JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2023, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (5): 245-254.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202208049
Previous Articles Next Articles
JU Haiqin(), ZHANG Hongxiao*(
), CHEN Jia, JI Xing
Received:
2022-08-20
Revised:
2022-09-27
Online:
2023-09-30
Published:
2023-10-10
CLC Number:
JU Haiqin, ZHANG Hongxiao, CHEN Jia, JI Xing. Research on the influence of non-agricultural employment on farmers’ domestic sewage discharge[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(5): 245-254.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of variables"
变量类别 variable type | 变量名称 variable name | 定义与赋值 definition and assignment | 平均值 mean | 标准差 SD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
因变量 dependent variable | 生活污水排放行为 | 家庭日常生活污水怎样排出去 (随意排放=0,排放至下水道=1, 污水收集桶收集=2) | 0.899 | 0.389 | |
自变量 independent variable | 家庭非农就业比例 | 家庭非农劳动力人数除以 家庭总劳动力人数 | 0.412 | 0.292 | |
中介变量 intermediary variable | 平均受教育程度 | 家庭成员平均受教育年限/a | 8.651 | 2.288 | |
人力资本 | 劳动力人数 | 家庭中劳动力数量/人 | 3.742 | 1.433 | |
人力资本综合值 | 运用熵值法计算综合值 | 0.135 | 0.160 | ||
人情往来支出占比 | 家庭用于人情往来的开支/家庭全年总收入 | 0.370 | 1.941 | ||
社会资本 | 政治身份 | 家中是否有人是村干部或党员(是=1,否=0) | 0.350 | 0.477 | |
社会资本综合值 | 运用熵值法计算综合值 | 0.121 | 0.160 | ||
家庭收入 | 家庭全年总收入/万元 | 10.789 | 11.369 | ||
金融资本 | 存款 | 家庭2019年末存款总额/万元 | 6.861 | 16.927 | |
金融资本综合值 | 运用熵值法计算综合值 | 0.141 | 0.161 | ||
物质资本 | 厕所类型 | 家庭日常厕所类型(水冲式卫生厕所=1, 水冲式非卫生厕所=2,卫生旱厕=3, 普通旱厕=4,无厕所=5) | 1.374 | 0.867 | |
住房条件 | 家庭住房是否存在以下缺陷(没有=0, 漏风漏雨=1,墙体裂缝=2,门窗破损=3) | 0.414 | 0.816 | ||
物质资本综合值 | 运用熵值法计算综合值 | 0.144 | 0.161 | ||
控制变量 control variable | 女性比例 | 女性人数/家庭总人口数 | 0.485 | 0.160 | |
平均年龄 | 家庭成员平均年龄/岁 | 48.855 | 12.678 | ||
常住人口数 | 家庭成员中全年居住6个月及以上的人数 | 3.263 | 1.667 | ||
环境感知 | 所在地区的人居环境(无污染=1, 轻微污染=2,中等污染=3,严重污染=4) | 1.397 | 0.550 | ||
政策了解度 | 是否了解农村人居环境整治(没有听说过=1, 听说过,不太清楚=2,知道一点=3, 比较了解=4,非常了解=5) | 2.838 | 1.244 | ||
政府宣传 | 政府是否对农村人居环境整治 进行宣传(是=1,否=0) | 0.826 | 0.379 | ||
奖惩措施 | 关于农村人居环境整治,政府是否 实施了奖惩措施(是=1,否=0) | 0.193 | 0.395 | ||
地区虚拟变量 (对照组为苏北) regional virtual variable (northern Jiangsu Province in the control group) | 苏南 | 苏南=1,其他=0 | 0.329 | 0.470 | |
苏中 | 苏中=1,其他=0 | 0.306 | 0.461 |
Table 2
Distribution of sample areas"
地区 area | 样本市 sample city | 样本量 sample size | 占比/% ratio | 非农就业家庭的 劳动力占比/% labour ratio of non- agricultural employment households | 采纳生活污水治理 行为的农户占比/% ratio of farmers adopting domestic sewage treatment behavior |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
苏南southern Jiangsu | 南京市、苏州市、无锡市、常州市、镇江市 | 767 | 33 | 45 | 48 |
苏中middle Jiangsu | 徐州市、连云港市、宿迁市、淮安市、盐城市 | 713 | 30 | 41 | 46 |
苏北northern Jiangsu | 扬州市、泰州市、南通市 | 850 | 37 | 37 | 40 |
Table 3
Regression results of non-agricultural employment on farmers’ sewage discharge behavior"
变量名称 variable name | Oprobit模型 Oprobit model | 排污行为的边际效应 marginal effect of pollutant discharge behavior | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
家庭非农就业比例 ratio of household non-farm employment | 0.301*** | 0.437*** | 0.251** | -0.051** | 0.034** | 0.017** |
(0.100) | (0.105) | (0.107) | (0.022) | (0.015) | (0.007) | |
女性比例 female ratio | 0.352* | 0.284 | -0.057 | 0.038 | 0.019 | |
(0.186) | (0.190) | (0.038) | (0.026) | (0.013) | ||
平均年龄 average age | 0.009*** | 0.004 | -0.001 | 0.001 | 0.000 | |
(0.003) | (0.003) | (0.001) | (0.000) | (0.000) | ||
常住人口数 resident population | 0.028 | 0.015 | -0.003 | 0.002 | 0.001 | |
(0.018) | (0.019) | (0.004) | (0.002) | (0.001) | ||
环境感知 environmental perception | -0.055 | 0.011 | -0.007 | -0.004 | ||
(0.056) | (0.011) | (0.007) | (0.004) | |||
政策了解度 policy understanding | 0.076*** | -0.015*** | 0.010*** | 0.005*** | ||
(0.025) | (0.005) | (0.003) | (0.002) | |||
政府宣传 government publicity | 0.315*** | -0.064*** | 0.042*** | 0.021*** | ||
(0.083) | (0.016) | (0.011) | (0.006) | |||
奖惩措施 reward and punishment measures | 0.025 | -0.005 | 0.003 | 0.002 | ||
(0.080) | (0.016) | (0.011) | (0.005) | |||
苏南 southern Jiangsu | 0.497*** | -0.100*** | 0.066*** | 0.033*** | ||
(0.073) | (0.015) | (0.012) | (0.005) | |||
苏中 middle Jiangsu | 0.345*** | -0.070*** | 0.046*** | 0.024*** | ||
(0.078) | (0.016) | (0.011) | (0.006) |
Table 4
Regression results of non-agricultural employment on farmers’ sewage discharge behavior"
变量名称 variable name | Oprobit | IV-Oprobit | |
---|---|---|---|
第1阶段 first stage | 第2阶段 second stage | ||
家庭非农就业比例 household non-agricultural employment ratio | 0.251** | 1.452*** | |
(0.107) | (0.438) | ||
村庄非农就业比例 village non-agricultural employment ratio | 0.884*** | ||
(0.080) | |||
控制变量 control variable | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 |
地区虚拟变量 regional virtual variable | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 |
内生性检验参数 atanhrho_12 endogeneity test parameters atnhrho_12 | -0.340*** | ||
(0.131) | |||
R2 | 0.047 | ||
χ2 | 909.93*** |
Table 5
The mediating effects of capital endowment"
变量名称 variable name | OLS | IV-Oprobit | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(7) | (9) | (11) | (13) | (8) | (10) | (12) | (14) | |
家庭非农就业比例ratio of household non-agricultural employment | 0.022* | 0.024* | 0.024* | 0.025* | 1.433*** | 1.433*** | 1.429*** | 1.429*** |
(0.012) | (0.012) | (0.013) | (0.013) | (0.440) | (0.440) | (0.441) | (0.441) | |
人力资本human capital | 0.311* | |||||||
(0.185) | ||||||||
社会资本social capital | 0.306* | |||||||
(0.184) | ||||||||
金融资本finacial capital | 0.315* | |||||||
(0.183) | ||||||||
物质资本material capital | 0.317* | |||||||
(0.183) | ||||||||
控制变量control variable | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 |
地区虚拟变量regional virtual variable | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 | 已控制 |
χ2 | 910.52*** | 910.46*** | 910.26*** | 910.25*** | ||||
R2 | 0.084 | 0.082 | 0.088 | 0.088 |
Table 6
Results of robustness test"
变量名称 variable name | 模型 model | |
---|---|---|
(15) | (16) | |
家庭非农就业比例 ratio of household non-agricultural employment | 0.387*** | |
(0.129) | ||
家庭非农收入占比 ratio of household non-agricultural income | 0.176** | |
(0.090) | ||
女性比例 female ratio | 0.347 | 0.301 |
(0.221) | (0.188) | |
平均年龄 average age | 0.002 | 0.006** |
0.003) | (0.003) | |
常住人口数 resident population | 0.052** | 0.013 |
(0.024) | (0.019) | |
环境感知 environmental perception | -0.103* | -0.059 |
(0.062) | (0.055) | |
政策了解度 policy understanding | 0.094*** | 0.071*** |
(0.030) | (0.025) | |
政府宣传 government publicity | 0.351*** | 0.332*** |
(0.089) | (0.082) | |
奖惩措施 reward and punishment measures | -0.013 | 0.058 |
(0.093) | (0.079) | |
地区虚拟变量 regional virtual variable | 已控制 | 已控制 |
R2 | 0.095 | 0.035 |
[1] | 王昶, 王力, 曾明, 等. 我国农村生活污水治理的现状分析和对策探究[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2022, 39(2):283-292. |
WANG C, WANG L, ZENG M, et al. Status and countermeasure for the treatment of rural domestic sewage in China[J]. J Agric Resour Environ, 2022, 39(2):283-292. DOI:10.13254/j.jare.2021.0615. | |
[2] | 高生旺, 黄治平, 夏训峰, 等. 农村生活污水治理调研及对策建议[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2022, 39(2):276-282. |
GAO S W, HUANG Z P, XIA X F, et al. Investigation and countermeasures of rural domestic sewage treatment[J]. J Agric Resour Environ, 2022, 39(2):276-282. DOI:10.13254/j.jare.2021.0852. | |
[3] | 唐林, 罗小锋, 张俊飚. 环境政策与农户环境行为:行政约束抑或是经济激励:基于鄂、赣、浙三省农户调研数据的考察[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2021, 31(6):147-157. |
TANG L, LUO X F, ZHANG J B. Environmental policies and farmers’ environmental behaviors: administrative restriction or economic incentive-based on the survey data of farmers in Hubei, Jiangxi and Zhejiang Provinces[J]. China Popul Resour Environ, 2021, 31(6):147-157. | |
[4] | 郭利京, 赵瑾. 农户亲环境行为的影响机制及政策干预:以秸秆处理行为为例[J]. 农业经济问题, 2014, 35(12):78-84,112. |
GUO L J, ZHAO J. Influence mechanism and policy intervention of farmers’ pro-environment behavior: taking straw treatment behavior as an example[J]. Issues Agric Econ, 2014, 35(12):78-84,112. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-7465.2012.01.004. | |
[5] |
李芬妮, 张俊飚, 何可. 非正式制度、环境规制对农户绿色生产行为的影响:基于湖北1105份农户调查数据[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(7):1227-1239.
doi: 10.18402/resci.2019.07.04 |
LI F N, ZHANG J B, HE K. Impact of informal institutions and environmental regulations on farmers’ green production behavior: based on survey data of 1105 households in Hubei Province[J]. Resour Sci, 2019, 41(7):1227-1239. DOI:10.18402/resci.2019.07.04. | |
[6] | 王珊珊, 张广胜. 非农就业对农户碳排放行为的影响研究:来自辽宁省辽中县的证据[J]. 资源科学, 2013, 35(9):1855-1862. |
WANG S S, ZHANG G S. The impact of off-farm employment on the agricultural carbon emission behavior of farmers[J]. Resour Sci, 2013, 35(9):1855-1862. | |
[7] | 杜三峡, 罗小锋, 黄炎忠, 等. 风险感知、农业社会化服务与稻农生物农药技术采纳行为[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2021, 30(7):1768-1779. |
DU S X, LUO X F, HUANG Y Z, et al. Risk perception, specialized agricultural services and rice farmers’ adoption behavior of biological pesticide technology[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2021, 30(7):1768-1779. DOI:10.11870/cjlyzyyhj202107023. | |
[8] | 丰军辉, 何可, 张俊飚. 家庭禀赋约束下农户作物秸秆能源化需求实证分析:湖北省的经验数据[J]. 资源科学, 2014, 36(3):530-537. |
FENG J H, HE K, ZHANG J B. Family endowments constrain farmer demand for energy utilization of crop straws[J]. Resour Sci, 2014, 36(3):530-537. | |
[9] | 黄蕊, 李桦, 杨扬, 等. 环境认知、榜样效应对半干旱区居民亲环境行为影响研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2018, 32(12):1-6. |
HUANG R, LI H, YANG Y, et al. Impact of environmental awareness and model effect on environmental friendly behaviors for residents in semiarid areas[J]. J Arid Land Resour Environ, 2018, 32(12):1-6. DOI:10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2018.357. | |
[10] | 畅倩, 李晓平, 谢先雄, 等. 非农就业对农户生态生产行为的影响:基于农业生产经营特征的中介效应和家庭生命周期的调节效应[J]. 中国农村观察, 2020(1):76-93. |
CHANG Q, LI X P, XIE X X, et al. The influence of non-agricultural employment on farmers’ ecological production behavior: based on the mediating effect of agricultural production and management characteristics and the regulating effect of family life cycle[J]. China Rural Surv, 2020(1):76-93. DOI:10.12062/cpre.20181023. | |
[11] |
李煜阳, 陆迁, 贾彬, 等. 劳动力外出务工对农户水土保持技术采用的影响:基于集体行动参与的中介效应[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(6):1088-1098.
doi: 10.18402/resci.2021.06.03 |
LI Y Y, LU Q, JIA B, et al. Effects of labor migration on farmers’ soil and water conservation technology adoption decisions: the mediation effect of participation in collective actions[J]. Resour Sci, 2021, 43(6):1088-1098. DOI:10.18402/resci.2021.06.03. | |
[12] | 唐林, 罗小锋, 余威震. 外出务工经历、制度约束与农户环境治理支付意愿[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 21(1):121-132. |
TANG L, LUO X F, YU W Z. Migrant work experience,institutional constraints and farmers’ willingness to pay for environmental governance[J]. J Nanjing Agric Univ (Soc Sci Ed), 2021, 21(1):121-132. DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.jfe.2017.12.003. | |
[13] | SCOTT M. Re-theorizing social network analysis and environmental governance: insights from human geography[J]. Prog Hum Geogr, 2014, 39(4):449-463. DOI:10.1177/0309132514554322. |
[14] | 王博, 朱玉春. 劳动力外流与农户参与村庄集体行动选择:以农户参与小型农田水利设施供给为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2018, 32(12):49-54. |
WANG B, ZHU Y C. Labour outflow and participation of farmers in village collective action: farmers’ participation in the supply and maintenance of irrigation facilities[J]. J Arid Land Resour Environ, 2018, 32(12):49-54. DOI:10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2018.364. | |
[15] | 贾蕊, 陆迁. 外出务工、女性决策对农户集体行动参与程度的影响:以陕西、甘肃、宁夏3个省份农户调研数据为例[J]. 农业技术经济, 2019(2):122-134. |
JIA R, LU Q. The influence of migrant workers and women’s decision-making on farmers’ participation in collective action: taking the survey data of farmers in Shaanxi, Gansu and Ningxia as examples[J]. J Agrotech Econ, 2019(2):122-134. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-2697.2012.03.019. | |
[16] | 孙前路, 乔娟, 李秉龙. 家庭资本禀赋与劳动力外流对牧民养殖技术需求的影响:基于西藏885户肉羊养殖户的入户调查[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2018, 23(5):178-190. |
SUN Q L, QIAO J, LI B L. Study on the influence of family capital endowment and migration labor on the herdsman’s technical requirement of breeding: based on household survey from 885 sheep farmers in Tibet[J]. J China Agric Univ, 2018, 23(5):178-190. DOI:10.11841/j.issn.1007-4333.2018.05.21. | |
[17] | 李卓, 陈银蓉, 朱庆莹, 等. 农地转出对农户生计策略影响的区域差异研究——基于生计资本的中介效应分析[J]. 林业经济, 2021, 43(10):21-36. |
LI Z, CHEN Y R, ZHU Q Y, et al. Study on the regional differences of the impact of farmland transferring on farmer’s livelihood strategies: analysis of the mediation effect based on livelihood capital[J]. For Econo, 2021, 43(10):21-36. | |
[18] | 杨思宇, 杨江华. 生计资本对农户参与村庄环境治理意愿的影响研究:基于水平与结构的双重视角分析[J]. 南京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 21(3):34-47,115. |
YANG S Y, YANG J H. The impact of livelihood capital on peasant’s willingness to participate in rural environment governance: from the dual perspectives of capital level and structure[J]. J Nanjing Tech Univ (Soc Sci Ed), 2022, 21(3):34-47,115. | |
[19] | 唐林, 罗小锋, 黄炎忠, 等. 劳动力流动抑制了农户参与村域环境治理吗? ——基于湖北省的调查数据[J]. 中国农村经济, 2019(9):88-103. |
TANG L, LUO X F, HUANG Y Z, et al. Does labor mobility inhibit farmers’ participation in village environmental Governance? an analysis based on survey data from Hubei Province[J]. Chin Rural Econ, 2019(9):88-103. | |
[20] | 唐林, 罗小锋, 黄炎忠, 等. 主动参与还是被动选择:农户村域环境治理参与行为及效果差异分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2019, 28(7):1747-1756. |
TANG L, LUO X F, HUANG Y Z, et al. Active participation or passive choice: analysis of the participation behaviors and effects of village domain environmental governance[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2019, 28(7):1747-1756. DOI:10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201907024. | |
[21] | 张童朝, 颜廷武, 何可, 等. 资本禀赋对农户绿色生产投资意愿的影响:以秸秆还田为例[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2017, 27(8):78-89. |
ZHANG T C, YAN T W, HE K, et al. Impact of capital endowment on peasants’ willingness to invest in green production: taking crop straw returning to the field as an example[J]. China Popul Resour Environ, 2017, 27(8):78-89. DOI:10.12062/cpre.20170422. | |
[22] | 李芬妮, 张俊飚, 何可. 资本禀赋、归属感对农户参与村域环境治理的影响[J]. 华中农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2021(4):100- 107,182-183. |
LI F N, ZHANG J B, HE K. Influence of capital endowment and sense of belonging on farmers’ participation in village environmental governance[J]. J Huazhong Agric Univ (Soc Sci Ed), 2021(4):100- 107,182-183. DOI:10.13300/j.cnki.hnwkxb.2021.04.012. | |
[23] | 朱庆莹, 陈银蓉, 袁凯华, 等. 资本禀赋与农户耕地保护支付意愿关系:基于城镇近郊区与城镇远郊区的对比分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2020, 29(8):1885-1895. |
ZHU Q Y, CHEN Y R, YUAN K H, et al. Research on the relationship between capital endowment and farmers’ willingness to pay for cultivated land protection: comparing the suburban and outer suburbs[J]. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin, 2020, 29(8):1885-1895. DOI:10.11870/cjlyzyyhj202008020. | |
[24] | 张丽娟. 非农就业对农户是否选择购买地下水灌溉服务的影响:基于跨度16年5轮实地追踪调查数据的实证分析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2021(5):124-144. |
ZHANG L J. The Influence of non-agricultural employment on farmers’ choice of purchasing groundwater irrigation services: an empirical analysis based on the data of five rounds of field tracking survey spanning 16 years[J]. Chin Rural Econ, 2021(5):124-144. DOI:10.13300/j.cnki.hnwkxb.2020.01.005. | |
[25] | 齐振宏, 汪熙琮, 何坪华. 外出务工经历对农户稻虾共养技术采纳规模的影响研究:基于生计资本的中介效应[J]. 农林经济管理学报, 2021, 20(4):438-448. |
QI Z H, WANG X C, HE P H. Influence of experience as migrant workers on farmers’ adoption scale of rice and shrimp co-culture technology: a study based on intermediary effect of capital[J]. J Agro For Econ Manag, 2021, 20(4):438-448. DOI:10.16195/j.cnki.cn36-1328/f.2021.04.46. | |
[26] | 孙燕铭. 乡城劳动力迁移下的农村人力资本积累:理论分析与启示[J]. 江淮论坛, 2016(1):17-26. |
SUN Y M. Rural human capital accumulation under the migration of rural-urban labor force: theoretical analysis and enlightenment[J]. Jianghuai Tribune, 2016(1):17-26. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-862X.2016.01.003. | |
[27] | 徐超, 吴玲萍, 孙文平. 外出务工经历、社会资本与返乡农民工创业:来自CHIPS数据的证据[J]. 财经研究, 2017, 43(12):30-44. |
XU C, WU L P, SUN W P. Migrant working experience, social capital and entrepreneurship of migrant workers returning home: evidence from CHIPS data[J]. J Finance Econ, 2017, 43(12):30-44. | |
[28] | BODIN Ö, MANCILLA GARCIA M, ROBINS G. Reconciling conflict and cooperation in environmental governance: a social network perspective[J]. Annu Rev Environ Resour, 2020, 45(1):25. DOI:10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352. |
[29] | 陈媛媛, 傅伟. 土地承包经营权流转、劳动力流动与农业生产[J]. 管理世界, 2017(11):79-93. |
CHEN Y Y, FU W. Transfer of land contractual management right, labor flow and agricultural production[J]. Manag World, 2017(11):79-93. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-5502.2017.11.007. | |
[30] |
DE B A. Seasonal migration and agricultural production in Vietnam[J]. J Dev Stud, 2010, 46(1):114-139.
doi: 10.1080/00220380903197986 |
[31] | 王晓焕, 李桦, 张罡睿. 生计资本如何影响农户亲环境行为?——基于价值认知的中介效应[J]. 农林经济管理学报, 2021, 20(5):610-620. |
WANG X H, LI H, ZHANG G R. How does livelihood capital affect farmers’ pro-environment behavior? mediating effect based on value perception[J]. J Agro For Econ Manag, 2021, 20(5):610-620. DOI:10.16195/j.cnki.cn36-1328/f.2021.05.63. | |
[32] |
贾亚娟, 赵敏娟. 生活垃圾污染感知、社会资本对农户垃圾分类水平的影响:基于陕西1374份农户调查数据[J]; 资源科学, 2020, 42(12):2370-2381.
doi: 10.18402/resci.2020.12.09 |
JIA Y J, ZHAO M J. 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]. Resour Sci, 2020, 42(12):2370-2381. DOI:10.18402/resci.2020.12.09. | |
[33] | 苏淑仪, 周玉玺, 蔡威熙. 农村生活污水治理中农户参与意愿及其影响因素分析:基于山东16地市的调研数据[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(10):71-77. |
SU S Y, ZHOU Y X, CAI W X. Analysis of farmers’ willingness of involvement in rural domestic sewage treatment[J]. J Arid Land Resour Environ, 2020, 34(10):71-77. DOI:10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2020.271. | |
[34] | 赵艺华, 周宏. 社会信任、奖惩政策能促进农户参与农药包装废弃物回收吗?[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2021, 35(4):17-23. |
ZHAO Y H, ZHOU H. Can social trust and policy of rewards and punishments promote farmers’ participation in the recycling of pesticide packaging waste?[J]. J Arid Land Resour Environ, 2021, 35(4):17-23. DOI:10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2021.093. | |
[35] |
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.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731 |
WEN Z L, YE B J. Analyses of mediating effects: the development of methods and models[J]. Adv Psychol Sci, 2014, 22(5):731-745. DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731. |
No related articles found! |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||