农户参与农地整理项目后期管护的意愿与行为转化路径——基于安徽省怀宁县4个典型镇的实证分析

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.06.19

浙江农业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (6): 1128-1140.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.06.19

农户参与农地整理项目后期管护的意愿与行为转化路径——基于安徽省怀宁县4个典型镇的实证分析

蔡俊(), 周晓玉^*()

安徽农业大学经济管理学院,安徽合肥 230036

收稿日期:2020-09-13 出版日期:2021-06-25 发布日期:2021-06-25
通讯作者: 周晓玉
作者简介:*周晓玉,E-mail: 543080048@qq.com
蔡俊(1975—),男,安徽宿松人,博士,副教授,主要研究方向为土地资源管理。E-mail: 174323182@qq.com
基金资助:
安徽省教育厅科研项目(SK2019A0133)

Farmer’s behavior intention and behavioral response transformation paths in management and maintenance of land consolidation projects: empirical analysis from four typical towns of Huaining County in Anhui Province, China

CAI Jun(), ZHOU Xiaoyu^*()

College of Economic and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China

Received:2020-09-13 Online:2021-06-25 Published:2021-06-25
Contact: ZHOU Xiaoyu

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为顺利推进农地整理项目后期管护,发挥农地整理项目长效机制,基于改进的计划行为理论,运用结构方程模型对安徽怀宁县475个样本开展定量分析,探究农户参与的意愿与行为转化路径。结果发现:农户认可后期管护可能带来的积极效益,灌排保证率与田间道路通达度是其关注重点。外界影响力中的政府部门与专业合作组织的主张作用相对较大。农户对后期管护目标信心不足与资金成本是相对突出的障碍因素。政府帮助解决资金投入瓶颈、成立基层组织结构与完善后期管护制度体系是农户关注重点。影响农户参与意愿的潜变量效应排序是主观规范<行为态度<知觉行为控制<政府支持。后期管护的农户行动遵循“行为态度→意愿→行为”“主观规范→意愿→行为”“知觉行为控制→意愿→行为”“政府支持→意愿→行为”“政府支持→行为”共5条路径。同时,意愿传递的中介效应显著。意愿是农户行动逻辑的重要条件,尊重农户意愿,是高效推进后期管护的重要保障。后期管护供给准公共物品的效用不可分割性、非排他性与竞争性在很大程度上限制了农户行动响应的内在“自发性”驱动力效应,政府支持的外在“诱发性” 驱动力对农户行为响应发挥着主导作用效应。据此,建议加大政策宣传力度,保障充足的管护经费,搭建农户参与管护的平台,建立后期管护制度体系等,助推农户意愿与行为转化。

关键词: 农地整理, 后期管护, 政府支持, 改进的计划行为理论, 行为意愿, 行为响应

Abstract:

In order to promote the management and maintenance of land consolidation projects (LCPs), and to explore the farmer’s behavior intention (BI) and behavioral response (BR) transformation paths, 475 samples in Huaining Country, Anhui Province, were quantitatively analyzed by strucutral equation modeling (SEM) based on the analytical framework of improved plan behavior theory. It was shown that farmers recognized the positive benefits of the management and maintenance of LCPs. The guarantee rate of irrigation and drainage and the accessibility of field roads were the focus of attention. The external influence from the government and the professional cooperative organization played large role. The lack of confidence of farmers in achieving the goal of management and maintenance of LCPs and capital cost were the prominent obstacle factors. Solution of the bottleneck of capital investment, and establishment of a grassroots organizational structure and improvement of the management and maintenance system were the focus in the government support. The order of the latent variable effects that affected farmer’s BI to BR was subjective norm (SN)<behavior attitude (BA)<perceptual behavior control (PBC)<government support (GS). The farmer’s BR followed the five path of BA→BI→BR, SN→BI→BR, PBC→BI→BR, GS→BI→BR and GS→BR. BI played a mediating role to BR. Thus, respecting the farmer’s will was important for the smooth and continuous promotion of the management and maintenance of LCPs. The inseparability, non-exclusivity and competition of the utility of quasi-public goods in the management and maintenance of LCPs largely limited the effect of the internal “spontaneous” driving force of the farmer’s BR, while GS of the external “induced” driving force played a leading role. It was suggested to increase policy publicity, ensure sufficient funds, build a platform for farmers to participate, and establish a system in the management and maintenance of LCPs, so as to boost the transformation of farmer’s BI to BR.

Key words: land consolidation, management and maintenance, government support, improved planned behavior theory, behavior intention, behavior response

中图分类号:

S-9
F320

蔡俊, 周晓玉. 农户参与农地整理项目后期管护的意愿与行为转化路径——基于安徽省怀宁县4个典型镇的实证分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(6): 1128-1140.

CAI Jun, ZHOU Xiaoyu. Farmer’s behavior intention and behavioral response transformation paths in management and maintenance of land consolidation projects: empirical analysis from four typical towns of Huaining County in Anhui Province, China[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(6): 1128-1140.

图/表 8

参考文献 26

[1]	项锦雯, 蔡俊, 董斌, 等. 可行能力视角下农户参与农地整理规划的意愿与影响检验: 基于安徽寿县4个典型镇的实证分析[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2017,38(12):90-98.
	XIANG J W, CAI J, DONG B, et al. The willingness and the inspection of impact of farmland consolidation planning with farmers’ participation in the perspective of practical ability: an empirical analysis from four typical towns of Shouxian County, Anhui Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2017,38(12):90-98.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	刘敏. 农田水利工程管理体制改革的社区实践及其困境: 基于产权社会学的视角[J]. 农业经济问题, 2015,36(4):78-86.
	LIU M. Community practice and the difficulties of the management system reform of rural small water infrastructures: based on the perspective of social logic of the property[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2015,36(4):78-86.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	李金玉, 杨钢桥, 赵微, 等. 农地整治项目建后管护模式的绩效差异及其原因分析[J]. 资源科学, 2016,38(9):1711-1722.
	LI J Y, YANG G Q, ZHAO W, et al. Performance differences between final management and maintenance modes of rural land consolidation projects and its reasons[J]. Resources Science, 2016,38(9):1711-1722.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	WANG W X, YU L H, ZHOU W, et al. Estimating the mechanism of farmers’ effective participation in Chinese rural land consolidation[J]. China Agricultural Economic Review, 2019,11(1):100-124. DOI URL
[5]	杨丽娜, 何多兴, 杨庆媛. 土地整治后期管护影响因素及保障体系分析: 以三峡库区云阳县为例[J]. 西南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2013,38(5):134-141.
	YANG L N, HE D X, YANG Q Y. An analysis of impact factors and safeguard system on final management and maintenance of land consolidation: a case study of Yunyang County in the Three Gorges reservoir area[J]. Journal of Southwest China Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 2013,38(5):134-141.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	汪文雄, 冯彦飞, 张东丽, 等. 不同模式农地整治的减贫增收效应研究: 基于匹配倍差法估计[J]. 中国土地科学, 2019,33(12):80-88.
	WANG W X, FENG Y F, ZHANG D L, et al. The poverty-reducing and income-increasing effect of rural land consolidation in different modes based on the PSM-DID method[J]. China Land Science, 2019,33(12):80-88.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	赵微, 吴诗嫚. “结构—行为—绩效”框架下农地整理的管护绩效研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2016,25(2):249-256.
	ZHAO W, WU S M. Performance analysis of supervision and maintenance of rural land consolidation: a theoretical framework of structure-conduct-performance[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2016,25(2):249-256.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	周惠, 赵微, 汪飞腾. 农地整理后期管护制度绩效研究: 影响路径及中介效应分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2018,27(11):2629-2639.
	ZHOU H, ZHAO W, WANG F T. Influence path and mediating effect of performance of supervision and maintenance institution for rural land consolidation[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2018,27(11):2629-2639.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	LUO W B, TIMOTHY D J. An assessment of farmers’ satisfaction with land consolidation performance in China[J]. Land Use Policy, 2017,61:501-510. DOI URL
[10]	赵微, 杨钢桥, 李金玉. 交易费用视角下农地整理管护绩效的影响因素研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017,32(9):1505-1516.
	ZHAO W, YANG G Q, LI J Y. Impact factors of supervision and maintenance performance of rural land consolidation: a theoretical and empirical study based on transaction cost theory[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2017,32(9):1505-1516.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	路荣荣, 赵微, 陆昊天, 等. 农民参与农地整理后期管护的态度与意愿研究: 基于“驱动力—状态—响应”的分析框架[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018,32(5):71-77.
	LU R R, ZHAO W, LU H T, et al. Farmers’ attitude and willingness of land consolidation supervision and maintenance based on the “drive-state-response” framework[J]. China Land Science, 2018,32(5):71-77.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	刘洋, 陈英, 张玉娇, 等. 农户参与农地整治的空间特征及其影响因素分析: 以甘肃省河西走廊区为例[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017,29(8):1398-1408.
	LIU Y, CHEN Y, ZHANG Y J, et al. Analysis on spatial characteristics and influence factors of farmers’ participation in land consolidation: a case of Hexi Corridor in Gansu Province[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2017,29(8):1398-1408.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	AJZEN I. The theory of planned behavior[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991,50(2):179-211. DOI URL
[14]	胡伟艳, 李梦燃, 张娇娇, 等. 农户农地生态功能供给行为研究: 基于拓展的计划行为理论[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2019,40(8):156-163.
	HU W Y, LI M R, ZHANG J J, et al. Research on farmers’ supply behavior of agricultural land ecological function: based on extended theory of planned behavior[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2019,40(8):156-163.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	WILLIAMSON O E. Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed[J]. De Economist, 1998,146(1):23-58. DOI URL
[16]	贾小虎, 马恒运, 赵明正, 等. 集体禀赋异质性与小型农田水利公共物品参与式供给[J]. 农业技术经济, 2018 (6):19-31.
	JIA X H, MA H Y, ZHAO M Z, et al. Endowment heterogeneity and participatory supply of public small water conservancy[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2018 (6):19-31.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	BESLEY T, GHATAK M. Public-private partnerships for the provision of public goods: theory and an application to NGOs[J]. Research in Economics, 2017,71(2):356-371. DOI URL
[18]	张东丽, 汪文雄, 王子洋, 等. 农地整治权属调整中农户认知对行为响应的作用机制: 基于改进TPB及多群组SEM[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2020,30(2):32-40.
	ZHANG D L, WANG W X, WANG Z Y, et al. The mechanism of farmers’ cognition on behavior response in property right reallocation in rural land consolidation[J]. China Population,Resources and Environment, 2020,30(2):32-40.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	李子琳, 韩逸, 郭熙, 等. 基于结构方程模型的高安市耕地产能影响因素研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020,32(5):866-877.
	LI Z L, HAN Y, GUO X, et al. Analysis into influencing factors of cultivated land productivity in Gao’an City based on structural equation model[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2020,32(5):866-877.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	方杰, 张敏强, 邱皓政. 中介效应的检验方法和效果量测量: 回顾与展望[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2012,28(1):105-111.
	FANG J, ZHANG M Q, CHIOU H Z. Mediation analysis and effect size measurement: retrospect and prospect[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2012,28(1):105-111.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	吴九兴, 杨钢桥. 农地整理项目农民参与行为的机理研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2014,24(2):102-110.
	WU J X, YANG G Q. Study on mechanization of farmers’ participation behavior in agricultural land consolidation projects[J]. China Population,Resources and Environment, 2014,24(2):102-110.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	王歌, 汪文雄, 毛斌红, 等. 生计资本对农地整治农户有效参与的影响研究: 基于路径分析与组态分析的双重视角[J]. 中国土地科学, 2020,34(3):93-100.
	WANG G, WANG W X, MAO B H, et al. Effect of livelihood capital on farmers’ effective participation in rural land consolidation: a twofold perspective of path and configuration analyses[J]. China Land Science, 2020,34(3):93-100.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	杨昭熙, 杨钢桥, 汪文雄, 等. 社会资本视域下农民参与农地整治项目的行为机理[J]. 水土保持研究, 2017,24(3):288-294.
	YANG Z X, YANG G Q, WANG W X, et al. Mechanism of farmers’ participation behavior in rural land consolidation projects under the perspective of social capital[J]. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2017,24(3):288-294.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	文高辉, 杨钢桥, 张海鑫, 等. 基于支付能力与支付意愿的农地整理项目后期管护农户出资分析[J]. 中国土地科学, 2014,28(10):68-75.
	WEN G H, YANG G Q, ZHANG H X, et al. The analysis of farmers investment in the ex-post management and maintenance of rural land consolidation projects based on ability and willingness to pay[J]. China Land Sciences, 2014,28(10):68-75.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	赵微, 周惠, 杨钢桥, 等. 农民参与农地整理项目建后管护的意愿与行为转化研究: 以河南邓州的调查为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2016,30(3):55-62.
	ZHAO W, ZHOU H, YANG G Q, et al. Farmers’ transformation between willingness and behavior of post land consolidation supervision and maintenance: a case study of Dengzhou, Henan Province[J]. China Land Sciences, 2016,30(3):55-62.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	陈智鑫, 余利红, 汪文雄. 农地整治项目农户有效参与的影响机理[J]. 水土保持通报, 2018,38(5):180-188.
	CHEN Z X, YU L H, WANG W X. Effective participation mechanism of farmers in rural land consolidation project[J]. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018,38(5):180-188.(in Chinese with English abstract)

指标Index	特征Characteristic	频数Frequency	比重Proportion/%
性别Gender	男Man	261	54.9
	女Woman	214	45.1
年龄Year	≥65	118	24.9
	50~64	157	33.1
	40~49	95	19.9
	30~39	66	13.8
	<30	39	8.3
文化程度Education	大专及以上College degree and above	52	11.0
	高中Senior high	135	28.4
	初中 Junior high	155	32.6
	小学及以下Primary and below	133	28.0
家庭成员数量	1~3	138	29.0
Family population	4~7	196	41.2
	8~10	129	27.1
	≥11	12	2.7
社会职务Social position	村干部Village cadre	53	11.1
	合作组织干部Cadre of cooperative organization	39	8.2
	合作组织成员Member of cooperative organization	82	17.3
	未入合作组织农户Not involved in cooperative organization	301	63.4
意愿Behavior intention	不愿意Unwillingness	131	27.6
	不同程度愿意Varying degrees of willingness	344	72.4
行为响应	未响应Not responding	243	51.2
Behavior response	不同程度响应Varying degrees of response	232	48.8

指标Index	特征Characteristic	频数Frequency	比重Proportion/%
性别Gender	男Man	261	54.9
	女Woman	214	45.1
年龄Year	≥65	118	24.9
	50~64	157	33.1
	40~49	95	19.9
	30~39	66	13.8
	<30	39	8.3
文化程度Education	大专及以上College degree and above	52	11.0
	高中Senior high	135	28.4
	初中 Junior high	155	32.6
	小学及以下Primary and below	133	28.0
家庭成员数量	1~3	138	29.0
Family population	4~7	196	41.2
	8~10	129	27.1
	≥11	12	2.7
社会职务Social position	村干部Village cadre	53	11.1
	合作组织干部Cadre of cooperative organization	39	8.2
	合作组织成员Member of cooperative organization	82	17.3
	未入合作组织农户Not involved in cooperative organization	301	63.4
意愿Behavior intention	不愿意Unwillingness	131	27.6
	不同程度愿意Varying degrees of willingness	344	72.4
行为响应	未响应Not responding	243	51.2
Behavior response	不同程度响应Varying degrees of response	232	48.8

潜变量 Latent variable	一致性系数 Consistency coefficient	KMO	测量变量 Observation variable	平均值 Mean	标准差 Standard deviation
BI:行为意愿 Behavior intention	0.872	0.736	BI₁:愿意参与后期管护 Willing to participate in the management and maintenance	3.45	1.09
			BI₂:建议他人参与后期管护 Advise others to participate in the management and maintenance	3.62	1.23
			BI₃:愿意劝阻毁损Be willing to discourage damage	3.17	0.99
BR:行为响应	0.835	0.812	BR₁:设施管护积极程度Facility management activity level	2.37	0.89
Behavioral response			BR₂:纠纷调处Dispute mediation	2.69	1.34
			BR₃:参与日常巡查Participate in daily inspection	2.78	1.08
BA:行为态度	0.791	0.712	BA₁:田块规模效益Field economies of scale	2.68	0.87
Behavior attitude			BA₂:灌排保证率Guarantee rate of irrigation and drainage	4.52	0.97
			BA₃:田间道路通达度Accessibility of field road	4.39	0.82
			BA₄:民主治理度提高Improvement in democratic governance	2.79	0.99
			BA₅:田园风光Idyllic scenery	2.85	0.89
SN:主观规范	0.839	0.859	SN₁:政府部门行动倡导Advocacy from government	4.36	0.74
Subjective norm			SN₂:村委会意见Opinion of village committee	2.87	0.89
			SN₃:专业合作组织的主张 Advocate from professional cooperative organizations	4.51	0.81
			SN₄:家庭成员的主张Claim from family members	3.22	0.87
			SN₅:集体经济组织成员的主张 Advocate of collective economic organization members	3.17	0.78
PBC:知觉行为控制 Perceptual	0.875	0.837	PBC₁:达成后期管护目标认知 To achieve cognition of the management and maintenance goal	4.07	0.92
behavior control			PBC₂:政策理解能力Policy understanding	3.14	0.86
			PBC₃:信息获取渠道Access to information	2.86	0.83
			PBC₄:承受的时间成本Bearable cost of time	2.87	0.91
			PBC₅:承受的资金成本Bearable cost of capital	4.36	0.87
GS:政府支持	0.821	0.793	GS₁:资金投入瓶颈Capital input bottleneck	4.41	0.74
Government support			GS₂:政府加大政策宣传力度Intensified policy publicity of government	3.24	0.86
			GS₃:提供后期管护技术培训 Provide technical training for the management and maintenance	3.42	1.14
			GS₄:建立基层组织结构Establish a grassroots organizational structure	3.91	0.72
			GS₅:建立后期管护制度体系 Establish the management and maintenance system	4.25	1.01

潜变量 Latent variable	一致性系数 Consistency coefficient	KMO	测量变量 Observation variable	平均值 Mean	标准差 Standard deviation
BI:行为意愿 Behavior intention	0.872	0.736	BI₁:愿意参与后期管护 Willing to participate in the management and maintenance	3.45	1.09
			BI₂:建议他人参与后期管护 Advise others to participate in the management and maintenance	3.62	1.23
			BI₃:愿意劝阻毁损Be willing to discourage damage	3.17	0.99
BR:行为响应	0.835	0.812	BR₁:设施管护积极程度Facility management activity level	2.37	0.89
Behavioral response			BR₂:纠纷调处Dispute mediation	2.69	1.34
			BR₃:参与日常巡查Participate in daily inspection	2.78	1.08
BA:行为态度	0.791	0.712	BA₁:田块规模效益Field economies of scale	2.68	0.87
Behavior attitude			BA₂:灌排保证率Guarantee rate of irrigation and drainage	4.52	0.97
			BA₃:田间道路通达度Accessibility of field road	4.39	0.82
			BA₄:民主治理度提高Improvement in democratic governance	2.79	0.99
			BA₅:田园风光Idyllic scenery	2.85	0.89
SN:主观规范	0.839	0.859	SN₁:政府部门行动倡导Advocacy from government	4.36	0.74
Subjective norm			SN₂:村委会意见Opinion of village committee	2.87	0.89
			SN₃:专业合作组织的主张 Advocate from professional cooperative organizations	4.51	0.81
			SN₄:家庭成员的主张Claim from family members	3.22	0.87
			SN₅:集体经济组织成员的主张 Advocate of collective economic organization members	3.17	0.78
PBC:知觉行为控制 Perceptual	0.875	0.837	PBC₁:达成后期管护目标认知 To achieve cognition of the management and maintenance goal	4.07	0.92
behavior control			PBC₂:政策理解能力Policy understanding	3.14	0.86
			PBC₃:信息获取渠道Access to information	2.86	0.83
			PBC₄:承受的时间成本Bearable cost of time	2.87	0.91
			PBC₅:承受的资金成本Bearable cost of capital	4.36	0.87
GS:政府支持	0.821	0.793	GS₁:资金投入瓶颈Capital input bottleneck	4.41	0.74
Government support			GS₂:政府加大政策宣传力度Intensified policy publicity of government	3.24	0.86
			GS₃:提供后期管护技术培训 Provide technical training for the management and maintenance	3.42	1.14
			GS₄:建立基层组织结构Establish a grassroots organizational structure	3.91	0.72
			GS₅:建立后期管护制度体系 Establish the management and maintenance system	4.25	1.01

检验量 Inspection	适拟合优度统计指标 Adaptation index	统计值 Actual fit	标准值 Judging criteria
绝对拟合优度指标	χ²/df	2.275	<3.00
Absolute fit index	GFI	0.935	>0.90
	AGFI	0.968	>0.90
	RMR	0.042	<0.08
增值拟合优度指标	NFI	0.937	>0.90
Value-added adaptation index	RFI	0.924	>0.90
精简拟合优度指标	PGFI	0.801	>0.50
Simple adaptation index	PNFI	0.704	>0.50

农户参与农地整理项目后期管护的意愿与行为转化路径——基于安徽省怀宁县4个典型镇的实证分析

Farmer’s behavior intention and behavioral response transformation paths in management and maintenance of land consolidation projects: empirical analysis from four typical towns of Huaining County in Anhui Province, China

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 26

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

潜变量 Latent variable	测量变量 Measurement variable	标准化载荷系数 Standardized load factor	潜变量 Latent variable	测量变量 Measurement variable	标准化载荷系数 Standardized load factor
BI	BI₁	0.878^***	BR	BR₁	0.812^***
	BI₂	0.835^***		BR₂	0.775^**
	BI₃	0.765^**		BR₃	0.675^**
BA	BA₁	0.705^**	PBC	PBC₁	0.857^***
	BA₂	0.871^***		PBC₂	0.685^**
	BA₃	0.887^***		PBC₃	0.696^**
	BA₄	0.693^***		PBC₄	0.708^***
	BA₅	0.722^**		PBC₅	0.873^***
SN	SN₁	0.881^***	GS	GS₁	0.864^***
	SN₂	0.665^**		GS₂	0.665^***
	SN₃	0.895^***		GS₃	0.722^***
	SN₄	0.691^**		GS₄	0.814^***
	SN₅	0.708^**		GS₅	0.865^***

路径 Path	标准化路径系数 Standardized path coefficient	假说检验 Hypothesis testing
BA→BI	0.252^***	证实H1 Testify H1
BA→BR	0.038	证伪H2 Falsify H2
SN→BI	0.154^***	证实H3 Testify H3
SN→BR	-0.008	证伪H4 Falsify H4
PBC→BI	0.263^***	证实H5 Testify H5
PBC→BR	-0.042	证伪H6 Falsify H6
GS→BI	0.287^**	证实H7 Testify H7
GS→BR	0.456^***	证实H8 Testify H8
GI→BR	0.147^***	证实H10Testify H10

效应类型Effect type	BA	SN	PBC	BI	GS
直接效应Direct effect	—	—	—	0.147^**	0.456^**
间接效应Indirect effect	0.036^**(0.037)	0.021^**(0.048)	0.038^**(0.021)	—	0.042^**
总效应Total effect	0.036^**(0.037)	0.021^**(0.048)	0.038^**(0.021)	0.147^**	0.498^**

[1]	陈吉平, 刘国强, 刘宇荧, 傅新红. 农民专业合作社规范化评价——来自四川省果蔬类合作社的实证[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(6): 1117-1127.
[2]	李震华, 顾益康, 刘龙青. 准公共产品视域下农民培训管理制度创新——基于浙江农民大学的调查[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(6): 1141-1148.
[3]	苗苗, 迮寒露, 吴永华. 浙江省耕地利用转型时空演变特征分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(4): 753-760.
[4]	王丽英, 丁姝羽, 刘后平. 农村产业融合与农民收入增长——基于空间效应与门槛效应的实证研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(4): 761-776.
[5]	金俪雯, 刘增金, 刘爱军. 猪肉销售商可追溯体系参与行为及其影响因素——基于北京、上海、济南3市636位销售商的实证分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(3): 541-552.
[6]	张莎莎, 郑循刚, 张必忠. 交通基础设施、空间溢出与农村减贫——基于面板数据的实证研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(3): 553-564.
[7]	文长存, 孙玉竹. 农户对区域指数类农业附加险购买意愿的实证研究——以河北棉花种植户为例[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(2): 346-354.
[8]	富丽莎, 秦涛, 潘焕学, 邓晶. 森林保险保费补贴政策的林业产出规模效应实证分析——基于双重差分模型与事件研究模型[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(2): 355-368.
[9]	李海涛, 傅琳琳, 黄祖辉, 朋文欢. 农业适度规模经营的多种形式与展望[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(1): 161-169.
[10]	董艳敏, 严奉宪. 中国农业高质量发展的时空特征与协调度[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(1): 170-182.
[11]	胡晨沛, 李辉尚, 郭昕竺. 1978—2017年中国区域农业经济发展差距与结构特征[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(12): 2253-2260.
[12]	李梦璐, 张社梅. 媒体负面报道对蜂蜜消费预期变动的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(12): 2282-2290.
[13]	高芸, 赵芝俊. 进口蜂蜜对我国蜂产品市场的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(11): 2088-2093.
[14]	程亚, 李欣月, 张春, 张社梅. 农业经理人压力与合作社绩效关系的实证研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(11): 2094-2102.
[15]	黄河啸, 李宝值, 朱奇彪, 杨良山, 吴敬华. 高素质农民培育的浙江实践——以浙江农艺师学院为例[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(10): 1890-1898.