How Can Farmers’ Green Production Behavior Be Promoted? A Literature Review of Drivers and Incentives for Behavioral Change

Abstract

The promotion of farmers’ green production behavior (GPB) to accelerate agricultural green development and food system transformation is a popular issue worldwide. Based on the representative literature from 2015 to October 2024, this study reviews the connotation and stage characteristics of farmers’ GPB. The current research focuses primarily on the primary industry, particularly agriculture, which is not in line with the global trend of agricultural and rural development; thus, it seems necessary to reiterate the connotation. The driving factors of farmers’ GPB are discussed at the individual, household, and external levels, and the relationships and effects of each group of factors in the literature are reviewed; future research should re-examine the formation mechanism from the perspective of industry integration and upgrading. This paper refers to the agricultural transformation practices of major economies worldwide and summarizes the policy implications in the literature concerning the promotion of farmers’ GPB. A multiagent incentive mechanism system is constructed from the perspectives of government-led, market-oriented, and social participation. Finally, based on the evolving trends in global agriculture and rural development, three potential research directions are proposed as follows: (i) broadening the research scope of farmers’ GPB from the perspective of industry integration; (ii) empowering farmers’ GPB through digital intelligence; and (iii) increasing farmers’ GPB and food security. This review is beneficial for better understanding farmers’ GPB and promoting it globally.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is a foundational industry of the global economy. However, under the influence of frequent extreme weather events, deglobalization trends, and geopolitical conflicts, global agricultural production and food security remain severe and complex. Moreover, agriculture significantly contributes to global climate change [1]. According to FAO statistics, agricultural activities accounted for as much as 12% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 (FAO, 2023) [2]. In response to these challenges, countries worldwide are striving to transform their agricultural and food systems and advance their ecological civilization. How to ensure agricultural green development and food security has globally become one of the main issues. China, as the largest developing country, places significant emphasis on agricultural green development and actively promotes global advancements toward green agriculture [3,4].

Agricultural green production is vital for the transformation of agricultural and food systems. As the primary agents in agricultural production, farmers’ green production behavior (GPB) is an important driving force for green agricultural development [3,5]. Farmers’ green production means that they use scientific techniques and management practices in agricultural production to achieve resource conservation, pollution reduction, efficient output, and sustainable development [3]. The adoption of GPB can bring about benefits at both the global and regional levels, such as reducing environmental disruption, improving food security, and promoting green development [6]. Despite these benefits, the current adoption rate of farmers’ GPB is still very low [7,8]. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically analyze the factors that affect farmers’ GPB and devise strategies to enhance its development.

At present, the urgent need for agricultural green development and the relatively low adoption of farmers’ GPB have led to rapid growth in the research on the influencing factors and promotion mechanisms of farmers’ GPB, including sustainable agricultural practices [9,10,11,12] and green agricultural technology adoption [13,14,15]. According to the literature, the main factors influencing farmers’ GPB can be classified into two categories, namely individual or household factors and external factors. Individual or household factors include sociodemographic, psychological variables, and household endowment characteristics [16,17]. External factors include market factors, government regulation, and social factors [18,19,20]. A few scholars have conducted systematic reviews and summaries of research on sustainable agricultural practices or the adoption of agricultural technologies [21,22,23]. Nevertheless, what are the connotations and stage characteristics of farmers’ GPB? What factors influence farmers’ decision making and induce them to adopt GPB, and what measures should be taken to further promote farmers’ GPB? The abovementioned questions have not been systematically answered. These questions, in turn, are precisely those that need to be urgently addressed in the transformation of agrifood systems and green and low-carbon development on a global scale.

To further clarify the behavioral change mechanism and more effectively promote, disseminate, and implement GPB on a global scale, this study refines and summarizes the connotation and stage characteristics of farmers’ GPB; sorts out the key driving factors from the individual, household, and external levels; and summarizes the incentive mechanism of farmers’ GPB. The research framework is shown in Figure 1. Additionally, in view of the shortcomings of the existing research, this study further proposes potential research directions in light of the global agricultural and rural development trend, thereby providing an effective guide for future research.

The main contributions of this study are as follows: First, combining the characteristics of agricultural and rural development worldwide, this study introduces new connotations to farmers’ GPB and innovatively proposes that farmers’ GPB is the implementation of green production methods throughout the entire process of rural industry integration, ultimately achieving the unification of agricultural efficiency, farmers’ income, and rural green development. Second, this study systematically summarizes the representative literature regarding the driving factors and policy implications for farmers’ GPB and constructs a multiagent incentive mechanism system from the perspectives of government-led, market-oriented, and social participation, informing targeted interventions for green agricultural development. Finally, based on the shortcomings of the literature and the development trend of global agriculture and rural areas, three potential directions are proposed to provide a reference for research on farmers’ GPB.

This paper is divided into six sections. In the next section, we clarify the notion of green production behavior and visual analysis. In Section 3, the factors and relationships that affect farmers’ GPB are reviewed, and in Section 4, incentive mechanisms for promoting farmers’ GPB are constructed. Finally, in Section 5, future research directions are presented, and, in Section 6, we provide our conclusions.

2. Connotation of Green Production Behavior and Visualization Analysis

2.1. Connotation of Green Production Behavior

To date, the definition of GPB has not been uniformly described. According to the definition of the UNEP, farmers’ GPB refers to a production model that aims to conserve energy, reduce consumption and pollution, and implement pollution control in the process of agricultural production by using technology and management to minimize pollutant emissions [24]. Scholars have extended the research of pro-environmental behavior to farmers, pointing out that pro-environmental agricultural behavior is the conscious adoption of reduced, reused, and low-pollution production methods in all stages of agricultural production [22]. These concepts focus on energy conservation, consumption reduction, and pollution mitigation during agricultural production processes and can be divided into preproduction, mid-production, and postproduction stages on the basis of different production phases [11,25]. Furthermore, a few scholars have recognized the necessity of integrating farmers’ green production into the national agricultural development plan and have analyzed the connotations and objectives of farmers’ GPB [3]. This connotation provides new objectives for green production but still focuses on agricultural production.

With the changes in agricultural industry structures, farmers’ GPB should be combined with the development characteristics of agriculture and rural areas. This paper provides a horizontal summary of agricultural green transformation practices in major economies, such as the European Union, the United States, Australia, Japan, and Brazil (see Appendix A), along with a vertical analysis of China’s agricultural and rural green transformation policy evolution over the past decade (Figure 2), summarizing the characteristics of agricultural and rural development from a global perspective. These characteristics are manifested primarily as follows: (i) Facilitating integrated rural industrial development. Taking green as the guide, such facilitation creates a green and low-carbon agricultural industrial chain, promotes the integrated development of agriculture, industry, and services, and drives the green upgrading of rural industries. (ii) Achieving the coordinated development of ecological, economic, and social benefits. The focus has gradually shifted from pursuing sustainable agricultural development to unifying agricultural efficiency improvement, increasing farmer income, and rural green development. (iii) Recognizing that green technology supports green development and transformation. In the process of agricultural and rural development, greater emphasis should be placed on building a green development technology system to promote green transformation. On this basis, we reiterate the connotation of farmers’ GPB. Farmers’ GPB refers to adopting green technologies and sustainable production practices throughout the whole process of the integrated development of rural industries to achieve intensive and efficient resource utilization, the precise reduction in inputs, waste resource recovery, and ecological cycling in industrial models, ultimately realizing agricultural emission reduction, increasing farmer income, and promoting rural green development. The distinctive features are as follows: (i) Farmers’ GPB emphasizes the integration and development of rural industries rather than focusing on agriculture as the main industry. (ii) Farmers’ GPB also highlights the entire process of farmers’ production activities, specifically emphasizing green investment in preproduction, intensive and efficient clean production during mid-production, and waste recovery and recycling during postproduction. (iii) The objective of farmers’ GPB is to achieve the unification of agricultural efficiency, farmer income, and rural green development.

2.2. Visualization Analysis of Research Hotspots in GPB

Before visualization analysis, we collect the relevant literature through keyword searches in the Web of Science database and screen it to form the database for our analysis. The keywords include “green production behavior” or “pro-environmental behavior” or “sustainable green production behavior” or “low-carbon production behavior” or “cleaner production behavior” and “farmer” or “farmers” or “cleaner production technology adoption” or “ecological agricultural technology adoption” or “environmentally friendly technology adoption” and “farmer” or “farmers”. A literature review revealed relatively few publications on this topic before 2015, and the sample publication period ranged from 2015 to October 2024. In total, 285 original research articles were retrieved. The articles were then filtered according to our research objectives, and the screening process is shown in Figure 3. Finally, 90 relevant studies were identified as the main research scope.

Among the literature reviewed, most of the articles originated from China, with 60 articles. Following that, there were 12 articles from other Asian countries, primarily Iran, Malaysia, Vietnam, and so on. There were six articles from the United States and five from Europe, with the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain being the main contributors. Additionally, there were seven articles related to other countries in South America and Africa. Due to the timeframe of our screening and data availability, some of the literature may not have been included, but, overall, the selected literature aligns with the research objectives of this paper. Furthermore, in terms of the industries covered in the literature, only 2 out of 90 papers focused on animal husbandry, whereas 88 discussed agricultural crop farming, which involved grains, fruits, vegetables, tea, and so on. The extant research on farmers’ GPB has focused mainly on primary industries, especially agriculture, thereby lacking research on secondary and tertiary industries. However, with the accelerated industrialization of agriculture and the rise of the service industry, the integrated development of rural industries has become a dominant trend for the future. Therefore, future research on farmers’ GPB should integrate agriculture, industry, and services.

Based on the existing literature, the process of farmers’ GPB can be divided into three stages according to different production stages, namely preproduction, mid-production, and postproduction [11,25]. Preproduction mainly refers to green investment before production; mid-production focuses on intensive and efficient clean production; and postproduction concerns waste recovery and recycling. Specific behaviors of each stage can be referred to in Figure 4. We used the vote count methodology to categorize the research scope of the literature into these three stages. Taking the mid-production stage as an example, if the research scope of the article involves the mid-production stage, a value of 1 is assigned, and the frequency statistics of the three stages of GPB are carried out. The results indicate that research on green production behavior has focused mainly on the mid-production stage, accounting for 60.4%, whereas research on the preproduction and postproduction stages is relatively inadequate, accounting for 18.0% and 21.6%, respectively.

Then, we conducted a visual analysis of specific green production behaviors in different stages of the literature, highlighting the research focus of each stage. The word cloud visualization results are shown in Figure 4. As previously discussed, the mid-production stage is currently a hotspot, whereas the preproduction and postproduction stages are comparatively less prominent. Therefore, we distinguish these stages in Figure 4 via subplots of different sizes, where (a), (b), and (c) represent the word clouds for the preproduction, mid-production, and postproduction stages, respectively. The size of the text in the word cloud diagram reflects the frequency of the phrase, indirectly indicating the hotspots and themes currently focused on by scholars. The primary research focus in the preproduction stage is on soil-testing formula technology, followed by tillage methods such as no-tillage, less tillage, and fallow farming; the main research focus in the mid-production stage is on organic fertilizer application, green control technology, pesticide or fertilizer reduction, and water-saving irrigation technology; and the research focus in the postproduction stage is on straw return and straw return technology, along with agricultural film recycling.

The existing research on GPB, which collectively considers the preproduction, mid-production, and postproduction stages, is relatively limited, and most of the relevant studies focus on only one or two of these stages. Furthermore, scholars have recognized the breadth and complexity of GPB and have begun to conduct analyses of specific behaviors or technologies in greater detail, such as soil-testing formula technology, pesticide or fertilizer reduction behavior, and straw return. The implications for future research include the following: (i) Due to the complexity and systematicity of agricultural production activities, a comprehensive analysis framework should be constructed that encompasses the entire process of farmers’ GPB. (ii) Presently, scholars’ research on GPB has concentrated on the mid-production stage. However, with the extension of the agricultural industry chain, strengthening the research on the preproduction (e.g., green investment behavior) and postproduction (e.g., resource recycling and green marketing) stages is necessary, which is also crucial for the green development and transformation of agriculture.

3. Driving Factors for Farmers’ GPB

Identifying the driving factors and effects are important for understanding farmers’ behavioral decisions, promoting their GPB, and facilitating agri-food system transformation worldwide. In this paper, the key factors that affect farmers’ GPB are explored from the perspectives of individual, household, and external levels, with the specific variables illustrated in Figure 5.

3.1. Individual Variables

3.1.1. Sociodemographic Variables

Numerous studies have demonstrated that farmers’ sociodemographic factors significantly influence their GPB [7,22,26]. The primary sociodemographic factors discussed include gender, age, education, ethnicity, political identity, and risk preference; specific influence relationships are outlined in

Table 1. Drivers of farmers’ GPB relevant to sociodemographic factors. (Notes: tables organized and produced by the authors).

Variable	Impact	References
Gender	Positive	Liu et al. [12]; Yu et al. [14,33]; Li et al. [34]
	Negative	Li et al. [7]; Zhao et al. [18]; Luo et al. [27]; Niu et al. [28]
Age	Positive	Qiao et al. [32]
	Negative	Gao et al. [13]; Yu et al. [14]; Zhou et al. [29]; Chuan et al. [31]; Yu et al. [33]; Lu et al. [35]; Qi et al. [36]; Li et al. [37]
Education	Positive	Li et al. [7]; Gao et al. [13]; Yu et al. [14]; Zheng and Luo [19]; Luo et al. [27]; Niu et al. [28]; Qi et al. [36]; Gao et al. [38]; Cao et al. [39]; Guo et al. [40]; Xiang and Gao [41]; Zou et al. [42]
Ethnicity	Negative	Xu et al. [43]
Political identity	Positive	Luo et al. [27]
Risk preference	Positive	Gao et al. [13,38]; Yu et al. [14]; Niu et al. [28]; Qiao et al. [32]; Yu et al. [33]; Mao et al. [44]; Du et al. [45]

. Currently, there is no consensus among scholars regarding gender and age. Certain scholars have noted that males, as the primary participants in agricultural production activities, have a deeper understanding of GPB and make more rational decisions toward green production [12,14]. However, other scholars reported that females are more inclined to engage in green production, possibly because they are more concerned about environmental pollution and physical health [7,27,28]. With respect to age, most studies have indicated a negative relationship between age and GPB. Older farmers may display deficiencies in cognitive ability and risk-taking capacity, which can prevent them from adopting green production technologies and behaviors [29]. In addition, older farmers have typically engaged in agricultural activities for a long time, thereby forming fixed production patterns and habits, relying more on their own experience, and being unwilling to adopt new production methods [16,30,31]. However, Qiao et al. (2023) argued that older farmers, who generally have more agricultural experience, can effectively grasp green production information and are more likely to adopt GPB [32].

3.1.2. Psychological Variables

Scholars tend to focus more on behavioral theory when studying the psychological factors of farmers’ GPB, as presented in

Table 2. Behavioral theory with high application frequency. (Notes: tables organized and produced by the authors).

Theory	References
Theory of reasoned action (TRA)	Van Hulst and Posthumus [48]
Theory of planned behavior (TPB)	Gholamrezai et al. [46]; Castillo et al. [47]; Adnan et al. [49,50,51]; Luo et al. [52]; Li et al. [53]
Normative activation theory (NAM)	Xie et al. [54]
Health belief model (HBM)	Ataei et al. [10]
Technology adoption model (TAM)	Adnan et al. [50]

. The psychological determinants mainly include attitudes, intentions, cognition, value perceptions, norms, and beliefs, which are the most successful in predicting GPB [6,46,47].

TPB is currently one of the most widely applied theories and indicates that behavior is determined by behavioral intention. Behavioral intention is influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, which are also influenced by cognition. When farmers recognize the economic, social, and ecological benefits of green production, they actively seek to learn relevant technologies and acquire information, thereby strengthening their behavioral intentions and behavior [12,30,35]. Additionally, attitude is measured by perceived value [50], which in turn depends on perceived benefits and perceived risks [41,55].

The TPB model plays an important role in predicting psychological variables related to intentions. Ajzen, as one of the founders of this theory, stated that new communication components and structures could be considered to improve this theory [56]. Thus, some other psychological variables were included in the TPB model, such as self-identity [10], moral norms [10,57,58], knowledge [57,59], and risk perception [58]. This is known as the extended TPB, and research has shown that this can further improve explanatory and prediction ability [10,57]. However, the core research paradigm remains focused on the attitude–intention–behavior relationship, and few studies have revealed a gap between behavioral intentions and behaviors [5,60]. The intention–behavior gap stems from aging demographics, knowledge deficiencies, and imperfect market mechanisms [16,60], whereas environmental awareness and government regulations can narrow the gap [5].

With respect to the psychological factors influencing farmers’ GPB, different models highlight different variables, and single models always focus on a certain aspect. Therefore, scholars have begun to use integrated models, such as TPB and NAM [17,61], TPB and HBM [6], and TPB and TAM [8], to explain farmers’ GPB. The literature indicates that the current research on GPB is largely focused on the combination of two theories. However, farmers’ GPB is specifically complex and often influenced by various factors. Hence, it is necessary to further develop comprehensive models to explain farmers’ GPB.

The preceding analysis indicates that the individual factors influencing farmers’ GPB can be classified into sociodemographic and psychological factors. The literature has not reached a consensus regarding gender and age; thus, further consideration is needed in conjunction with other factors. Research on psychological factors relies more on behavioral theories, with TPB and extended TPB being the most widely applied frameworks. A few scholars have begun to employ a combination of behavioral theories to study GPB, but developing comprehensive models to evaluate farmers’ GPB is necessary.

3.2. Household Endowment Characteristics

In addition to individual factors, household endowment characteristics are another significant factor influencing farmers’ GPB. The household endowment characteristics discussed in the literature refer primarily to the agricultural labor force, farm size, land fragmentation, nonagricultural income share, and land transfer. The specific relationships are illustrated in

Table 3. Drivers of farmers’ GPB relevant to household endowment characteristics. (Notes: tables organized and produced by the authors).

Variable	Impact	References
Agricultural labor force	Positive	Zhao et al. [18]; Yu et al. [33]
	Negative	Cao et al. [39]
Farm size	Positive	Li et al. [7,34]; Gao et al. [13]; Yu et al. [14]; Shen et al. [20]; Luo et al. [27]; Niu et al. [28]; Qi et al. [36]; Qu et al. [62]
	Negative	Zhao et al. [18]; Xiang and Gao [41]
Land fragmentation	Negative	Gao et al. [13]; Qi et al. [36]; Cao et al. [39]; Qu et al. [62]
Nonagricultural income share	Positive	Zhao et al. [18]; Li et al. [34]
	Negative	Shen et al. [20]; Zhang et al. [30]; Guo et al. [40];
Land transfer	Negative	Gao et al. [63]

.

In general, farmers with a greater agricultural labor force, a larger farmer size, less land fragmentation, a lower nonagricultural income share, and nonland transfer are more inclined to adopt GPB [30,33,36,63]. However, there is no consensus regarding the agricultural labor force, farm size, or nonagricultural income share. Cao et al. (2020) noted that the greater the percentage of off-farm labor, the greater the likelihood of farmers adopting GPB [39]. One possible reason is that their study focused on straw-returning behavior, which is a kind of labor-saving environmental practice; hence, there is a negative relationship between the two. Other studies focused on the relationship between vegetable planting scales and GPB [18]. Farmers working on larger scales tend to overuse pesticides to ensure stable agricultural income and are less likely to implement green production. Similarly, having a lower proportion of nonagricultural income indicates that farmers are more dependent on agricultural income and unwilling to adopt GPB in pursuit of maximizing profits [18,34].

As family farms have become a predominant mode of agricultural operations worldwide, the influence of household endowment characteristics on GPB is a key focus of the current and future research. Nevertheless, with the outflow of the rural labor force, issues such as rural hollowing out and aging must be taken seriously, and corresponding countermeasures should be sought.

3.3. External Variables

Farmers’ GPB is inevitably influenced by the external environment, which mainly includes market factors, government regulation, and social factors.

3.3.1. Market Factors

Economic rationality is the starting point for farmers’ production decisions. Under the assumption of a complete market, farmers will balance benefits and costs when a particular behavior is implemented and pursue profit maximization [25]. Market factors primarily consider benefits and costs, specifically encompassing price, information acquisition, and changes in marketing channels. Price is a key factor influencing farmers’ production decisions. When green goods produced by farmers can generate high profits through high prices, this can further incentivize farmers to implement GPB [7,18]. Additionally, information acquisition and changes in marketing channels affect farmers’ GPB. With the development of digitization in the countryside, the internet and new media provide farmers with information platforms for their production activities, reducing information search costs and making it easier to obtain relevant information [13,64]. E-commerce simplifies marketing channels, reduces information asymmetry, increases the quality premium, and encourages farmers to adopt GPB [65].

3.3.2. Government Regulation

Owing to the strong negative externalities of agricultural pollution, the government has issued a series of regulations to intervene in agricultural activities. According to the literature, government regulations can be categorized into three main types, namely incentive, binding, and guiding [20,34,40], which can effectively promote farmers’ GPB to alleviate agricultural environmental pollution [5,18,40]. However, some scholars have reached different conclusions. Huang et al. (2022) noted that incentive and binding regulations have significant effects on GPB, whereas guiding regulations have nonsignificant effects [66]. Although publicity and training can increase farmers’ awareness, implementing agricultural green production requires additional capital and labor inputs, which may not necessarily promote GPB. Li et al. (2022) suggested that incentive regulations have no significant effect on GPB, which is possibly due to low subsidy levels and inadequate distribution [34]. Therefore, incentive regulations are no longer limited to economic compensation but rather involve other forms of incentives, such as new agricultural extension methods, agricultural outsourcing services, and financial services [11,13,67].

3.3.3. Social Factors

At present, social factors that are widely discussed in the literature focus mainly on social networks, trust, and social norms. Social networks are discussed more in the literature regarding agricultural cooperatives, which can provide production services, technical training, and credit services to farmers, increasing their willingness to adopt GPB [12,55,68,69]. Furthermore, farmers become familiar and even intimate with others through social networks, gradually establishing trust mechanisms, promoting the dissemination of knowledge or information, and sharing experiences, which are conducive to the implementation of GPB [70]. Social norms indicate that individual behaviors are influenced by peers, with the underlying mechanism relying on learning and imitation [28,70,71]. Farmers engage in social learning through technical demonstrations, training, and neighborhood exchanges, all of which help them acquire green production techniques, cultivate risk-diversification capabilities, and strengthen their enthusiasm and sustainability in green production [32].

In conclusion, studies on market, regulation, and social factors have yielded relatively abundant results. Among these three types of factors, research on market factors has essentially formed an analytical framework of cost benefit and is gradually shifting toward related factors, such as information and technology. Theoretically, different types of government regulations can promote farmers’ GPB. However, no consensus has been reached regarding guidance and incentives, and the influencing mechanisms of different regulations and GPB still require in-depth exploration. It is noteworthy that ecotaxation, as a form of regulation, contributes to reducing agricultural carbon emissions [72]. The future research should explore how ecotaxation can be integrated with agricultural operators and the supply and marketing chain of agricultural products to enhance farmers’ GPB and promote green agricultural development. Additionally, with the integration and upgrading of rural industries, studies on the external factors influencing farmers’ GPB from the perspective of integration are lacking.

3.4. Relationships Between Individual, Household, and External Factors

The relationships between individual, household and external factors are ambiguous. Most studies, however, have identified individual factors as being the most significant [30]. Because of the decentralization of agricultural production activities, farmers’ attitudes are crucial driving factors [30]. Some scholars have proposed different viewpoints. For example, Li et al. (2022) studied pesticide packaging waste recycling behaviors and reported that subsidies and social norms encourage farmers to adopt recycling behaviors [73]. Among the external factors, the impact of different factors on farmers’ GPB varies. Zhao et al. (2018) have shown that market factors affect farmers’ GPB more effectively than does government regulation, but government regulation provides system guarantees, thus creating a better environment for market incentives [18].

Additional studies have suggested that both individual factors and external factors interactively influence farmers’ behavior. Bopp et al. (2019) noted that individuals who are weakly intrinsically motivated (attitudes) rely more on extrinsic motivation (subsidies) to perform a certain behavior [9]. In contrast, individuals with high levels of intrinsic motivation adopt GPB regardless of extrinsic motivation, which implies that an effective allocation of resources should target farmers with weaker intrinsic motivation.

There is relatively limited research in the literature on the relationships between the factors influencing farmers’ GPB, and a unified consensus has yet to be reached. Nevertheless, this section offers significant guidance for promoting farmers’ GPB. Further studies on the relationships between various influencing factors and their mutual impacts are undoubtedly crucial.

4. Incentive Mechanism for Promoting Farmer GPB

Promoting farmers’ GPB is a systematic project that is important for advancing sustainable agricultural development worldwide. Therefore, based on the driving factors and policy implications of farmers’ GPB, and taking into account the agricultural transformation practices in China and other economies around the world (see Appendix A), a multiagent incentive mechanism is constructed from the perspectives of government-led, market-oriented, and social participation, which is highly important for promoting, disseminating, and implementing GPB worldwide, as shown in Figure 6.

The United States and the European Union have continuously improved their policy systems in the area of agricultural green development, leveraging the leading role of the government to ensure that agriculture develops in a sustainable direction [74,75,76]. From the perspective of the government, it is recommended that the government adjust farmers’ GPB through top-down environmental regulation to provide institutional support for agricultural green transformation. The details are presented from the following four aspects: (1) Extending central policy guidance with local innovation and adaptation. The central government should continue to formulate policy plans for agricultural green development, and local governments should not only develop relevant support policies but also explore and innovate according to local conditions [77]. In addition to formal institutions, attention should also be given to the constraints of informal institutions to construct a mutually supportive system between formal and informal institutions [6]. (2) Increasing support for green production and innovating agricultural subsidy methods. First, the government should increase its support for agricultural enterprises, agricultural social organization, agricultural technology extension departments, and other industrial organizations, with the aim of increasing their ability to lead and drive green development [25,78]. Second, a diversified incentive and restraint mechanism for green agricultural production should be established and improved, with the aim of promoting farmers’ GPB and agricultural green transformation [61,74]. Finally, as direct economic subsidies can increase government costs and may not necessarily stimulate farmers’ GPB [76], the government should innovate subsidy models, such as social security systems, loans, and other indirect subsidy measures, to improve farmers’ risk tolerance [79]. (3) Improving rural infrastructure construction to facilitate agricultural green transformation. The government should further strengthen the construction of rural informatization, digitization, and other infrastructures to cultivate farmers’ social capital [14,64]. Moreover, the supply of supporting infrastructures, such as waste treatment stations, should be increased to facilitate the treatment of agricultural waste, thereby creating a favorable external environment for green production [4,43]. (4) Encouraging young individuals to return to their hometowns and cultivate new professional farmers. To address issues such as rural hollowing out and aging, the government should continue to implement a range of measures to encourage young individuals to return to their hometowns for entrepreneurship and cultivate new professional farmers [25,80].

Marketization plays a significant role in agricultural green development, and the improvement of market mechanisms can further incentivize farmers to adopt GPB and accelerate green agricultural transformation [74]. Specifically, such mechanisms should focus on the following: (1) Improving the land transfer system and developing moderate-scale agricultural operations. Land transfer is a prominent phenomenon in the evolution of modern agriculture. Adjacent plots should be encouraged to be integrated and consolidated to expand the land scale to reduce the negative impacts of land fragmentation [35,62]. Furthermore, there may be low levels of motivation to safeguard the transferred land; thus, it is necessary to strengthen supervision over its green production and enhance land security [63]. (2) Strengthening green product certification and improving the market trading mechanism. First, relevant departments should strengthen their green product certification and increase farmers’ awareness and enthusiasm for certification [45]. Second, standards, pricing mechanisms, and brand building for green agricultural products should be established to increase farmers’ income and promote their GPB [18]. Finally, consumption is a key force leading to green transformation. Green consumption should be actively expanded, and the green transformation of the production mode should be forced through green consumption [18]. (3) Building a new agricultural management system to promote agricultural green transformation. A benefit-sharing mechanism between new agricultural industrial organizations and farmers should be established to help farmers access high-value agricultural markets and increase their income [81,82].

Finally, the green development of agriculture relies on the collaboration among multiple social entities to promote green and low-carbon production models and technologies, driving agriculture towards a more environmentally friendly and efficient direction [80,83]. In particular, the following points should be addressed: (1) Leverage the advantages of agricultural social organization to guide farmers in green production. First, agricultural social organization should actively attract farmers to increase their awareness through training, guidance, and communication, accelerating the adoption of GPB [27,68]. Second, agricultural social organization should establish information service platforms on the basis of local conditions to help farmers efficiently access market information and reduce information asymmetry [12]. Finally, agricultural social organization should actively promote agricultural technology extension projects, encouraging farmers to try new technologies to improve productivity [13,84]. (2) Vigorously cultivate agricultural science and technology talent to support green agricultural development. On the one hand, social organizations, including agricultural bureaus, agricultural technology extension centers, and universities, should increase the research and application of green agricultural technology [34,85]. On the other hand, the construction of grassroots agricultural technology extension teams should be strengthened, the dedication of agricultural technology extension workers should be cultivated, and issues related to green agricultural production should be effectively addressed [33,38]. (3) Multi-subjective and multichannel publicity and guidance to create a favorable atmosphere for green production. International experience has shown that agricultural training and demonstration projects are conducive to technology adoption [83]. The government, social organization, and other relevant departments should summarize models of agricultural green production, forming a batch of exemplary practices and fully playing out the leading role [32]. Information barriers are one of the main factors currently constraining farmers’ GPB [76,86]. Therefore, comprehensively utilizing both traditional and new media approaches to provide guidance and training on green production technology increases farmers’ knowledge and cognitive abilities and promotes green agricultural development [81].

5. Future Research Directions

The preceding section reviews the representative literature on the connotation, stage characteristics, driving factors, and incentive mechanisms of farmers’ GPB. In light of the limitations of the existing analysis, this section proposes potential future research directions based on the evolving trends in global agriculture and rural development. First, the current research on farmers’ GPB has focused primarily on agriculture, yet agriculture is gradually integrating with industries and services. Therefore, future research should broaden its perspective on GPB by incorporating the trend of rural industrial integration. Second, countries worldwide are increasingly utilizing digital intelligent technology in agricultural activities to more effectively monitor and promote farmers’ GPB. Consequently, digital intelligence that aims to empower farmers’ GPB represents a crucial research direction for the future. Finally, food security is a significant strategic concern at the global level, influencing national security, economic development, and social stability. Farmers’ agricultural activities directly affect the stability and sustainability of the food supply. Therefore, how to achieve sustainable agricultural development through farmers’ GPB and ensure national food security is an important research topic for the future.

5.1. Broadening the Research Scope of Farmers’ GPB from the Perspective of Industry Integration

The integration of these three industries has globally become a new trend in agriculture and rural development and can maximize the value of agricultural products and enhance agricultural efficiency. However, the current research on farmers’ GPB has focused mainly on agriculture, especially crop farming, with little exploration into industries and services, which is obviously not in line with the current development trend in rural areas; therefore, it is difficult to accurately assess and measure farmers’ GPB levels. Future research should broaden the scope of farmers’ GPB from the perspective of industry integration. In particular, the concept and the measurement model of farmers’ GPB need to be reconstructed to overcome the shortcomings of the traditional agriculture-oriented approach. Additionally, thus far, scholars have mainly used the questionnaire survey method to study farmers’ GPB; however, this approach can often suffer from self-reporting errors. Therefore, further innovations in research methodology are needed in future research.

5.2. Empowering Farmers’ GPB Through Digital Intelligence

The research indicates that digital intelligence technology can promote farmers’ GPB [15]; however, studies on this topic are relatively rare and focus primarily on farmers’ information acquisition and agricultural product market transactions. Scholars have found that digital technology can break the constraints of information barriers on behavioral decisions, mitigate the risk of uncertainty, and serve as a pivotal driver of farmers’ GPB [33,64]. Additionally, with respect to market transactions, e-commerce has the potential to generate price premiums for high-quality products, which makes the adoption of GPB an effective way for farmers to increase their income [65]. Overall, research on the use of digital intelligence to enhance farmers’ GPB is still in the early stages. As the digital economy and the construction of digital villages continue to globally develop, future research directions should prioritize strengthening the connection and empowerment of digital intelligence with agriculture, rural areas, and farmers. This approach entails integrating digital intelligence technology throughout the entire production process, enabling comprehensive visual and precise management, and facilitating sustainable agricultural development worldwide.

5.3. Farmers’ GPB and Food Security

Food security is a critical issue of common concern to countries worldwide. Currently, the research on food security is based mostly on a macro perspective and involves factors such as geopolitical conflicts, climate change, land use, and food prices [87,88,89]. However, micro studies on food security from the perspective of farmers remain relatively rare. Given the current complex international situation, countries should prioritize domestic food production and gradually focus on farmers and their agricultural production to ensure the stability and sustainability of the food supply and maintain food security. In China, for example, the government attaches great importance to food security and explicitly proposes strengthening domestic food production to maintain national food security. Increasing farmers’ willingness to produce is one of the key measures in this process. How to mobilize farmers’ green production motivation to ensure national food security is a topic worthy of in-depth research, which not only helps optimize the agricultural production model but also provides new ideas and solutions for global food security.

6. Conclusions

This paper aims to review the literature to disclose the mechanisms of farmers’ GPB, including both drivers and incentives. It is highly important for promoting, disseminating, and implementing farmers’ GPB in China and other countries, thus accelerating green transformation. Based on the above research results and analysis, the main conclusions are as follows.

At present, the research on farmers’ GPB mainly focuses on the primary industry, particularly agriculture. The visualization analysis of the literature on GPB reveals that mid-production is the main research object, whereas the research on the preproduction and postproduction stages remains relatively inadequate. However, with the integration of rural industries and upgrading, focusing solely on agricultural production is not in line with the global trend of agricultural and rural development. Therefore, this study provides a new connotation for farmers’ GPB, which is characterized by emphasizing the integration of rural industries rather than focusing on agriculture as the main industry, highlighting the entire process of farmer production, and achieving the unification of agricultural efficiency, farmer income, and rural green development.

Based on the driving factors of farmers’ GPB in the existing literature, this paper divides them into individual variables, household endowment characteristics, and external variables, further analyzes the effects of each variable, and summarizes that the consensus has not yet been reached in the analyzed papers. Meanwhile, future research insights are proposed. On the one hand, the influencing factors of farmers’ GPB are not independent, and it is necessary to strengthen the research on the interactions among variables. On the other hand, in the context of industrial integration and upgrading, the future research should re-examine the formation mechanism of farmers’ GPB from a new perspective.

In addition, this paper refers to agricultural transformation practices worldwide and summarizes the policy implications in the literature concerning the promotion of farmers’ GPB. A multiagent incentive mechanism system is constructed from the perspectives of government-led, market-oriented, and social participation. The findings provide a reference for promoting, disseminating, and implementing farmers’ GPB globally.

Finally, in light of the limitations of the extant analysis, three future research directions are proposed based on the evolving trends in global agriculture and rural development. Among them, the first two research directions are based on the current trends of rural tertiary industry integration and digital village construction, whereas the third direction is proposed primarily in response to the global food security issue, combining farmers’ GPB with food security. Such development is crucial for promoting farmers’ GPB on a global scale and contributing to the transformation of agriculture and food systems.