A Study on the Mechanism of Female Participation in Rural Development of Yunnan on Their Capacity Building for Sustainable Development—Based on Cognitive, Emotional and Behavioural Perspectives
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Poverty and the Feminisation of Poverty
1.2. Knowing and Acting Theory
1.3. Capability Theory
1.4. Theory of Capacity Building and Empowerment
2. Hypothesis on the Mechanism of the Impact of Rural Development Participation on Building Women’s Capacity for Sustainable Development
2.1. Interaction Hypothesis of Rural Development Participation Indicators
2.2. Hypothesis of the Impact of Rural Development Participation on Capacity Building for Sustainable Development
2.3. Influence of External Environment Assumptions
3. An Empirical Study on the Impact Mechanism of Rural Development Participation on Building the Sustainable Development Capacity of Rural Women
3.1. Introduction to the Research Site and Questionnaire Distribution
3.2. Questionnaire Content and Question Codes
3.2.1. Rural Development Participation Indicator Question Items
3.2.2. External Environment Indicators Question Items
3.2.3. Sustainable Development Capacity Building Indicators Question Item
3.3. Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Household Demographic Characteristics
3.4. Scale Reliability Test
3.4.1. Analysis of Revision Scale Reliability Test
- (1)
- Reliability test
- (2)
- Exploratory factor analysis
- (3)
- Validation factor analysis
3.4.2. Revision Scale Reliability Test
- (1)
- Validation factor analysis of the participation index scale
- (2)
- Validation factor analysis of the sustainability capacity scale
- (3)
- Validation factor analysis of the external environment scale
3.5. Empirical Analysis and Hypothesis Testing
3.5.1. Correlation Analysis and Differential Validity
3.5.2. Analysis of Variability of Indicators before and after Participation
3.5.3. Direct Action Mechanism Study
Mechanism of the Role of Cognitive Involvement and Affective Involvement on Behavioural Involvement
Mechanism of the Role of Behavioural Participation on Sustainability
3.5.4. Impact Study of the Moderating Role of the External Environment
Test of the Moderating Role of the External Environment between Behavioural Involvement and Economic Dimensions
Testing the Moderating Role of External Environment between Behavioural Engagement and Human Capital
Test of the Moderating Role of the External Environment between Behavioural Involvement and Social Networks
Examination of the Moderating Role of the External Environment between Behavioural Involvement and Family Roles
4. Structural Equation Model Testing
4.1. Schematic Diagram of the Structural Equation Model
4.2. Model of the Impact of Rural Development Participation on Human Capital
4.3. Model of the Impact of Rural Development Participation on Social Networks
4.4. Model of the Impact of Rural Development Participation on Household Roles
5. Analysis of the Results of the Empirical Study
6. Results Model Policy Recommendations
6.1. Policy Recommendations for Enhancing Rural Women’s Ability to Poverty Eradicate on a Sustainable Basis
6.1.1. Improving the External Environment for Income Generation and Wealth Creation
6.1.2. Enhancing the Capacity for Sustainable Development
6.2. Improving the Participation Mechanism for Rural Women’s Income Enhancement and Wealth Creation
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sui, Y.; Ahuru, R.R.; Huang, K.; Answer, M.K.; Osabohien, R. Household Socioeconomic Status and Antenatal Care Utilization Among Women in the Reproductive-Age. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 34589464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis; IDS Working Paper No. 72; Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex: Brighton, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Sen, A. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Townsend. Poverty in Britain: An Enquiry into the Economic Resources and Standard of Living of Households; Alan Ryan and Bacon Books: London, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J. Women on the Margins and in Difficulties: A Social and Cultural Analysis of Women’s Poverty. Women’s Stud. 2003, 3, 50–54. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, D. Research on Poverty of Ethnic Minority Women under the Perspective of Gender. Gansu J. Theory 2011, 8, 79–84+106. [Google Scholar]
- Frijda, N.H. The Place of Appraisal in Emotions. Cogn. Emot. 1993, 7, 115–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanawattanachai, Y. Development of Transitive Memory Systems and Collective Mind in Virtual Freams. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2001, 15, 187–208. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, M.; Liu, A. Feasibility and precision poverty alleviation: An analytical framework. J. Beijing Adm. Coll. 2017, 3, 44–50. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, W. New ideas of precision poverty alleviation in China under the vision of viability. Northwest Ethn. Stud. 2017, 5, 233–238. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S. Empowerment: A new perspective on social work theory and practice. Sociol. Res. 2003, 4, 70–82. [Google Scholar]
- Solomon, B.B. Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed Communities; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1976; Volume 38. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Z. Research on Mechanisms of Rural Women’s Empowerment and Participation. Grad. Sch. Chin. Acad. Soc. Sci. 2014, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Lv, Q.; Zhang, S. Research on the capacity building of social organisations under the perspective of capacity enhancement—A case study of Youth Dot Dot Love Port in Jiangyin City, Jiangsu Province. J. Guangdong Univ. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2014, 14, 56–60. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, S. A preliminary study on capacity building of rural left-behind women under the perspective of empowerment. Work. Leg. World Next 2015, 7, 266–267. [Google Scholar]
- Abraham, A.Y.; Ohemeng, F.N.A.; Ohemeng, W. Female labour force participation: Evidence from Ghana. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2017, 44, 1489–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravallion, M.; Chen, S. Chinas (Uneven) Progress Against Poverty. J. Dev. Econ. 2007, 82, 1–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruwanpura, K.N.; Hughes, A. Empowered spaces? Management articulations of gendered spaces in apparel factories in Karachi. Gend. Place Cult. 2016, 23, 1270–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yokying, P.; Lambrecht, I. Landownership and the gender gap in agriculture: Insights from northern Ghana. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 105012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bair, J. On difference and capital: Gender and the globalization of production. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 2010, 36, 203–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, F. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Sachs, W. The sustainable development goals and Laudato si’: Varieties of post-development? In The Development Dictionary; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; pp. 1360–2241. [Google Scholar]
- Branisa, B.; Klasen, S.; Ziegler, M. Gender inequality in social institutions and gendered development outcomes. World Dev. 2013, 45, 252–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, R.; Conway, G. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Centur; IDS Discussion Paper 296; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- David, I.; David, E.G.; Okolie, U.C. University education and its impact on human capital development in Nigeria. Studi Sulla Form. 2021, 24, 113–125. [Google Scholar]
- Ju, P.; Answer, M.K.; Osabohien, R.; Ochuba, O.; Ahuru, R.R.; Ashraf, J. Trade Openness, Foreign Direct Investment and Sustainable Agriculture in Africa. Probl. Ekorozwoju 2022, 17, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, B. Dispossession and the Depletion of Social Reproduction. Antipode 2018, 50, 142–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthew, O.; Osabohien, R.; Lakhani, K.H.; Aderounmu, B.; Osadolor, N.E.; Adediran, O.; Mabinuori, O.; Igharo, A.E. Women engagement in agriculture and human capital development in developing countries: An African sub-regional analysis. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0277519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguyen, T.T.; Do, T.L.; Buhler, D.; Hartje, R.; Grote, U. Rural livelihoods and environmental resource dependence in Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 120, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontana, M.; Wood, A. Modelling the effects of trade on women, at work and at home. World Dev. 2013, 28, 1173–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dimensionality | Secondary Dimension | Title Number | Title | Assignment |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cognitive Engagement | Benefit Perception | RZCY1 | Whether the family’s standard of living has improved | Yes = 1, No = 0 |
RZCY2 | Medical Assistance Help Degree | Greatly negative impact = 1, Negatively impacted = 2, Not helpful = 3, Fairly helpful = 4, Very helpful = 5 | ||
RZCY3 | Income Enhancement Ease | Difficult = 1, Less difficult = 2, Achievable = 3, Easier to achieve = 4, Easy to achieve = 5 | ||
RZCY4 | Household income and expenditure impact | No effect = 1, slight = 2, moderate = 3, large = 4, great = 5 | ||
Self-confidence perception | RZCY5 | Do you understand the help program | Yes = 1, No = 0 | |
RZCY6 | Whether or not to fight for help projects | Yes = 1, No = 0 | ||
RZCY7 | Fairness in helping projects | Very poor = 1, poor = 2, fair = 3, good = 4, very good = 5 | ||
External Perception | RZCY8 | Poverty alleviation project initiator | Government = 1, Business = 2, Individual = 3, NGO = 4 | |
RZCY9 | Poverty alleviation work for family help | Likert 5 scale with multiple choice quantities indicating skewed object variability | ||
RZCY10 | Ease of access to external funding | Difficult = 1, difficult = 2, with some difficulty = 3, no difficulty = 4 | ||
Behavioural Engagement | Willingness to participate | XWCY1 | Willingness to participate in poverty alleviation projects | Yes = 1, No = 0 |
XWCY2 | Tilt of the request for help | Likert 5 scale with multiple choice quantities indicating skewed object variability | ||
Participation Behaviour | XWCY3 | Poverty Assistance Program Participation | Likert 5-point scale, willingness distribution | |
XWCY4 | Collective activity participation | Likert 5 scale, with higher scores for more participation items; | ||
Emotional Engagement | QGCY1 | Whether to receive cash assistance | Yes = 1, No = 0 | |
QGCY2 | Ease of access to cash assistance | Difficult = 1, Less difficult = 2, Achievable = 3, Easier to achieve = 4, Easy to achieve = 5 | ||
QGCY3 | Degree of implementation of support measures | Rarely = 1, Less = 2, Average = 3, More = 4, Many = 5 | ||
QGCY4 | Help project familiarity | Likert 5 scale, where the more unfamiliar reasons selected, the lower the score |
Dimensionality | Title Number | Title | Assignment |
---|---|---|---|
External Environment | WBHJ1 | Whether to participate in government support or mutual aid organisations | Yes = 1, No = 0 |
WBHJ1 | Whether there is a long-term relationship with the company | Yes = 1, No = 0 | |
WBHJ1 | The degree of help from mutual aid organisations | Greatly negative impact = 1, Negatively impacted = 2, Not helpful = 3, Fairly helpful = 4, Very helpful = 5 | |
WBHJ1 | Initiator of production skills training | Likert 5 scale, where the more initiators, the higher the score; |
Latitude | Secondary Dimension | Title Number | Title | Assignment |
---|---|---|---|---|
Economic Dimension | Arable land situation | JJWD1 | Number of acres of cultivated land | 1–5 acres = 1, 2–10 acres = 2, 11–15 acres = 3, 16–20 acres = 4, 21 acres or more = 5 |
JJWD2 | Whether to own agricultural appliances | Yes = 1, No = 0 | ||
JJWD3 | Main topography of cultivated land | Likert 5 scale, with higher scores for higher terrain complexity | ||
Residence situation | JJWD4 | Residential area | 1–100 m2 = 1, 101–200 m2 = 2, 201–300 m2 = 3, 301–500 m2 = 4, 500 m2 or more = 5 | |
JJWD5 | Residential support situation | Likert 5-point scale, where the more matches, the higher the score | ||
Life & Entertainment | JJWD6 | Number of household appliances | Likert 5-point scale, where the more matches, the higher the score | |
JJWD7 | TV viewing time | 0.5–1 h = 1, 1.1–2 h = 2, 2.1–3 h = 3, 3.1–4 h = 4, more than 4 h = 5 | ||
JJWD8 | Traffic Convenience | Very convenient = 5, more convenient = 4, average = 3, less convenient = 2, very inconvenient = 1 | ||
Income and Expenditure | JJWD9 | Growth in revenue indicators | With growth = 1, no growth/decrease = 0 | |
JJWD10 | Life Improvement Status | Improved a lot = 5, Improved = 4, No improvement or no opinion = 3, Decline in living condition = 2, Decline a lot = 1 | ||
JJWD11 | Family side business | Likert 5 scale, the more side hustles, the higher the score (no side hustle = 1, 4 or more side hustles = 5) | ||
JJWD12 | Major Payment Items | Likert 5 scale, where the higher the expenditure, the higher the score | ||
Human Capital | Labour Capital | RLZB1 | Whether to go out to work | Yes = 1, No = 0 |
RLZB2 | Number of personnel with junior high school education | 0 people = 1, 1–2 people = 2, 3–4 people = 3, 4–5 people = 4, more than 5 people = 5 | ||
RLZB3 | Presence of major diseases | Yes = 1, No = 0 | ||
RLZB4 | Amount of medical expenses | Less than 3000 CNY = 1, 3000 to 10,000 CNY = 2, 10,000 to 20,000 CNY= 3, 20,000 CNY or more = 4 | ||
Skill Capital | RLZB5 | Have participated in production skills training | Yes = 1, No = 0 | |
RLZB6 | Degree of production skills training assistance | Greatly negative impact = 1, Negatively impacted = 2, Not helpful = 3, Fairly helpful = 4, Very helpful = 5 | ||
Social Networks | SHWN1 | Number of Minorities | 0 people = 1, 1–2 people = 2, 3–4 people = 3, 4–5 people = 4, more than 5 people = 5 | |
SHWN2 | Whether to participate in religious activities | Yes = 1, No = 0 | ||
SHWN3 | Whether there are village officials in the family | Yes = 1, No = 0 | ||
SHWN4 | Neighbourhood familiarity | Very well understood = 5, better understood = 4, average = 3, not well understood = 2, not at all understood = 1 | ||
Family Role | Family Member Relationships | JTJS1 | Tightness of family relationships | Less than one year = 1, more than one year and less than three years = 2, more than three years and less than five years = 3, more than five years = 4 |
JTJS2 | Number of outworkers | Likert 5-point scale, with higher scores for higher numbers (0 = 1, 1 = 2, 2 = 3, 3 = 4, more than 3 = 5) | ||
JTJS3 | Length of service (member exchange) | Likert 5-point scale, with higher scores for higher total duration (0 = 1, 6 months = 2, 12 months = 3, 18 months = 4, 18+ months = 5) | ||
Members’ attitude towards life | JTJS4 | Is there any financial help for working? | Yes = 1, No = 0 | |
JTJS5 | Going out to work sites (taking on family responsibilities) | Neighbouring village = 1, county = 2, provincial capital = 3, out of province = 4 | ||
JTJS6 | Number of domestic staff | Likert 5-point scale, with higher scores for higher numbers (1–2 = 1, 3–4 = 2, 5–6 = 3, 7–8 = 4, 8+ = 5) |
Category | Indicators | Sample Size | Proportion (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Number of women in the workforce | 1 person | 276 | 40.648 |
2 people | 271 | 39.912 | |
3 people | 121 | 17.82 | |
4 or more | 11 | 1.62 | |
Number of household labourers | Less than 2 people | 331 | 48.748 |
2–5 people | 311 | 45.803 | |
More than 5 people | 37 | 5.449 | |
Number of family members | Less than 4 people | 141 | 20.766 |
4–6 people | 412 | 60.677 | |
More than 6 people | 126 | 18.557 | |
Female labour force age | 18 years old and below | 162 | 23.859 |
19–40 years old | 117 | 17.231 | |
41–50 years old | 140 | 20.619 | |
51–60 years old | 117 | 17.231 | |
Over 60 years old | 143 | 21.06 | |
Annual household income | 40,000 CNY and below | 644 | 94.845 |
40,000–60,000 CNY | 25 | 3.682 | |
60,000–90,000 CNY | 4 | 0.589 | |
100,000–120,000 CNY | 5 | 0.736 | |
120,000 CNY or more | 1 | 0.147 | |
Education level | No cultural tutorials accepted | 95 | 13.991 |
Primary School | 304 | 44.772 | |
Junior High School | 229 | 33.726 | |
High school or junior college | 46 | 6.775 | |
College or high school | 4 | 0.589 | |
Bachelor’s degree or above | 1 | 0.147 | |
Whether to participate in poverty alleviation projects | Yes | 549 | 80.854 |
No | 130 | 19.146 |
Scale | Secondary Dimension | Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient | Number of Items | Total Scale Reliability |
---|---|---|---|---|
Participation Indicators | Engagement Awareness | 0.778 | 10 | 0.724 |
Participation Behaviour | 0.742 | 4 | ||
Emotional Engagement | 0.739 | 4 | ||
Sustainable Development Capacity Building Indicators | Economic Dimension | 0.787 | 12 | 0.812 |
Human Capital | 0.741 | 6 | ||
Social Networks | 0.804 | 3 | ||
Family Role | 0.74 | 6 | ||
External Environment | 0.758 | 4 | 0.758 |
Reference Indicators | X2/DF | GFI | NFI | CFI | IFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Judgment criteria | <3.00 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.90 | <0.08 |
Scheme | X2/DF | GFI | NFI | CFI | IFI | RMSEA | Judgment Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cognitive Engagement | 1.738 | 0.919 | 0.933 | 0.943 | 0.943 | 0.043 | By |
Behavioural Engagement | 2.025 | 0.902 | 0.917 | 0.914 | 0.935 | 0.056 | By |
Emotional Engagement | 2.735 | 0.909 | 0.905 | 0.949 | 0.958 | 0.061 | By |
Paths | Standardised Path Coefficient | S.E. | C.R. | p | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RZCY1<---Benefit perception | 0.444 | □ | □ | □ | 0.895 | 0.526 |
RZCY2<---Benefit perception | 0.603 | 0.359 | 8.321 | *** | ||
RZCY3<---Benefit perception | 0.763 | 0.48 | 8.744 | *** | ||
RZCY4<---Benefit perception | 0.921 | 0.555 | 8.756 | *** | ||
RZCY5<---Confidence perception | 0.675 | |||||
RZCY6<---Confidence perception | 0.916 | 0.029 | 15.674 | *** | ||
RZCY7<---Confidence perception | 0.703 | 0.061 | 15.762 | *** | ||
RZCY8<--External Perception | 0.872 | |||||
RZCY9<--External Perception | 0.842 | 0.058 | 21.359 | *** | ||
RZCY10<--External Perception | 0.716 | 0.054 | 19.231 | *** | ||
XWCY1<---Willingness to participate | 0.671 | □ | □ | □ | 0.914 | 0.514 |
XWCY2<---Willingness to participate | 0.724 | 0.134 | 23.453 | *** | ||
XWCY3<---Participation behaviour | 0.717 | 0.135 | 23.47 | *** | ||
XWCY4<---Participation behaviour | 0.606 | 0.023 | 18.217 | *** | ||
QGCY1<---Emotional engagement | 0.622 | □ | □ | □ | 0.878 | 0.503 |
QGCY2<---Emotional engagement | 0.858 | 0.109 | 26.793 | *** | ||
QGCY3<---Emotional engagement | 0.526 | 0.044 | 6.116 | *** | ||
QGCY4<---Emotional engagement | 0.558 | 0.083 | 15.836 | *** |
Name | X2/DF | GFI | NFI | CFI | IFI | RMSEA | Judgment Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic Dimension | 1.947 | 0.989 | 0.986 | 0.987 | 0.987 | 0.074 | By |
Human Capital | 1.9424 | 0.908 | 0.947 | 0.948 | 0.948 | 0.068 | By |
Social Networks | 2.776 | 0.903 | 0.904 | 0.905 | 0.905 | 0.076 | By |
Family Role | 1.439 | 0.994 | 0.986 | 0.998 | 0.998 | 0.025 | By |
Paths | Standardised Path Coefficient | S.E. | C.R. | p | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JJWD9<---Income and Expenditure | 0.55 | □ | □ | □ | 0.906 | 0.543 |
JJWD10<---Income and expenditure status | 0.566 | 0.084 | 11.854 | *** | ||
JJWD11<---Income and expenditure status | 0.821 | 0.495 | 14.679 | *** | ||
JJWD12<---Income and expenditure status | 0.866 | 0.592 | 14.73 | *** | ||
JJWD6<---Living Entertainment | 0.857 | |||||
JJWD7<---Living Entertainment | 0.89 | 0.02 | 29.889 | *** | ||
JJWD8<---Living Entertainment | 0.859 | 0.051 | 28.822 | *** | ||
JJWD1<---Arable land situation | 0.794 | |||||
JJWD2<---Arable land situation | 0.524 | 0.027 | 7.34 | *** | ||
JJWD3<---Arable land situation | 0.473 | 0.07 | 7.126 | *** | ||
JJWD4<---Residential situation | 0.545 | |||||
JJWD5<---Residential situation | 0.63 | 0.826 | 7.189 | *** | ||
RLZB1<---labour capital | 0.844 | □ | □ | □ | 0.916 | 0.518 |
RLZB2<---labour capital | 0.732 | 0.696 | 6.588 | *** | ||
RLZB3<---labour capital | 0.865 | 0.411 | 6.487 | *** | ||
RLZB4<---labour capital | 0.701 | 0.241 | 7.465 | *** | ||
RLZB5<---Skill capital | 0.76 | |||||
RLZB6<---Skill capital | 0.644 | 0.236 | 9.015 | *** | ||
SHWN1<---Social Network | 0.745 | □ | □ | □ | 0.907 | 0.521 |
SHWN2<---Social Network | 0.428 | 0.075 | 3.681 | *** | ||
SHWN4<---Social Network | 0.503 | 0.019 | 3.499 | *** | ||
JTJS1<---Family member relationship | 0.525 | 0.888 | 0.509 | |||
JTJS2<---Family member relationship | 0.678 | |||||
JTJS3<---Family member relationship | 0.637 | 0.142 | 23.133 | *** | ||
JTJS4<---Members’ attitude towards life | 0.545 | 0.018 | 14.131 | *** | ||
JTJS5<---Members’ attitude towards life | 0.703 | 0.117 | 5.081 | *** | ||
JTJS6<---Members’ attitude towards life | 0.682 | 0.571 | 5.1 | *** |
Name | X2/DF | GFI | NFI | CFI | IFI | RMSEA | Judgment Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Criteria or thresholds for adaptation | <3.00 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.90 | <0.08 | |
External Environment | 2.736 | 0.957 | 0.936 | 0.938 | 0.938 | 0.062 | By |
Paths | Standardised Path Coefficient | S.E. | C.R. | p | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WBHJ1<---External environment | 0.516 | 0.817 | 0.532 | |||
WBHJ2<---External environment | 0.552 | 0.061 | 12.94 | *** | ||
WBHJ3<---External environment | 0.418 | 0.171 | 18.055 | *** | ||
WBHJ4<---External environment | 0.501 | 0.144 | 17.91 | *** |
Indicators | Number of Women in the Workforce | Number of Household Labourers | Number of Family Members | Annual Household Income | Education Level | Engagement Awareness | Participation Behaviour | Emotional Engagement | Economic Dimension | Human Capital | Social Networks | Family Role | External Environment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||
Background factors | 1 | 0.082 | ||||||||||||
2 | 0.080 | 1 | ||||||||||||
3 | 0.401 ** | 0.216 ** | 1 | |||||||||||
4 | 0.103 ** | 0.036 ** | 0.612 | |||||||||||
5 | 0.216 | 0.051 ** | 0.241 ** | 1 | ||||||||||
6 | 0.193 ** | 0.042 ** | 0.026 ** | 0.147 ** | 1 | |||||||||
Participation Indicators | 7 | 0.183 ** | 0.031 ** | 0.213 | 0.324 | 0.188 ** | 0.725 | |||||||
8 | 0.268 ** | 0.213 * | 0.652 | 0.623 | 0.012 ** | 0.287 ** | 0.717 | |||||||
9 | 0.042 | 0.075 | 0.329 ** | 0.216 | 0.230 ** | 0.384 ** | 0.357 ** | 0.709 | ||||||
Sustainable Development Capability | 10 | 0.024 | 0.412 | 0.257 * | 0.398 | 0.331 ** | 0.642 ** | 0.155 ** | 0.488 * | 0.737 | ||||
11 | 0.561 | 0.190 ** | 0.339 | 0.451 | 0.489 | 0.311 ** | 0.515 ** | 0.458 * | 0.199 ** | 0.720 | ||||
12 | 0.045 | 0.005 ** | 0.417 | 0.181 ** | 0.432 | 0.163 ** | 0.208 ** | 0.136 ** | 0.271 ** | 0.430 ** | 0.722 | |||
13 | 0.241 | 0.322 | 0.325 ** | 0.47 | 0.643 | 0.322 ** | 0.331 ** | 0.156 ** | 0.106 ** | 0.606 ** | 0.234 ** | 0.713 | ||
External Environment | 14 | 0.035 | 0.519 | 0.002 ** | 0.397 | 0.279 | 0.311 ** | 0.156 | 0.325 | 0.015 * | 0.209 ** | 0.017 ** | 0.462 | 0.729 |
Dimensionality | Participation | Did Not Participate | T | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Economic Dimension | 0.071 ± 1.994 | 0.353 ± 1.999 | −4.061 | 0.000 |
Human Capital | 0.305 ± 1.325 | 0.236 ± 1.452 | −3.109 | 0.000 |
Social Networks | 0.511 ± 0.901 | 0.554 ± 1.258 | 1.959 | 0.104 |
Family Role | 0.098 ± 1.323 | 0.493 ± 1.726 | −6.104 | 0.000 |
Cognitive Engagement | 0.128 ± 1.742 | 0.042 ± 1.681 | 4.956 | 0.000 |
Behavioural Engagement | 0.108 ± 0.829 | 0.043 ± 1.494 | 6.508 | 0.000 |
Emotional Engagement | 0.209 ± 0.992 | 0.044 ± 1.041 | 3.510 | 0.011 |
External Environment | 0.251 ± 0.981 | 0.254 ± 1.056 | 0.980 | 0.323 |
Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 |
---|---|---|
Family Labour | 0.022 (3.567) ** | 0.017 (2.449) * |
Female labour force age | −0.026 (−0.674) | −0.028 (−0.739) |
Annual household income | −0.146 (−3.813) | −0.209 (−3.761) ** |
Number of family members | 0.001 (0.005) | −0.003 (−0.071) |
Education level | 0.035 (2.405) * | 0.034 (2.702) * |
Cognitive Engagement | 0.205 (5.135) *** | |
Emotional Engagement | 0.312 (6.291) *** | |
R2 | 0.222 | 0.508 |
Adj R2 | 0.175 | 0.491 |
F | 9.121 * | 46.467 *** |
Variables | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Economic Dimension | Human Capital | Social Networks | Family Role | |
Family Labour | 0.01 (3.268) ** | 0.013 (2.749) * | 0.071 (2.972) * | 0.049 (3.356) ** |
Female labour force age | 0.046 (1.181) | −0.037 (−0.952) | 0.036 (1.026) | −0.007 (−0.178) |
Annual household income | −0.001 (−0.985) | −0.008 (−0.201) | 0.022 (0.627) | 0 (−0.007) |
Number of family members | 0.035 (0.904) | −0.012 (−0.317) | −0.006 (−0.177) | −0.012 (−0.332) |
Education level | 0.044 (2.148) | 0.036 (2.917) * | 0.035 (3.756) ** | 0.076 (3.073) ** |
Behavioural Engagement | 0.137 (6.332) *** | 0.251 (8.311) *** | 0.194 (11.052) *** | 0.217 (8.612) *** |
R2 | 0.472 | 0.551 | 0.319 | 0.547 |
Adj R2 | 0.415 | 0.523 | 0.296 | 0.527 |
F | 35.645 *** | 36.486 *** | 22.050 *** | 41.873 *** |
Variables | Model 7 | Model 8 |
---|---|---|
Family Labour | 0.01 (2.561) * | 0.001 (3.287) ** |
Female labour force age | 0.045 (1.156) | 0.045 (1.171) |
Annual household income | −0.001 (−0.789) | −0.002 (−0.058) |
Number of family members | 0.035 (0.906) | −0.039 (−1.016) |
Education level | 0.045 (1.157) | 0.048 (1.226) |
Behavioural Engagement | 0.016 (7.408) *** | 0.102 (3.405) ** |
External Environment | 0.029 (2.748) * | 0.032 (2.783) * |
External Environment × Behavioural Engagement | 0.046 (3.361) ** | |
R2 | 0.369 | 0.451 |
Adj R2 | 0.337 | 0.438 |
F | 37.681 *** | 35.443 *** |
Variables | Model 9 | Model 10 |
---|---|---|
Family Labour | 0.014 (3.365) ** | 0.014 (4.357) *** |
Female labour force age | −0.035 (−0.907) | −0.035 (−0.91) |
Annual household income | −0.008 (−0.2) | −0.007 (−0.183) |
Number of family members | −0.012 (−0.322) | −0.014 (−0.352) |
Education level | −0.036 (−0.936) | −0.037 (−0.953) |
Behavioural Engagement | 0.057 (3.458) ** | 0.053 (7.272) *** |
External Environment | 0.056 (1.458) | 0.057 (3.466) ** |
External Environment × Behavioural Engagement | 0.011 (2.774) * | |
R2 | 0.511 | 0.565 |
Adj R2 | 0.489 | 0.54 |
F | 44.520 *** | 41.751 *** |
Variables | Model 11 | Model 12 |
---|---|---|
Family Labour | 0.07 (2.988) * | 0.068 (2.930) * |
Female labour force age | 0.035 (0.981) | 0.036 (1.021) |
Annual household income | −0.022 (0.626) | −0.018 (−0.491) |
Number of family members | −0.006 (−0.173) | −0.004 (−0.102) |
Education level | 0.036 (1.016) | 0.042 (1.187) |
Behavioural Engagement | 0.389 (10.851) *** | 0.119 (10.995) *** |
External Environment | 0.05 (3.41) ** | 0.053 (7.497) ** |
External Environment × Behavioural Engagement | 0.086 (2.263) | |
R2 | 0.382 | 0.389 |
Adj R2 | 0.369 | 0.372 |
F | 37.681 *** | 37.443 *** |
Variables | Model 13 | Model 14 |
---|---|---|
Family Labour | 0.049 (4.354) ** | 0.05 (3.364) ** |
Female labour force age | −0.007 (−0.182) | −0.006 (−0.175) |
Annual household income | 0 (−0.007) | −0.001 (−0.03) |
Number of family members | −0.012 (−0.331) | −0.01 (−0.281) |
Education level | −0.076 (−2.07) | −0.075 (−2.033) |
Behavioural Engagement | 0.316 (8.545) *** | 0.122 (8.147) *** |
External Environment | 0.004 (3.108) ** | 0.005 (3.123) * |
External Environment × Behavioural Engagement | −0.015 (1.391) | |
R2 | 0.365 | 0.371 |
Adj R2 | 0.344 | 0.359 |
F | 31.681 *** | 33.443 *** |
Paths | Standardisation Factor | S.E. | C.R. | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioural Engagement | <-- | Cognitive Engagement | 0.276 | 0.046 | 7.013 | *** |
Behavioural Engagement | <-- | Emotional Engagement | 0.215 | 0.051 | 6.595 | *** |
Economic Dimension | <-- | Behavioural Engagement | 0.257 | 0.058 | 4.325 | *** |
Economic Dimension | <-- | Emotional Engagement | 0.022 | 0.163 | 1.012 | 0.215 |
Economic Dimension | <-- | Cognitive Engagement | 0.158 | 0.049 | 3.765 | *** |
Paths | Standardisation Factor | S.E. | C.R. | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioural Engagement | <-- | Cognitive Engagement | 0.212 | 0.062 | 3.751 | *** |
Behavioural Engagement | <-- | Emotional Engagement | 0.184 | 0.081 | 6.335 | *** |
Human Capital | <-- | Behavioural Engagement | 0.173 | 0.076 | 5.678 | *** |
Human Capital | <-- | Emotional Engagement | 0.133 | 0.056 | 2.056 | 0.006 |
Human Capital | <-- | Cognitive Engagement | 0.279 | 0.068 | 3.688 | *** |
Paths | Standardisation Factor | S.E. | C.R. | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioural Engagement | <-- | Cognitive Engagement | 0.202 | 0.091 | 4.521 | *** |
Behavioural Engagement | <-- | Emotional Engagement | 0.189 | 0.089 | 3.554 | *** |
Social Networks | <-- | Behavioural Engagement | 0.418 | 0.077 | 5.227 | *** |
Social Networks | <-- | Emotional Engagement | 0.053 | 0.322 | 1.977 | 0.076 |
Social Networks | <-- | Cognitive Engagement | 0.184 | 0.077 | 2.936 | 0.001 |
Paths | Standardisation Factor | S.E. | C.R. | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioural Engagement | <-- | Cognitive Engagement | 0.162 | 0.052 | 2.013 | 0.007 |
Behavioural Engagement | <-- | Emotional Engagement | 0.221 | 0.076 | 5.665 | *** |
Family Role | <-- | Behavioural Engagement | 0.23 | 0.083 | 4.428 | *** |
Family Role | <-- | Emotional Engagement | 0.034 | 0.241 | 1.235 | 0.197 |
Family Role | <-- | Cognitive Engagement | 0.187 | 0.066 | 2.984 | 0.001 |
Assumption No. | Hypothetical Content | Validation Results |
---|---|---|
H1 | The higher the cognitive participation of women in rural development participation, the more active their behavioural participation; | Establishment |
H2 | The higher the level of emotional involvement and the more active the behavioural involvement of women in rural development participation; | Establishment |
H3 | The higher the level of cognitive participation of women in rural development participation, the more significant the increase in sustainable development capacity; | Established |
H3a | The higher the perceived participation of women in rural development participation, the more pronounced the economic uplift of the household; | Establishment |
H3b | The higher the level of cognitive participation of women in rural development participation, the more significant the human capital enhancement; | Establishment |
H3c | The higher the level of cognitive participation of women in rural development participation, the more pronounced the social network enhancement; | Establishment |
H3d | The higher the cognitive involvement of women in rural development participation, the more pronounced the enhancement of family roles; | Establishment |
H4 | The higher the level of emotional involvement of women in rural development participation, the more significant the increase in sustainable development capacity; | Not Established |
H4a | The higher the emotional involvement of women in rural development participation, the more pronounced the economic uplift of the household; | Not Established |
H4b | The higher the level of emotional involvement of women in rural development participation, the more significant the human capital enhancement; | Established |
H4c | The higher the level of emotional involvement of women in rural development participation, the more pronounced the social network enhancement; | Not Established |
H4d | The higher the level of emotional involvement of women in rural development participation, the more pronounced the enhancement of family roles; | Not Established |
H5 | The higher the level of behavioural participation of women in rural development participation, the more significant the increase in sustainable development capacity; | Establishment |
H5a | The higher the behavioural involvement of women in rural development participation, the more significant the economic uplift of the household; | Establishment |
H5b | The higher the level of behavioural participation of women in rural development participation, the more significant the human capital enhancement; | Establishment |
H5c | The higher the level of behavioural participation of women in rural development participation, the more pronounced the social network enhancement; | Establishment |
H5d | The higher the level of behavioural participation of women in rural development participation, the more pronounced the enhancement of family roles; | Establishment |
H6 | Women’s behavioural participation in rural development participation mediates between emotional participation and cognitive participation in building capacity for sustainable development; | Established |
H7 | Women’s participation in rural development in which the external environment positively moderates the impact of behavioural participation on capacity building for sustainable development; | Partially established |
H7a | Women’s participation in rural development where the external environment positively moderates the impact of behavioural participation on the household economy; | Established |
H7b | Women’s participation in rural development where the external environment positively moderates the impact of behavioural participation on human capital; | Establishment |
H7c | Women’s participation in rural development in which the external environment positively moderates the impact of behavioural participation on social networks; | Not Established |
H7d | Women’s participation in rural development where the external environment positively moderates the impact of behavioural participation on family roles. | Not Established |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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
Gao, S.; Chen, F.; Jiao, J.; Zhang, Y. A Study on the Mechanism of Female Participation in Rural Development of Yunnan on Their Capacity Building for Sustainable Development—Based on Cognitive, Emotional and Behavioural Perspectives. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167044
Gao S, Chen F, Jiao J, Zhang Y. A Study on the Mechanism of Female Participation in Rural Development of Yunnan on Their Capacity Building for Sustainable Development—Based on Cognitive, Emotional and Behavioural Perspectives. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):7044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167044
Chicago/Turabian StyleGao, Suwei, Fan Chen, Jianyi Jiao, and Yangdan Zhang. 2024. "A Study on the Mechanism of Female Participation in Rural Development of Yunnan on Their Capacity Building for Sustainable Development—Based on Cognitive, Emotional and Behavioural Perspectives" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167044
APA StyleGao, S., Chen, F., Jiao, J., & Zhang, Y. (2024). A Study on the Mechanism of Female Participation in Rural Development of Yunnan on Their Capacity Building for Sustainable Development—Based on Cognitive, Emotional and Behavioural Perspectives. Sustainability, 16(16), 7044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167044