The Effect of Non-Cognitive Ability on Farmer’s Ecological Protection of Farmland: Evidence from Major Tea Producing Areas in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis
2.1. The Effect of NCA on Farmer’s EPF
2.2. Influence Mechanism of NCA on Farmer’s EPF
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Variable Selection and Descriptive Statistics
3.2.1. EPF
3.2.2. NCA
3.2.3. Mediating Variables and Control Variables
3.3. Methods
3.3.1. Benchmark Model
3.3.2. The Mediation Effect Model
4. Results
4.1. The Effect of NCA on Farmer’s EPF
4.2. Influence Mechanism Analysis
4.3. Heterogeneity Analysis
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ke, S.; Zhu, L.; Yuan, H. Economic Interpretation and Policy Implications of “Two Mountains” Theory: A Case of Completely Stopping Commercial Logging of Natural Forests. China Rural Econ. 2018, 12, 52–66. [Google Scholar]
- Wan, B.; Tian, L.; Zhu, N.; Gu, L.; Zhang, G. A new endogenous growth model for green low-carbon behavior and its comprehensive effects. Appl. Energy 2018, 230, 1332–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, J. Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. Am. J. Sociol. 1999, 2, 366–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schultz, T. Transforming Traditional Agriculture; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Tu, W.; Peng, S. Why do low-and middle-skilled workers get higher income?—Based on the perspective of new human capital. Popul. Econ. 2019, 1, 110–122. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, C.; Ma, Y. How does human capital and its adaptability to technological progress affect agricultural planting structure. China Rural Econ. 2020, 4, 34–55. [Google Scholar]
- Borghans, L.; Duckworth, A.; Heckman, J. The economics and psychology of personality traits. J. Hum. Resour. 2008, 43, 972–1059. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, H.; Li, T. The Influence of Personality Characteristics on Labor Wages: An Empirical Study Based on the Chinese Enterprise-Employee Matching Survey (CEES). Econ. Resear. 2017, 52, 171–186. [Google Scholar]
- Heckman, J.; Stixrud, J.; Urzua, S. The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior. J. Labor. Econ. 2006, 3, 411–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bowles, S.; Gintis, H. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Heckman, J. The Importance of Noncognitive Skills: Lessons from the GED Testing Program. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 2, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, B. Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. J. Res. Pers. 2009, 43, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, C.; Zhang, C. Non-cognitive ability and wage income. World Econ. 2019, 3, 143–167. [Google Scholar]
- Cunha, F.; Heckman, J. Formulating, identifying and estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. J. Hum. Resour. 2008, 43, 738–782. [Google Scholar]
- Becker, A.; Deckers, T.; Dohmen, T.; Falk, A.; Kosse, F. The relationship between economic preferences and psychological personality measures. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2012, 4, 453–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gow, I.; Kaplan, S.; Larcker, D. CEO Personality and Firm Policies; Chicago Booth Research Paper, No.16-13; NEBR: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bowles, S.; Osborne, G. Incentive-enhancing preferences: Personality, behavior, and earnings. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rauch, A.; Frese, M. Let’ s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psy. 2007, 16, 353–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caliendo, M.; Fossen, F.; Kritikos, A. Personality characteristics and the decision to become and stay self-employed. Small Bus. Econ. 2014, 42, 787–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, B.; Mcwilliams, J. Perception discriminats of cognitive perception abilities. J. Psychol. 1976, 94, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B. A Study on the Influencing Factors of Chinese Elderly Internet Use from the Perspective of Multidimensional Interpretation. Popul. Dev. 2021, 3, 98–106. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, X. Empirical study on internal influencing factors of farmer households’ green production behavior in rural revitalization strategy. J. Econ. Surv. 2019, 36, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Sun, D.; Wang, H.; Wang, X.; Yu, G.; Zhao, X. An evaluation of China’s agricultural green production: 1978–2017. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Fan, Z.; Jiang, G. Addressing the Differences in Farmers’ Willingness and Behavior Regarding Developing Green Agriculture: Case Study in Xichuan County, China. Land 2021, 10, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Zou, L. Morrison, A.M.; Wu, F. Do Situations Influence the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors of National Park Visitors? Survey from Shennongjia National Park, Hubei Province, China. Land 2021, 10, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Li, S.; Guo, Y. Research on the influencing factors of farmers’ pro-environmental behavior based on the theory of conservation motivation: Taking straw treatment as an example. Arid. Area Res. Environ. 2019, 33, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Q.; Zhang, J.B.; Jiang, L. Assessment and Difference Analysis of Farmers’ Livelihood Assets Based on Agricultural Environmental Protection Technology: A Case Study of Agricultural Waste Recycling Technology in Wuhan, Hubei and Suizhou. Res. Sci. 2016, 38, 888–899. [Google Scholar]
- Verhaegen, P.; Salthouse, T. Meta-analyses of Age-cognition Relations in Adulthood: Estimates of Linear and Nonlinear Age Effects and Structural Models. Psychol. Bull. 1997, 122, 231–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Ao, Y.B.; Xu, H.; Zhou, Z.L.; Wang, Y.; Yang, L.C. Determinants of Farmers’ Intention of Straw Recycling: A Comparison Analysis Based on Different Pro-Environmental Publicity Modes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, H.; Shen, N.; Ying, H.; Wang, Q. Can environmental regulation directly promote green innovation behavior: Based on situation of industrial agglomeration. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 128044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunha, F.; Heckman, J. The Technology of Skill Formation. Am. Econ. Rev. 2007, 2, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dahl, R. Adolescent brain development: A period of vulnerabilities and opportunities: Keynote address. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2004, 1021, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richards, J. Three Essays on Noncognitive Skills and Youth Education and Labor Outcomes; The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Luthans, F.; Luthans, K.; Luthans, B. Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Bus. Hori. 2004, 47, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sulemana, I.; James, H.S., Jr. Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 98, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sulemana, I. Are happier people more willing to make income sacrifices to protect the environment? Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 127, 447–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abadi Ghadim, A.K.; Pannell, D.J.; Burton, M.P. Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Agric. Econ. 2005, 33, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandiera, O.; Rasul, I. Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique. Econ. J. 2006, 116, 869–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elaine, M.; Huang, J. Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China. J. Dev. Econ. 2013, 103, 202–215. [Google Scholar]
- Avolio, B.; Gardner, W.; Walumbwa, F. Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic eaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 2004, 15, 801–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hmieleski, K.; Baron, R. Entrepreneurs’ Optimism and New Venture Performance: A social Cognitive Perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 52, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luo, S.; Chen, W.; Jiang, X. Non-cognitive abilities and personal entrepreneurial choices: Theoretical and empirical evidence. Labor. Econ. Res. 2020, 8, 101–119. [Google Scholar]
- Duncan, G.; Ziol-Guest, K.; Kalil, A. Early-childhood poverty and adult attainment, behavior, and health. Child. Dev. 2010, 81, 306–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conley, T.; Udry, C. Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 35–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borghans, L.; Golsteyn, B.; Heckman, J. Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2009, 7, 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parise, G.; Peijnenburg, K. Noncognitive abilities and financial distress: Evidence from a representative household panel. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2019, 32, 3884–3919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.; Mccrae, R. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI); Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, H.; Huang, Y. Influencing factors of farmers’ adoption of pro-environmental agricultural technologies in China: Meta-analysis. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wossen, T.; Berger, T.; Di Falco, S. Social Capital, Risk Preference and Adoption of Improved Farm Land Management Practices in Ethiopia. Agric. Econ. 2015, 46, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, Z.; Zhang, L.; Hou, J. Mediation Effect Test Procedure and Its Application. Acta Psychol. 2004, 36, 614–620. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Yang, W.; Wang, J. The influence of television media on the cognitive and non-cognitive levels of the elderly: Based on the perspective of new human capital theory. Popul. Dev. 2018, 24, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, D.; Leighton, L. Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. Am. Econ. Rev. 1989, 79, 519–535. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, H.; Seibert, S.; Lumpkin, G. The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 381–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Item | Content | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|
EPF | CR | Yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.192 | 0.394 |
OF | Yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.753 | 0.431 | |
NCA | LS | Satisfaction with your life a | 3.382 | 0.669 |
IV | Do you frequently interact with village cadres and cooperatives a | 2.568 | 1.088 | |
IG | Do you frequently interact with government officials a | 2.041 | 1.014 | |
IA | Actively learn the new technical knowledge a | 3.184 | 1.034 | |
SE | Master the information channel of ecological protection technology of farmland a | 2.839 | 0.861 | |
CA | Your family’s income in the village b | 2.950 | 0.724 | |
AT | The adoption of ecological protection technology of farmland has great social benefits, and I am very proud of it a | 3.806 | 0.787 | |
OI | As long as you work hard, life will get better and better a | 3.240 | 0.814 | |
TI | Believe that the way is better than the difficulty a | 3.671 | 0.705 | |
MV | SC | The number of households that are usually close to each other/Household | 24.276 | 29.685 |
IC | Number of channels for obtaining tea prices/individual | 2.405 | 0.757 | |
VP | Compared with the price benefit of tea, it is worthwhile to pay for the replacement technology of farmland ecological protection a | 3.016 | 0.934 | |
CV | AH | age | 57.381 | 10.276 |
EL | Education level of the head of the household. Elementary school and below = 1; junior high school = 2; high school = 3; high school or above = 4 | 1.408 | 0.620 | |
AA | Is scientific fertilization important a | 3.941 | 0.530 | |
TP | Whether to participate in green production training. Yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.524 | 0.499 | |
TA | year | 24.387 | 14.991 | |
AL | people | 1.942 | 0.721 | |
BS | mu | 6.176 | 7.802 | |
TR | million | 9.702 | 13.153 | |
GS | Green fertilizers such as organic fertilizers can be distributed in time a | 2.821 | 0.975 | |
NE | Do neighbors adopt ecological protection of farmland technology c. | 2.928 | 0.995 | |
DC | km | 33.574 | 18.905 | |
SX | Yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.394 | 0.488 | |
SC | Yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.306 | 0.461 |
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CR | OF | CR | OF | CR | OF | |
NCA | 0.795 *** (0.119) | 0.568 *** (0.107) | ||||
LS | 0.032 (0.100) | 0.054 (0.083) | ||||
IV | 0.001 (0.073) | 0.121 * (0.063) | ||||
IG | 0.172 ** (0.075) | 0.128 * (0.073) | ||||
IA | 0.138 ** (0.068) | 0.130 ** (0.055) | ||||
SE | 0.154 ** (0.069) | 0.047 (0.064) | ||||
CA | 0.155* (0.092) | 0.019 (0.080) | ||||
AT | 0.181 ** (0.082) | 0.071 (0.067) | ||||
OI | 0.117 (0.077) | 0.055 (0.067) | ||||
TI | 0.172 * (0.093) | 0.028 (0.075) | ||||
AH | 0.007 (0.005) | −0.004 (0.004) | 0.008 (0.005) | −0.004 (0.004) | 0.010 * (0.005) | −0.004 (0.004) |
EL | 0.038 (0.088) | −0.019 (0.080) | 0.001 (0.091) | −0.042 (0.081) | −0.009 (0.093) | −0.032 (0.082) |
AA | 0.239 ** (0.110) | 0.207 ** (0.089) | 0.155 (0.117) | 0.152 * (0.090) | 0.160 (0.120) | 0.174 * (0.092) |
TP | 0.005 (0.114) | 0.312 ** (0.099) | 0.200 (0.123) | 0.182* (0.103) | 0.225 (0.136) | 0.122 (0.111) |
AL | −0.094 (0.079) | 0.166 ** (0.070) | −0.160 (0.082) | 0.159 ** (0.070) | −0.144* (0.084) | 0.164 ** (0.071) |
TP | 0.234 ** (0.084) | 0.012 (0.064) | 0.230 ** (0.086) | 0.017 (0.065) | 0.218 ** (0.087) | 0.014 (0.065) |
BS | −0.013 (0.075) | −0.036 (0.067) | −0.065 (0.078) | −0.084 (0.069) | −0.075 (0.079) | −0.083 (0.070) |
TR | 0.002 (0.004) | 0.010 ** (0.004) | −0.001 (0.004) | 0.008 * (0.004) | −0.002 (0.004) | 0.008 * (0.004) |
GB | 0.262 *** (0.060) | 0.142 ** (0.052) | 0.177 ** (0.064) | 0.088 (0.054) | 0.176 ** (0.065) | 0.094 * (0.055) |
NE | 0.349 *** (0.064) | 0.466 *** (0.053) | 0.281 *** (0.067) | 0.416 *** (0.055) | 0.272 *** (0.070) | 0.443 *** (0.057) |
DC | 0.431 *** (0.094) | 0.067 (0.087) | 0.404 *** (0.098) | 0.047 (0.088) | 0.421 *** (0.099) | 0.065 (0.090) |
SX | −0.181 (0.142) | −0.158 (0.143) | −0.317 ** (0.150) | −0.193 (0.146) | −0.250 (0.157) | −0.238 (0.154) |
SC | −1.214 *** (0.184) | 0.215 (0.149) | −1.232 *** (0.189) | 0.228 (0.150) | −1.159 *** (0.200) | 0.207 (0.158) |
Constant term | −5.883 *** (0.873) | −2.304 *** (0.712) | −4.750 *** (0.923) | −1.536 ** (0.733) | −8.314 *** (1.070) | −2.954 *** (0.828) |
N | 964 | 964 | 964 | |||
p | 0.241 * (0.083) | 0.143 * (0.086) | 0.173 * (0.088) | |||
Likelihood-ratio test | 8.591 ** | 2.770 * | 3.875 ** | |||
Wald chi2 | 275.78 *** | 324.89 *** | 333.80 *** | |||
Log-likelihood | −822.900 | −786.565 | −778.388 |
Variable | CR | SC | CR | IC | CR | VP | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NCA | 0.221 *** (0.022) | 0.249 *** (0.046) | 0.210 *** (0.023) | 0.605 *** (0.041) | 0.179 *** (0.025) | 0.484 *** (0.053) | 0.197 *** (0.023) |
MV | 0.046 ** (0.015) | 0.070 *** (0.017) | 0.050 *** (0.013) | ||||
CV | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Constant term | 0.186 *** (0.026) | 2.523 *** (0.055) | 0.067 (0.047) | 2.449 *** (0.048) | 0.013 (0.050) | 2.755 *** (0.062) | 0.046 (0.046) |
MV’s significance | 0.011 ** (0.004) | 0.042 *** (0.011) | 0.024 *** (0.007) | ||||
Mediation effect of proportion/% | 5.27 | 19.27 | 11.09 |
Variable | OF | SC | OF | IC | OF | VP | OF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NCA | 0.208 *** (0.025) | 0.249 *** (0.046) | 0.198 *** (0.025) | 0.605 *** (0.041) | 0.167 *** (0.027) | 0.484 *** (0.053) | 0.188 *** (0.026) |
MV | 0.038 ** (0.017) | 0.070 *** (0.019) | 0.041 ** (0.015) | ||||
CV | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Constant term | 0.743 *** (0.029) | 2.523 *** (0.055) | 0.645 *** (0.052) | 2.449 *** (0.048) | 0.570 *** (0.056) | 2.755 *** (0.062) | 0.629 *** (0.051) |
MV’s significance | 0.009 ** (0.004) | 0.042 *** (0.012) | 0.019 ** (0.007) | ||||
Mediation effect of proportion/% | 4.62 | 20.48 | 9.59 |
Variable | CR | OF | CR | OF | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low Income | High Income | Low Income | High Income | Young Age | Old Age | Young Age | Old Age | |
LS | −0.030 | 0.274 | 0.058 | 0.037 | 0.003 | 0.028 | −0.049 | 0.187 |
(0.123) | (0.208) | (0.096) | (0.200) | (0.140) | (0.152) | (0.118) | (0.121) | |
IV | 0.011 | 0.019 | 0.153 ** | 0.120 | 0.029 | 0.061 | 0.079 | 0.209 ** |
(0.096) | (0.130) | (0.077) | (0.131) | (0.102) | (0.111) | (0.087) | (0.098) | |
IG | 0.197 ** | 0.122 | 0.120 | 0.150 | 0.168 * | 0.214 * | 0.210 ** | 0.022 |
(0.100) | (0.131) | (0.087) | (0.151) | (0.101) | (0.122) | (0.099) | (0.112) | |
IA | 0.264 ** | 0.015 | 0.160 ** | 0.103 | 0.096 | 0.237 ** | 0.041 | 0.256 ** |
(0.091) | (0.113) | (0.067) | (0.110) | (0.093) | (0.110) | (0.074) | (0.088) | |
SE | 0.245 ** | 0.013 | 0.040 | 0.342 ** | 0.217 ** | 0.091 | 0.150 * | −0.078 |
(0.092) | (0.115) | (0.078) | (0.128) | (0.098) | (0.103) | (0.090) | (0.094) | |
CA | 0.072 | 0.308 * | −0.078 | 0.192 | 0.114 | 0.165 | 0.122 | 0.188 |
(0.121) | (0.164) | (0.096) | (0.172) | (0.124) | (0.151) | (0.110) | (0.125) | |
AT | 0.407 *** | 0.049 | −0.131 | 0.069 | 0.176 | 0.187 | 0.024 | −0.163 |
(0.114) | (0.134) | (0.080) | (0.142) | (0.118) | (0.121) | (0.097) | (0.098) | |
OI | 0.205 * | 0.029 | 0.021 | 0.183 | 0.032 | 0.232 * | 0.115 | −0.021 |
(0.106) | (0.129) | (0.081) | (0.136) | (0.109) | (0.120) | (0.094) | (0.101) | |
TI | 0.142 | 0.186 | 0.112 | −0.132 | 0.121 | 0.200 | 0.040 | 0.045 |
(0.120) | (0.164) | (0.089) | (0.158) | (0.133) | (0.142) | (0.106) | (0.113) | |
CV | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Constant term | −9.957 *** | −7.402 *** | −3.510 *** | −2.519 | −8.997 *** | −6.323 *** | −3.126 ** | −3.425 ** |
(1.537) | (1.844) | (0.986) | (1.970) | (1.408) | (1.395) | (1.009) | (1.082) | |
N | 633 | 331 | 633 | 331 | 528 | 436 | 528 | 436 |
LR chi2 | 212.35 | 87.22 | 126.28 | 96.69 | 164.65 | 122.39 | 104.79 | 105.30 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.354 | 0.253 | 0.169 | 0.300 | 0.307 | 0.298 | 0.184 | 0.207 |
Log-likelihood | −193.818 | −128.465 | −310.066 | −112.755 | −185.178 | −143.600 | −231.807 | −200.932 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, X.; Ma, Y.; Li, H.; Xue, C. The Effect of Non-Cognitive Ability on Farmer’s Ecological Protection of Farmland: Evidence from Major Tea Producing Areas in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7598. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137598
Wang X, Ma Y, Li H, Xue C. The Effect of Non-Cognitive Ability on Farmer’s Ecological Protection of Farmland: Evidence from Major Tea Producing Areas in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(13):7598. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137598
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Xiaohuan, Yifei Ma, Hua Li, and Caixia Xue. 2022. "The Effect of Non-Cognitive Ability on Farmer’s Ecological Protection of Farmland: Evidence from Major Tea Producing Areas in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13: 7598. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137598