2023, 13, 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040846
Xu D, Qing C, Chen Y, He J, Zhang F. Sustainable Development of Rural Human Settlements in the Information Age: Can Internet Use Drive Farmers to Participate in Garbage Classification? Agriculture. 2023; 13(4):846. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040846
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Dingde, Chen Qing, Yang Chen, Jia He, and Fengwan Zhang. 2023. "Sustainable Development of Rural Human Settlements in the Information Age: Can Internet Use Drive Farmers to Participate in Garbage Classification?" Agriculture 13, no. 4: 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040846