农户风险偏好、风险认知对节水灌溉技术采用意愿的影响

doi:10.18402/resci.2018.04.13

Abstract

Abstract:

Here, we explored the mechanism under different risk characteristics of farmers by irrigation demand heterogeneity. This work will help farmers seek optimal risk management strategies and policy incentive recommendations for the construction of water-saving irrigation technology policy. We used the Gansu province Zhangye Ganzhou district water-saving irrigation technology demonstration area and 540 questionnaires to discuss the mechanism in scenarios of risk preference and risk perception on farmer willingness to adopt water-saving irrigation technology. We found that the willingness of farmers to adopt irrigation technology increases with increasing risk perception, but decreases with the increase in risk preference. Farmer risk perception and risk preference interaction determines water-saving irrigation technology adoption intention. When farmers perceive more perception risk, the type of risk preference farmers adopt water-saving willingness significantly lower than risk averse farmers' willingness to adopt. When farmers are the risk preferences, the cognitive level of risk perception high farmers adopt water-saving willingness was significantly higher than that of low risk cognition of farmers' willingness to adopt. Farmer risk preferences through the mediating role of risk perception, indirectly effect their willingness for water-saving irrigation technology: risk aversion farmers with high cognitive levels of risk in water-saving irrigation technology adoption willingness will become more intense and obvious, but the inhibition effect is more obvious. In order to avoid the risk of agricultural production and reduce income variability, agricultural production behavior tends to deviate from optimal economics. The social security system is not perfect in China and this will cause farmers to adopt conservative risk averse behavior. New irrigation technology extension should be to very cautious.

Key words: risk preference, risk perception, water-saving irrigation technology adoption willingness, farmers, Zhangye City, Gansu province

Zhiwu HE, Lun HU, Qian LU. Influence of farmer's risk preference and risk perception on water-saving irrigation technology adoption[J].Resources Science, 2018, 40(4): 797-808.

Figures/Tables 7

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

References 30

[1]	Feder G, Just R E, Ziberman D.Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey[J]. Economic Development Cultural Change, 1985, 33(2): 255-298.
[2]	曹建民, 胡瑞法, 黄季焜. 技术推广与农民对新技术的修正采用: 农民参与技术培训和采用新技术的意愿及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国软科学, 2005, (6): 64-70.
	[Cao J M, Hu R F, Huang J K.Technology promotion and farmers' revision of new technologies: the willingness of farmers to participate in technical training and the adoption of new technologies and the influencing factors[J]. China Soft Science, 2005, (6): 64-70. ]
[3]	方松海, 孔祥智. 农户禀赋对保护地生产技术采纳的影响分析-以陕西、四川和宁夏为例[J]. 农业技术经济, 2005, (3): 35-42.
	[Fang S H, Kong X Z.Analysis on the influence of farmers' endowment on the adoption of protected land production technology-a case study of Shaanxi, Sichuan and Ningxia[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2005, (3): 35-42. ]
[4]	Wang H, Reardon T.Social learning and parameter uncertainty in irreversible investment-evidence from greenhouse adoption in Northern China[J]. Annual Meeting, 2008, (7): 27-29.
[5]	Yamamura E.Experience of technological and natural disasters and their impact on the perceived risk of nuclear accident after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan 2011: a cross-country analysis[J]. Journal of Socio-Economics, 2012, 41(4): 360-363.
[6]	Genius M, Koundouri P, Nauges C, et al. Information transmission in irrigation technology adoption and diffusion: social learning, extension services and spatial effects[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2014, 96(1): 328-344.
[7]	王格玲, 陆迁. 社会网络影响农户技术采用倒U型关系的检验-以甘肃省民勤县节水灌溉技术采用为例[J]. 农业技术经济, 2015, (10): 92-106.
	[Wang G L, Lu Q.The test of the influence of social network on farmers' technology adoption of inverted U-shaped relationship-a case study of water-saving irrigation technology in Minqin county, Gansu province[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2015, (10): 92-106. ]
[8]	乔丹, 陆迁, 徐涛. 社会网络、推广服务与农户节水灌溉技术采用-以甘肃省民勤县为例[J]. 资源科学, 2017, 39(3): 441-450.
	[Qiao D, Lu Q, Xu T. Social network, extension service and farmers water-saving irrigation technology adoption in Minqin County[J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(3): 441-450. ]
[9]	朱臻, 黄晨鸣, 徐志刚, 等. 南方集体林区林农风险偏好对于碳汇供给意愿的影响分析-浙江省风险偏好实验案例[J]. 资源科学, 2016, 38(3): 565-575.
	[Zhu Z, Huang C M, Xu Z G, et al. How risk attitude of farmers influences the supply willingness of forest carbon sequestration in Zhejiang Province[J]. Resources Science, 2016, 38(3): 565-575. ]
[10]	程培堽, 殷志扬. 风险知觉、风险偏好和消费者对食品安全事件的反应-以瘦肉精事件为例[J]. 管理评论, 2012, 24(12): 128-136.
	[Cheng P G, Yin Z Y.Risk perception, risk preference and consumer response to food safety incidents-a case study of clenbuterol[J]. Management Review, 2012, 24(12): 128-136. ]
[11]	Botzen W, Aerts J.Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance[J]. Ecological Economics, 2009, 68(8): 2265-2277.
[12]	Cooper T, Faseruk A.Strategic risk, risk perception and risk behavior: Meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Financial Management and Analysis, 2011, 24(2): 20-29.
[13]	李华强, 范春梅, 贾建民, 等. 突发性灾害中的公众风险感知与应急管理-以5·12汶川地震为例[J]. 管理世界, 2009, (6): 52-60.
	[Li H Q, Fan C M, Jia J M, et al. Public risk perception and emergency management in sudden disasters-a case study of 5·12 Wenchuan earthquake[J]. Management World, 2009, (6): 52-60. ]
[14]	Liu E, Huang J.Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2013, 103(1): 202-215.
[15]	仇焕广, 栾昊, 李瑾, 等. 风险规避对农户化肥过量施用行为的影响[J]. 中国农村经济, 2014, (3): 85-96.
	[Qiu H G, Luan H, Li J, et al. Effect of risk aversion on excessive fertilizer application behavior of farmers[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2014, (3): 85-96. ]
[16]	Lopes L.Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk[J]. Advance in Experimental Social Psychology, 1987, 20(3): 255-295.
[17]	Turvey C G, Gao X, Nie R, et al. Subjective risks, objective risks and the crop insurance problem in rural China[J]. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 2012, 38(3): 612-633.
[18]	Arrow K J.Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing[M]. Chicago: Markham Publishing, 1971.
[19]	Pratt J W.Risk aversion in the small and in the Large[J]. Economrtrica, 1964, 32(1-2): 122-136.
[20]	Lusk J L, Coble K H.Risk perceptions, risk preference, and acceptance of risky food[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2005, 87(2): 393-405.
[21]	Palich L E, Bagby D R.Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: challenging conventional wisdom[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 1995, 10(6): 425-438.
[22]	吕文栋. 管理层风险偏好、风险认知对科技保险购买意愿影响的实证研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2014, (7): 128-138.
	[Lv W D.An empirical study on the influence of management risk preference and risk perception on the willingness to buy science and technology insurance[J]. China Soft Science, 2014, (7): 128-138. ]
[23]	中华人民共和国水利部. 甘肃省全力推进河西走廊高效节水灌溉示范区建设[EB/OL]. (2014-10-24)[2018-03-18]. .
	[Ministry of Water Resources of the People's Republic of China. Promote the Construction of Efficient Water-Saving Irrigation Demonstration Area in Hexi Corridor Gansu Province[EB/OL]. (2014-10-24)[2018-03-18]. ]
[24]	陆铭, 蒋仕卿, 陈钊, 等. 摆脱城市化的低水平均衡-制度推动、社会互动与劳动力流动[J]. 复旦学报(社会科学版), 2013, 55(3): 48-64.
	[Lu M, Jiang S Q, Chen Z, et al. Get rid of the low level equilibrium of urbanization-system promotion, social interaction and labor flow[J]. Fudan Journal(Social Sciences Edition), 2013, 55(3): 48-64. ]
[25]	Brock W A, Durlauf S N.Discrete choice with social interaction[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2001, 68(2): 235-260.
[26]	刘红云, 骆方, 张玉, 等. 因变量为等级变量的中介效应分析[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(12): 1431-1442.
	[Liu H Y, Tuo F, Zhang Y, et al. Analysis of the mediating effect of variable level variables[J]. Journal of Psychology, 2013, 45(12): 1431-1442. ]
[27]	Mackinnon D P.Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis New York[M]. New York: London Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
[28]	Tian Z R, Browne M J, Gründl H.Don't they care? Or, are they just unaware? Risk perception and the demand for long-term care insurance[J]. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2010, 77(4): 715-747.
[29]	温忠麟, 侯杰泰, 张雷. 调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用[J]. 心理学报, 2005, 37(2): 268-274.
	[Wen Z L, Hou J T, Zhang L.The comparison and application of regulatory effect and intermediary effect[J]. Journal of Psychology, 2005, 37(2): 268-274. ]
[30]	温忠麟, 叶宝娟. 中介效应分析: 方法和模型发展[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(5): 731-745.
	[Wen Z L, Ye B J.Mediating effect analysis: method and model development[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(5): 731-745. ]

风险类型	愿意	不愿意	合计
风险厌恶	86.8	13.2	100
风险中立	67.7	32.3	100
风险喜好	78.4	21.6	100

风险认知	愿意	不愿意	合计
非常不清楚	78.7	21.3	100
不清楚	67.8	32.2	100
一般	84.7	15.3	100
比较清楚	85.9	14.1	100
非常清楚	87.3	12.7	100

变量名称	变量定义	极小值	极大值	均值	标准差
采用意愿	愿意采用=1,不愿意=0	0.000	1.000	0.817	0.387
风险偏好	面对不确定的生产风险,您将会积极采用节水灌溉技术,1=风险厌恶,2=风险中性,3=风险喜好	1.000	3.000	1.460	0.729
风险认知	您觉得节水灌溉技术是否适应本地,按照1~5进行打分,1=非常不清楚,5=非常清楚	1.000	5.000	2.891	1.670
个体特征
年龄/年	按照实际调查数据	13.000	80.000	51.359	10.629
教育/年	按照实际调查数据	0.000	13.000	5.778	3.805
是否户主	是=1,否=0	0.000	1.000	0.600	0.490
务农年限/年	按照实际务农年限	0.000	70.000	33.148	12.054
男性劳动力/个	家中18岁以上60岁以下男性劳动力	0.000	4.000	1.559	0.629
家庭特征
赡养人数/人	未满18岁小孩及65岁以上不能自理老人	0.000	3.000	0.426	0.726
兼业人数/人	家中外出打工成员个数	0.000	6.000	0.596	0.910
是否串门	是否和邻居经常串门,1=从不,2=偶尔,3=一般,4=经常5=频繁	1.000	5.000	2.828	1.226

	变量名称	容差	VIF
年龄	风险偏好	0.891	1.122
	风险认知	0.883	1.132
	是否户主	0.966	1.035
	教育	0.656	1.027
	务农年限	0.924	1.082
	男性劳动力	0.945	1.058
	赡养人数	0.961	1.041
	兼业人数	0.955	1.047
	是否串门	0.944	1.059

变量	回归1	回归2	回归3	回归4	回归5
风险偏好	—	-0.307** (0.736)	—	-0.438*** (0.645)	-0.413*** (0.662)
风险认知	—	—	0.232*** (1.261)	0.286*** (1.330)	0.221*** (1.247)
风险偏好×风险认知	—	—	—	—	0.352*** (1.422)
年龄	0.073*** (1.076)	0.072*** (1.075)	0.076*** (1.079)	0.074*** (1.077)	0.071*** (1.073)
教育	-0.012 (0.988)	-0.011 (0.989)	-0.019 (0.981)	-0.019 (0.981)	-0.023 (0.977)
是否户主	-0.529** (0.589)	-0.545** (0.580)	-0.503** (0.605)	-0.518** (0.596)	-0.482* (0.618)
务农年限	-0.062*** (0.940)	-0.062*** (0.940)	-0.064*** (0.938)	-0.063*** (0.939)	-0.060*** (0.942)
男性劳动力	0.443** (1.557)	0.437** (1.548)	0.445** (1.561)	0.440** (1.552)	0.461** (1.585)
赡养人数	-0.409*** (0.665)	-0.400*** (0.670)	-0.456*** (0.634)	-0.452*** (0.636)	-0.449*** (0.639)
兼业人数	0.282* (1.326)	0.300** (1.350)	0.242* (1.273)	0.255* (1.290)	0.254* (1.289)
是否串门	-0.247*** (0.781)	-0.209** (0.812)	-0.309*** (0.734)	-0.268*** (0.765)	-0.266*** (0.766)
常量	0.339 (1.403)	0.805 (2.237)	-0.118 (0.889)	0.441 (1.554)	0.512 (1.668)
-2对数似然值	476.899	472.171	466.763	458.036	447.843
Cox&Snell R²	0.067	0.075	0.085	0.099	0.116
Nagelkerke R²	0.110	0.123	0.138	0.162	0.189

Influence of farmer's risk preference and risk perception on water-saving irrigation technology adoption

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 30

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

来源	III型平方和	自由度	均方和	F值	P值
较正模型	7.911	14	0.565	4.067	0.000
截距	178.057	1	178.057	1 281.614	0.000
风险偏好	3.394	2	1.697	12.214	0.000
风险认知	3.630	4	0.907	6.531	0.000
风险偏好×风险认知	2.823	8	0.353	2.540	0.010
误差	72.939	525	0.139
总计	441.000	540
校正的总计	80.850	539

检验步骤	风险认知中介效应
检验步骤	回归系数	标准化回归系数	回归系数检验	P值
第一步	c=-0.368	c^std=-0.279	SE=0.130	0.000
第二步	a=0.511	a=0.511	SE=0.086	0.000
第三步	c′=-0.510	c′ ^std=-0.361	SE=0.140	0.000
	b=0.254	b^std=0.370	SE=0.074	0.001
结论		c′ ^std显著,则部分中介效应存在
部分中介效应（ab^std）		0.189
其他中介效应		因为ab^std与c′ ^std异号,存在遮掩效应
遮掩效应∣ab^std/c′ ^std∣		0.524

[1]	XIE Xianxiong, DENG Yue, LIU Jiyao, LU Weinan, ZHAO Minjuan. Impact of fallow on off-farm employment of farmers [J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(2): 280-292.
[2]	WANG Yuge, MENG Quanxing, CHEN Bingpu. Impact of forest land tenure security on the circulation of ecological forest land:From the perspective of endowment effect and security perception [J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(1): 161-170.
[3]	HUANG Zhigang, LI Jie. Influence of land acquisition for rural tourism on the well-being of landless farmers based on the empirical analysis of PSM model [J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(1): 171-184.
[4]	SHAN Yuhong, WANG Linna. Path analysis of farming household differentiation on the diversification of farmland function supply [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(7): 1405-1415.
[5]	XIN Yi, GONG Weiwen, ZHAO Yafei. Influence of “explicit citizenship” and “implicit citizenship” on farmers’ land transfer behavior [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(5): 894-906.
[6]	HAN Xudong, WANG Ruonan, CUI Mengyi, ZHENG Fengtian. An empirical analysis on the development status and influencing factors of facility agriculture of large-scale farmers [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(4): 749-962.
[7]	LIU Li, CHU Liqi, JIANG Zhide. Influence of technology cognition and risk perception on the willingness to adopt soil and water conservation tillage technologies and its intergenerational differences [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(4): 763-775.
[8]	REN Li, WU Meng, GAN Chenlin, CHEN Yinrong. Decision-making mechanism simulation of farmers’ land investment behavior in suburbs based on structural equation modeling-system dynamics [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(2): 286-297.
[9]	JIA Yajuan, ZHAO Minjuan. Impact of domestic waste pollution perception and social capital on the farming households’ sorting of waste: Based on the survey of 1374 farming households in Shaanxi Province [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12): 2370-2381.
[10]	LI Bowei. Impact of centralization degree of transfer-in land on production efficiency [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(9): 1675-1689.
[11]	Fenni LI, Junbiao ZHANG, Ke HE. Impact of informal institutions and environmental regulations on farmers’ green production behavior: Based on survey data of 1105 households in Hubei Province [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(7): 1227-1239.
[12]	Naijuan HU, Xiaoling SUN, Yating XU, Ziyang ZHOU, Liqun ZHU. Influencing factors of farmers’ organic fertilizer application behavior and their stratification based on Logistic-ISM model [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(6): 1120-1130.
[13]	CAO Hui, ZHAO Kai. Farmland scale and farmers’ pro-environmental behavior：Verification of the inverted U hypothesis [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(4): 740-752.
[14]	WANG Taixiang,TENG Chenguang,ZHANG Zhaohui. Effects of plastic film recovery in main cotton production areas of Xinjiang on farmers’ profits [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(10): 1849-1858.
[15]	Menglu YAN, Taiyang ZHONG. The difference of crop diversity between migrant professional farmers and local peasant households and its influencing factors [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(9): 1752-1761.