Cultivation Countermeasures of Farmers’ Ecological Consciousness and Behavior in Eco-civilization Construction——A Case Study of Agricultural Waste Recycling

Chengying HAN1,*, Min TIAN1, Biyan XIAO1, Zhenhong QI

1. Department of Economics & Management, Shandong Foreign Trade Vocational College, Qingdao 266100, China; 2. College of Economics & Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China

Abstract Farmer is the main body of rural environmental behavior, and cultivation of farmers’ ecological consciousness and behavior is important to rural environmental governance and rural eco-civilization construction. In this paper, agricultural waste recycling is studied based on individual behavior theory. We analyze status quo of agricultural waste recycling by farmers, and point out the importance of farmer behavior in eco-environment governance, thereby excavating influence factors of agricultural waste recycling by farmers from perceived benefits and perceived risks. On this basis, countermeasures and measures of cultivating farmers’ environmental protection behavior and ecological consciousness are proposed.

Key words Ecological civilization, Ecological consciousness, Ecological behavior, Cultivation

1 Introduction

In the report of the Nineteenth National Congress, general secretary Xi Jinping put forward that we should implement the strategy of rural revitalization, accelerate the modernization of agriculture and rural areas, and steadfastly follow the civilized development road of "production development, well-off life and good ecology"[1]. In agricultural production process of China, about 3 billion t of livestock and poultry manure and 700 million tons of crop straw are produced each year. Agricultural waste contains a large amount of organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and other nutrients needed by the soil and is excellent organic fertilizer resource[2]. Agricultural waste recycling is conducive to strengthening the construction of agro-forestry-animal husbandry complex ecological engineering, increasing agricultural efficiency and farmers’ income, optimal utilization of resources and improvement of ecological environment.

Influenced by traditional agricultural concepts, most farmers treat crop straw and livestock manure as waste. Crop straw is often discarded or burnedinsitu, causing serious air pollution. It is general to arbitrarily discharge livestock manure, which not only pollutes air but also could disseminate pathogens and harm human health. At present, agricultural waste recycling in China has not been realized on a large scale, and its extensive treatment methods result in the waste of a large amount of organic substance in agricultural wastes and even induce serious agricultural non-point pollution and environmental harm[3], which is not conducive to the sustainable development of agriculture and the construction of rural ecological civilization.

2 Status quo of agricultural waste recycling by farmers

2.1 Insufficient understanding of agricultural waste recycling by farmersIn the survey, number of effective sample is 815, in which there are 629 men, accounting for 77.18% of total sample, while there are 186 women, accounting for 22.82%. In sample, there are 109 farmers below 40 years old, accounting for 13.4% of total sample; 223 farmers between 41 and 50 years old, accounting for 57.6%; 237 farmers more than 60 years old, accounting for 29.0%. There are 687 farmers at the education level of junior high school and below, accounting for 84.3% of total sample; 98 farmers at the education level of polytechnic or high school, accounting for 12.0%; 30 farmers at the education level of college and above, only accounting for 3.7%.

It is found that that farmers’ understanding of manner of agricultural waste utilization is at general level, and samples of not understanding, understanding and general/not concerning respectively account for one-third. Meanwhile, farmers’ understanding of biogas production and utilization (specific ways of agricultural waste recycling) is below general level, showing that farmers who know or know very well only account for 28.3% of total sample. Therefore, there is still room for improvement in technical propaganda and training of agricultural waste recycling.

2.2 Extensive treatment manner of agricultural wasteUtilization manners of crop straw by farmers mainly contain open-air incineration, stacking on edge of field or roadside, returning to the field, living fuel, livestock feed, sale, and production of biogas. Among them, 180 farmers select "open-air incineration", accounting for 22.1% of total sample; 144 farmers select "stacking on edge of field or roadside", accounting for 17.7%; 356 farmers select "returning to the field as fertilizer", accounting for 43.7%; 262 farmers select "living fuel", accounting for 32.1%; 116 farmers select "livestock feed", accounting for 14.2%; 54 farmers select "sale", accounting for 6.6%; 89 farmers select "production of biogas", accounting for 10.9%; 41 farmers select other ways, containing planting edible fungi and throwing them away. It is clear that comprehensive utilization manner of straw by farmers is dominant by returning to the field as fertilizer and living fuel. Only 54 farmers select straw sale, and the causes are as below: one is lacking labour force, and the other is not knowing where someone recycles it, which is an important cause for straw burning. It is clear that agricultural waste recycling lacks effective intermediate channel. It also illustrates that enterprise which is market main body of agricultural waste recycling does not sufficiently join in it and play the role.

Main utilization manners of livestock manure by farmers contain random stacking, centrally stacked at the village entrance or home, raw materials of biogas, and farm manure after treatment. Results display that 60 farmers select "random stacking", accounting for 7.4% of total sample; 161 farmers select "centrally stacked at the village entrance or home", accounting for 19.8%; 127 farmers select "raw materials of biogas", accounting for 15.6%; 486 farmers select "farm manure after treatment", accounting for 59.6%; 27 farmers select other manners, containing sale, feeding fish and throwing them away. It is clear that comprehensive utilization of livestock manure by farmers is dominant by farm manure after treatment, followed by centrally stacked at the village entrance or home. This will inevitably lead to pollution of the village’s appearance, environment, air and water,etc. Farmers selecting raw materials of biogas only accounts for 15.6% of total sample. It illustrates that farmers less select production of biogas, and clean energy production in rural areas still has room for improvement.

2.3 Strong demand on agricultural waste recycling technology by farmersFor the ways for farmers to acquire the technology of agricultural waste recycling, 443 farmers select organization and training of government, accounting for 54.4% of total sample; 590 farmers select science and technology going to the countryside, accounting for 72.4%; 254 farmers select dissemination of brochures, accounting for 31.2%; 131 farmers select video teaching, accounting for 16.1%; 160 farmers select television broadcasting, accounting for 19.6%; 135 farmers select teaching of relatives, friends and neighbors, accounting for 16.6%; 15 farmers don’t want to learn the relevant technology and don’t have interest, energy and time, while one person says he is too old to learn technology. It is clear that current farmers’ demand for agricultural waste recycling technology is still very strong. Science and technology going to the countryside is the most popular way for farmers, and it sends science and technology to farmers and brings practical benefits for them. Organization and training of government are at the second place, and then dissemination of brochures.

In the aspect of technical requirements, farmers have a high demand for agricultural waste recycling technology. It is found that 98% of farmers hope to obtain knowledge and technical information on agricultural waste recycling. It also illustrates that there is much room for the government to improve the propaganda and training of agricultural technology in recycling of waste materials. Since the development of economy and information technology is relatively lagging behind in rural areas, farmers’ expectation ways of information technology demand mainly depends on the government, and they hope that the government can organize training and do a good job in science and technology going to the countryside.

3 Importance of farmers’ behavior in eco-environment governance

The foundation of rural rejuvenation is promoting the work of rural environment management and building an ecological, livable and beautiful countryside. It needs grasping the main source of pollution to solve non-point pollution of agricultural waste, namely treatment and comprehensive utilization of crop straw and livestock manure. On the one hand, it should enhance innovation of comprehensive utilization manner of crop straw. On the other hand, it needs establishing close interest linkage mechanism between breeding and planting industry for livestock manure, sufficiently mobilizing the enthusiasm of pig farmers to develop ecological breeding model, vigorously cultivating and forming the attitude, willingness and behavior of ecological aquaculture, promoting the recycling of livestock and poultry breeding waste, realizing organic combination of livestock and poultry breeding and agriculture, and developing circular economy, to realize sustainable development of agriculture and breeding industry.

Influenced by the current level of rural economic development in China, most farmers do not attach enough importance to the utilization of agricultural waste resources, and their value perception levels are not high. Moreover, recycling ability is relatively inadequate, which makes these valuable resources disposed of or discarded as garbage. What’s worse is that direct discarding of these agricultural wastes could pollute water body and air, disseminate pathogens, endanger ecological environment of farmland, and finally threaten quality safety of agricultural products.

Farmer is the main body of agricultural eco-environment behavior and the main force of participating in the utilization of agricultural waste resources. Farmers’ evaluation on value of agricultural waste recycling decides their participation willingness, and plays a key role in transformation of agricultural development manner and agricultural eco-civilization construction. To solve non-point pollution of agricultural waste and realize eco-environment protection, it needs changing traditional disposal methods of agricultural waste, improve perception value of farmers to agricultural waste recycling, reducing perceived risk, paying attention to recycling value of agricultural waste, understanding seriousness of agricultural waste non-point source pollution consequences, sufficiently mobilizing the enthusiasm of farmers’ eco-environment behavior, and vigorously cultivating and forming that farmers’ eco-environment willingness and behavior have reality and urgency.

4 Analysis on influence factors of farmers’ waste recycling behavior

According to individual behavior theory, individual behavior intention affects individual behavior, and attitude, subjective norm and perceptual behavior control and affect behavior intention[4]. First, attitude, namely individual perception of taking one action; second, "subjective norm" and "perceptual behavior control", while value perception is the most direct reason for the formation of farmers’ behavior attitudes. That is to say, farmers’ agricultural waste recycling behavior is affected by perceived value of agricultural waste recycling to a large extent. Perceived value of agricultural waste recycling by farmers indicates overall evaluation after balancing the obtained benefits and the paid risks in decision-making process of agricultural waste recycling behavior[5]. Farmers’ perceived benefit indicates all the gains from perceived life needs, resource needs, self-fulfillment needs,etc. in agricultural waste recycling behavior. Farmers’ perceived risk indicates feelings and judgments generated by losses of agricultural waste recycling and their fear on implementing obstacles.

4.1 Influence factors of perceived benefits of agricultural waste recycling by farmers

4.1.1Perceived basic benefits. In survey and interview, some farmers show that "when I raise pigs, I usually collect pig manure and sell it to a big vegetable farmer in the village. Thus, I can also earn some money". "Now government does not allow the crop straw burning in situ. Some straw, such as corn straw, can be pulled home to make firewood". "Chicken and pig manure is used as farm manure. The vegetables grown are green and safer and can be eaten at home. Sometimes we can’t eat them and sell them at the market or on the roadside, and these vegetables are also very popular". "It’s reported on TV that straw burning causes air pollution, and now we dare not burn it". "Now the countryside has developed and the environment in the village is good. If pig and chicken manure are thrown randomly, it will cause pollution". "We could not discharge pig and chicken manure at will, and they have fertilizer values. Straw can also be turned over to the ground for fertilizer". "Crop straw can replace corn and soybean meal to feed cattle and sheep, while animal manure can feed fish and so on, with feed value". "Crop straw, livestock and poultry manure can be used to produce biogas, which has energy value". Therefore, farmers’ perceived basic benefits can be summarized into two aspects: economy and resource.

4.1.2Perceived ecological benefits. In the interview, some farmers think that "now the central government will realize the Chinese dream, build beautiful countryside, centralize garbage disposal, and control pollution emission of streets. It’s all about doing small things around us, and we should make a little contribution to our country". "The crop straw has been recycled and used to purify the air, which is conducive to the construction of ecological civilization in rural areas". "In the past, there were pig farms, and feces were discharged at will, which made the rivers in the village full of stinky water. Later, the purification equipment was installed, which improved a lot". "It is better to use farm manure, which assures that the land will not be hardened". "Now part of the land in the village has been transferred to form large-scale farmers who grow grain or vegetables. We can sell them straw and manure, or sometimes give them for large-scale straw returning to the field. Otherwise, if we put straw and manure there, it will affect the appearance of the village". "Nowadays, people’s living standards have been improved, and people are paying more and more attention to the quality of their living environment". "In order to build rural eco-environment, the state subsidized households to build biogas digesters. Manure and other could produce biogas, and provide clean energy for households". "Straw, livestock and poultry manure are not discarded at will, and everyone uses them. When the environment is good, the villagers are in a good mood". Therefore, farmers’ perceived ecological benefits can be summarized into three aspects: environmental protection, safety and health.

4.1.3Perceived social benefits. Implementation of agricultural waste recycling may affect the relationship between farmers and their neighbors or between farmers and village cadres and personal image of farmers, and is reflection of the impact of farmers’ social relations. In the interview, some farmers decide that "now it is a special period for the construction of ecological civilization. It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the environment, and we need to work together". "I collected straw and sold it to a company that used straw as building material. When my neighbors saw it, they would follow me and would no longer burn it at will. We talked a lot and the neighbors were more harmonious". "Others burned straw in the open air, but my family did not burn it, and we returned the straw to the farmland. We responded to the government’s call, and were recognized by the village". "I think it’s everyone’s responsibility to protect the environment and save resources. I’m proud that I did it". "Now the village produces biogas from livestock and poultry manure, and the government will give some subsidies". "In order to encourage people to stop burning crop straw in the open air, village cadres contacted returning machines to help people return straw to the fields, as well as rewards". Therefore, farmers’ perceived social benefits can be summarized into three aspects: responsibility sharing, social recognition and special treatment.

According to interview and summarization of interview materials, influence factors of perceived benefits of agricultural waste recycling behavior by farmers are shown as Table 1.

Table 1 Influence factors and index connotations of perceived benefits by farmers

TypeConstitutive dimensionIndexConnotation Farmers perceived Farmers perceived basic EconomyComparison between yield and cost of agricultural waste recyclingbenefits (FPB)benefits (FPBB)ResourceAgricultural waste recycling saving resourceFeed, fertilizer and energy values of agricultural wasteFarmers perceived ecologi-Environmental protectionImpact of agricultural waste recycling on ecological and environmental protectioncal benefits (FPEB)SafetyImpact of agricultural waste recycling on diseases of livestock and poultry and safety of agricultural productsHealthImpact of agricultural waste recycling on human healthFarmers perceived social Responsibility sharingFarmers understanding on responsibility sharing of waste resource utilizationbenefits (FPSB)Image recognitionThe impact of agricultural waste recycling behavior on his own image and government recognitionSpecial treatmentAgricultural waste recycling can be subsidized and commended, etc.

4.2 Influence factors of perceived risks of agricultural waste recycling by farmers

4.2.1Perceived economic risks. In the interview, some farmers show that "we also know that the production of biogas from straw and manure can save liquefied gas and reduce coal burning, which is beneficial". "When using no-tillage technology and straw returning to the field, more money will have to be invested". "Sons and girls go out to work again, while our grandchildren stay at home and are taken care by us. We are old and out of condition, and work harder and harder in farming. We do not have the strength to get the straw after harvesting back, so we have to throw it on the ground". "How easy it is to burn straw. Sometimes I can’t manage so much. After busy farming, I want to go out to work to earn money". "It’s not worthwhile to put the straw in order and take it home. It’s time-consuming and laborious, and is also expensive to hire a car". "Straw and excrement biogas digesters have been built, but they have been useless for a long time, but we also need to know the maintenance technology". Therefore, perceived economic risks of farmers could be summarized into three aspects: monetary risk, opportunity risk and benefit risk.

4.2.2Perceived psychological risks. In the interview, some farmers show that "now standard houses have been built in the countryside. More and more people use natural gas in their homes. In the past, straw can also be pulled back to serve as firewood. Now there is no place to put it back, nor can it be used". "I think recycling waste and environmental protection are everybody’s business. It’s useless for me to do it alone". "In some places, it’s not easy to pull the straw back on the mountain. Besides, I don’t know where to recycle it, so I’d better just throw it away". "Biogas digester is needed to produce biogas from crop straw and livestock manure, but there is no biogas digester at home". "I also want to sell the straw, but nobody wants it. No burning, no selling. I don’t know what to do". "The production of biogas from crop straw and livestock manure requires certain facilities and technologies. I don’t understand them, and need time to learn and understand them". Therefore, perceived psychological risks of farmers could be summarized into three aspects: space risk, time risk and knowledge risk.

4.2.3Perceived situational risks. At measurement aspect of situational risks of individual behavior, setting of measuring items by scholars mainly considers from whether the individual behavior decision-making has the relevant conditions, whether it is recognized by his family, and whether it is harmful to his image or not. Additionally, whether there is policy support or resource-based subsidies, whether there is corresponding infrastructure, whether it is easy to acquire relevant technical knowledge and so on, will affect farmers’ behavior decision-making in agricultural waste recycling. Agricultural waste recycling needs various inputs. If farmers perceive that policy support is insufficient or there is no subsidy, their enthusiasm will be low. If farmers perceive that there is no corresponding basis for the recycling of agricultural wastes, and it is not easy to acquire relevant technical knowledge, and they consider that it is difficult to implement the recycling behavior, they will also abandon the recycling of agricultural waste. Therefore, perceived situational risks of farmers could be summarized into four aspects: policy context, facility technology, group pressure and behavioral consequence.

According to the survey and summarization of interview materials, influence factors of perceived risks of agricultural waste recycling behavior by farmers are shown as Table 2.

Table 2 Influence factors and index connotations of perceived risks by farmers

TypeConstitutive dimensionIndexConnotationFarmers perceived Farmers perceived econom-Monetary riskAgricultural waste recycling needing fundsrisks (FPR)ic risks (FPER)Opportunity riskAgricultural waste recycling needing to abandon other resourcesBenefit riskYield of agricultural waste recycling lower than inputFarmers perceived psycho-Space risk New residential houses, lacking recycling spacelogical risks (FPPR)Time riskAgricultural waste recycling needing time inputKnowledge riskNot having the knowledge of agricultural waste recycling

(To be continued)

(Continued)

TypeConstitutive dimensionIndexConnotationFarmers perceived situa-Policy contextWhether there are policies related to the recycling of agricultural wastetional risks (FPSR)Facility technologyIs there infrastructure for agricultural waste recyclingGroup pressure Behav-Whether others are recycling or is there interpersonal pressure ioral consequencesWhether subsidies of behavior implementation are in place Understanding on the consequences of agricultural non-point source pollution

5 Cultivation countermeasures and measures of ecological consciousness and behavior of farmers

5.1 Improving perceived benefits, and deeply publicizing the harm of non-point source pollution by agricultural waste

It should increase publicity, making that farmers deeply understand hazard of agricultural non-point source pollution, and improve perceived value level to agricultural waste recycling. It is an important condition for impelling agricultural waste recycling of farmers and environmental protection in new rural construction to enhance farmers’ environmental protection consciousness, waste resource utilization consciousness and responsibility undertaking consciousness. Only by making farmers truly aware of the harmfulness of improper disposal of agricultural waste, can they form a good attitude and willingness to protect the environment, and then effectively guide individual environmental behavior. Meanwhile, subsidies and incentives for the recycling of agricultural waste should be increased. For example, farmers prefer the government to implement a certain incentive policy for farmers who do not incinerate at will rather than a punishment policy for farmers who incinerate at will. From economic perspective, the adoption of restrictive policies will increase the cost of government supervision. When the government does not have so many manpower, material and financial resources to supervise, or if the supervision is not in place, the behavior of farmers can escape punishment without being found out. Farmers are unwilling to make further efforts to implement environmental behavior even if they realize that the behavior is wrong. For incentive policy, on the one hand, farmers implementing environmental behavior of agricultural waste recycling is conducive to environmental protection and ecological improvement, and could make farmers generate certain sense of honor and satisfaction. On the other hand, farmers’ efforts or costs in implementing environmental behavior will be partly compensated through incentive policies. Therefore, farmers are willing to make some efforts.

5.2 Declining perceived risks, and increasing facilities and technical inputs of waste recyclingWhen perceived cost or expense of farmers on agricultural waste recycling is larger and larger, their perceived value is lower, which will be not conducive to agricultural waste recycling. To improve farmers’ perceived value on agricultural waste recycling, it should firstly consider declining farmers’ perceived risk on agricultural waste recycling. Farmers’ perceived levels on facilities and technology in situational risks of agricultural waste recycling are higher, illustrating that impact of recycling facilities and technology on farmers’ agricultural waste recycling behavior is larger. Especially declining perceived economic and situational risks of agricultural waste recycling by farmers, government should sufficiently play public service function, value construction of rural infrastructure and equipment for agricultural waste resource utilization, and provide technical guidance and services. It should decline perceived technology and facility risks of deciding agricultural waste recycling behavior, namely declining the inconvenience of farmers in utilizing agricultural wastes as resources, and providing good technical support environment for agricultural waste recycling by farmers.

5.3 Creating good environment, and forming moderate pressure on rural eco-environmental protection behaviorAt the beginning stage of new rural construction, many farmers are not accustomed to centralized storage of garbage,etc. , and traditional living habits make them unconsciously take actions that are not conducive to environmental improvement. With the vigorous propaganda and policy support of the state for the construction of rural ecological civilization, people gradually realize that they should start from themselves and from the small things around them to protect the environment. Some farmers actively and consciously centralize garbage storage, and protect public facilities,etc., namely actively implementing environmental behavior. There are also some farmers who feel that what the state advocates should be right, so they follow suit. Furthermore, influenced by the national policy, learning and propaganda are carried out at each level. At the village level, village cadres will put forward demands on farmers, and form a pressure on farmers, forcing them to implement environmental behavior. Therefore, the same is true for agricultural waste recycling. Influenced by policy, some farmers could actively take an action, while some farmers will follow great master to make choices, and some farmers carry out decision-making on the behavior of agricultural waste resource utilization under certain pressure.

5.4 Encouraging enterprise participation, and realizing scale benefits of agricultural resources recyclingScale benefit and industrialization development of agricultural waste recycling are inseparable from the participation of agricultural enterprises as a market subject. Farmers are main behavior body of agricultural waste recycling. However, farmers in China are still dominated by retail households in the traditional sense. Traditional retail household has relatively weak power to recycle agricultural waste, which affects farmers’ enthusiasm for recycling waste materials to a certain degree, and is one of causes for farmers selecting extensive approach to treat agricultural waste. Two key factors of impelling agricultural waste recycling are the initiative of farmers and the enthusiasm of enterprises. Although agricultural waste recycling has huge economic and social potential, per capita agricultural waste occupancy is not large for farmers, and individual behavior of retail household can not form scale, and even loss could be caused individual investors may cause losses when they invest in facilities and technologies to implement the recycling of agricultural wastes, further causing behavioral intention decline. For enterprise, it needs construction of factories, purchase of conversion and utilization equipment at early stage when joining in agricultural waste recycling, and a large amount of money is invested, with longer returning cycle and slow effect, making that enterprises are not very enthusiastic about participating in the recycling of agricultural waste. Therefore, government needs taking certain measures, such as fund input and policy support, to improve initiative of agricultural-related enterprises to participate in the utilization of agricultural waste resources. Participation of agricultural-related enterprises makes up for the defect of scattered behavior of farmers in agricultural waste recycling, with typical demonstration role, which could make agricultural waste recycling form scale benefit and stride toward industrialization.