[1]KUANG Foyuan,CHEN Meiqiu,LI Zhipeng,et al.Analysis on the Difference Between Farmers’ Ecological Environment Cognition and Protective Behavior Based on Using Pesticide and Chemical Fertilizer[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2018,25(01):321-326.
Copy
Analysis on the Difference Between Farmers’ Ecological Environment Cognition and Protective Behavior Based on Using Pesticide and Chemical Fertilizer
Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume:
25
Number of periods:
2018 01
Page number:
321-326
Column:
Public date:
2018-02-28
- Title:
- Analysis on the Difference Between Farmers’ Ecological Environment Cognition and Protective Behavior Based on Using Pesticide and Chemical Fertilizer
- Keywords:
- farmers; pesticide and chemical fertilizer; ecological environment cognition; protective behavior; difference analysis; Jiangxi Province
- CLC:
- F323.22
- DOI:
- -
- Abstract:
- The unreasonable use of pesticides and fertilizers by farmers seriously threatens the healthy development of agricultural ecological environment in China. It has a positive referenced value for formulating corresponding control measures to explore the internal relations of farmers’ ecological environment cognition and environmental behavior. Based on the survey data of 2 028 farmers in Jiangxi Province, we used the boosted regression tree (BRT) model to analyze the differences of farmers’ ecological environment cognition and environmental behavior. The results showed that:on the whole, the cognition level of farmers’ ecological environment is higher, but the degree of environmental behavior is poor, which indicates that farmers’ ecological environment cognition and environmental behavior are obviously different. There is no causal relationship. The reason is that the influence factors and influence degree of farmer’s ecological environment cognition and protection behavior are different. The main factors affecting cognition are in the order:cultivated area, age and proportion of migrant workers, the factors affecting the behavior are in the sequence:age, cultivated area and culture degree. The variables of age, family annual income, and the proportion of migrant workers had different effects on ecological environment cognition and environmental behavior, and this explained the inconsistency to some extent.
- References:
-
[1] 辛继红,莫利加.农业生态环境保护及对策[J].水土保持研究,2008,15(6):276-279.
[2] 王建兵,程磊.农业面源污染现状分析[J].江西农业大学学报:社会科学版,2008(3):35-39.
[3] Cabrera L, Costa F P, Primel E G. Risk estimate of water contamination by pesticide in south of Brazil[J]. Química Nova, 2008,31(8):1982-1986.
[4] Hunke P, Mueller E N, Schröder B, et al. The Brazilian Cerrado:Assessment of water and soil degradation in catchments under intensive agricultural use[J]. Ecohydrology, 2015,8(6):1154-1180.
[5] 侯俊东,吕军,尹伟峰.农户经营行为对农村生态环境影响研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2012,22(3):26-31.
[6] 宋言奇.发达地区农民环境意识调查分析:以苏州市714个样本为例[J].中国农村经济,2010(1):53-62,73.
[7] 陈梦娇,陈美球,鲁燕飞,等.鄱阳湖区农户农业面源污染认知及其影响因素分析[J].土地经济研究,2016,(1):85-97.
[8] 田云,张俊飚,何可,等.农户农业低碳生产行为及其影响因素分析:以化肥施用和农药使用为例[J].中国农村观察,2015(4):61-70.
[9] 褚彩虹,冯淑怡,张蔚文.农户采用环境友好型农业技术行为的实证分析:以有机肥与测土配方施肥技术为例[J].中国农村经济,2012(3):68-77.
[10] 樊翔,张军,王红,等.农户禀赋对农户低碳农业生产行为的影响:基于山东省大盛镇农户调查[J].水土保持研究,2017,24(1):265-271.
[11] Cooke R, Sheeran P. Moderation of cognition-intention and cognition-behaviour relations:a meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behavior[J]. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2004,43(2):159-186.
[12] 姚柳杨,赵敏娟,徐涛.经济理性还是生态理性、农户耕地保护的行为逻辑研究[J].南京农业大学学报:社会科学版,2016,16(5):86-95,156.
[13] 王常伟,顾海英.农户环境认知、行为决策及其一致性检验:基于江苏农户调查的实证分析[J].长江流域资源与环境,2012,21(10):1204-1208.
[14] Chen M Q, Lu Y F, Ling L, et al. Drivers of changes in ecosystem service values in Ganjiang upstream watershed[J]. Land Use Policy, 2015,47:247-252.
[15] 尹才,刘淼,孙凤云,等.基于增强回归树的流域非点源污染影响因子分析[J].应用生态学报,2016,27(3):911-919.
[16] Elith J, Leathwick J R, Hastie T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology,2008,77(4):802-813.
- Similar References:
Memo
-
Last Update:
1900-01-01