4.7 Article

Farmers' attitudes toward mandatory water-saving policies: A case study in two basins in northwest China

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 455-464

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.007

关键词

Mandatory water-saving policies; Attitudes; Policy enforcement; Beneficial consequences; Arid inland basins; Farmers

资金

  1. Humanity and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China [14YJA840002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

China began to implement stringent water-saving policies in 2012. Mandatory water-saving measures implemented in arid inland river basins include the measures of allocating surface water among upper, middle and lower beaches, restricting household agricultural water use, closing wells, reducing farmland and increasing water prices. These measures have negative influences on the agricultural production of farmers. This study aimed to reveal the demographic and psychological correlates of farmers' attitudes toward these policies. The participants included 672 farmers in the Heihe River Basin and the Shule River Basin in northwest China. Structural equation analyses showed that farmers' awareness of the beneficial consequences of restricting household agricultural water and their perception of policy enforcement had significant relationships with their attitudes toward water-saving policies, whereas the effects of the New Ecological Paradigm and collectivism on farmers' attitudes were mediated through their awareness of beneficial consequences and their perception of policy enforcement. Multivariable regression analyses revealed that as a whole, there were no significant correlations between demographic variables and farmers' attitudes. Policy implications include propagandizing these policies among local farmers, strengthening open and fair policy enforcement, and cautiously using water prices as an instrument to control irrigation water. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据