A Study on the Impact of Social Trust on Farmers’ Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization Behavior in the Context of Environmental Regulation Policy
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
2.1. The Impact of Social Trust on Farmers’ Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization Behavior
2.2. The Moderating Role of Environmental Regulation Policies in the Impact of Social Trust on Farmers’ Agricultural Waste Recycling Behavior
3. Model, Data and Variables
3.1. Research Methodology
3.2. Data Sources and Sample Description
3.3. Variable Selection
3.3.1. Dependent Variable
3.3.2. Explanatory Variables
3.3.3. Moderating Variables
3.3.4. Control Variables
4. Results
4.1. Correlation Analysis
4.2. Basic Regression
4.2.1. Impact of Explanatory Variables
4.2.2. Impact of Control Variables
4.3. Moderating Effect Test
4.4. Robustness Tests
4.5. Heterogeneity Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Similarities and Differences with Existing Research
5.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications
5.3. Limitation and Future Research Direction
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1. Conclusions
6.2. Policy Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wu, S.; Xing, L.; Wang, J.; Jia, M.; Liu, C.; Zhou, Q.; Wang, L. Domestic and Foreign Research Hotspots and Development Trend of Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2024, 40, 148–156. [Google Scholar]
- Koul, B.; Yakoob, M.; Shah, M.P. Agricultural Waste Management Strategies for Environmental Sustainability. Environ. Res. 2022, 206, 112285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Han, J.; He, X. Development of circular economy is a fundamental way to achieve agriculture sustainable development in China. Energy Procedia 2011, 5, 1530–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velasco-Muñoz, J.; Mendoza, J.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.; Gallego-Schmid, A. Circular economy implementation in the agricultural sector: Definition, strategies and indicators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 170, 105618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Tao, J.; Chen, L. Resource Utilization Method and Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Behaviors towards Livestock and Poultry Waste. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2019, 29, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, A.; Li, X. Study on Farmer’s Willingness and Behavior about Agricultural Waste Recycling Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Arid Land Res. Environ. 2019, 33, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassie, M.; Jaleta, M.; Shiferaw, B.; Mmbando, F.; Mekuria, M. Adoption of Interrelated Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Smallholder Systems: Evidence from Rural Tanzania. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2013, 80, 525–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Dou, L.; Wang, Y. The Impact of Agricultural Marketization on Livestock Waste Resource Utilization in the Context of Environmental Regulation Policy. Chin. Rural Econ. 2022, 1, 93–111. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Xiao, L.; Huang, Y. Farmers’ Ecological Environmental Protection Awareness and Its Impact on Wastes Utilization. J. Agric. For. Econ. Manag. 2020, 19, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langenbach, B.P.; Berger, S.; Baumgartner, T.; Knoch, D. Cognitive Resources Moderate the Relationship Between Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Green Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2020, 52, 979–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, D.; Kong, F. An Analysis of Waste Cyclic Utilization in Livestock Breeding Based on the Grounded Theory: Farmers’ Behavior and Policy Intervention Paths. J. Jiangxi Univ. Finance Econ. 2018, 3, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Dou, L.; Ma, L. Analysis of the Driving Mechanism for Farmers’ Integration into Agricultural Green Production Transformation: A Case Study of Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2023, 23, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, H.; Sui, D.; Wu, H.; Zhao, M. The Influence of Social Capital on Farmers’ Participation in Watershed Ecological Management Behavior: Evidence from Heihe Basin. Chin. Rural Econ. 2018, 1, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Zhu, Y. Effects of Social Trust and Cooperative Ability on Farmers’ Participation Behavior in Supply of Small-scale Farmland Water Conservancy: Based on the Data of Five Provinces in Yellow River Irrigation District. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2016, 26, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Zhao, X.; Li, H.; Zhang, Q. Will Social Capital Affect Farmers’ Choices of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies? Evidence from Rural Households in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 83, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Li, G.; Liu, D.; Gao, Y. Influence of Agricultural Extension Adoption of Modes on Farmers’ Scientific Fertilization Techniques: The Moderating Effect of Social Trust. J. Arid Land Res. Environ. 2024, 38, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Z.; Zhong, Z. Benefit Expectation, Social Trust and Farmer’s Choice of Farmland Transfer-out Contract. Arid Land Res. Environ. 2022, 36, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Liu, J.; Huo, X. Impact of Social Trust on Farmland Rental Market. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2020, 20, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Z.; Guo, Y. The Effect of Environmental regulation and Social Capital on Farmers’ Adoption Behavior of Low-carbon Agricultural Technology. J. Nat. Resour. 2023, 38, 2872–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Fu, S. How Do Agricultural Policies Influence Farmers’ Decisions on the Resource Utilization of Productive Agricultural Waste? An Empirical Study Based on 1227 Farm Household Survey Data from Anhui Province. Rural Econ. 2023, 9, 98–108. [Google Scholar]
- Mueller, W. The Effectiveness of Recycling Policy Options: Waste Diversion or Just Diversions? Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 508–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, J.; Goldsmith, P.; Thomas, M.H. Economic Impact and Public Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations at the Parcel Level of Craven County, North Carolina. Agric. Hum. Values 2010, 27, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Zhou, H. Can Social Trust and Policy of Rewards and Punishments Promote Farmers’ Participation in the Recycling of Pesticide Packaging Waste? J. Arid Land Res. Environ. 2021, 35, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F.; Zhang, J.; He, K. Alternative and Complementary: Informal Institutions and Formal Institutions in Farmers’ Green Production. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2019, 33, 51–60+94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delhey, J.; Newton, K.; Welzel, C. How General is Trust in “Most People”? Solving the Radius of Trust Problem. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2011, 76, 786–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinesen, P.T.; Sønderskov, K.M. Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: Evidence from the Micro-Context. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2015, 80, 550–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsang, S.; Burnett, M.; Hills, P.; Welford, R. Trust, Public Participation, and Environmental Governance in Hong Kong. Environ. Policy Gov. 2009, 19, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, K.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Wu, X. Interpersonal Trust, Institutional Trust, and Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Environmental Governance: A Case of Agricultural Waste Recycling. Manag. World 2015, 5, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Q.; Wang, Y. On the Choices of Government Behaviors in the Utilization of Livestock and Poultry Waste Resources. Rural Econ. 2018, 9, 55–61. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, T.; Yu, F. The Impact of Cognition of Livestock Waste Resource Utilization on Farmers’ Participation Willingness in the Context of Environmental Regulation Policy. Chin. Rural Econ. 2019, 8, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Si, R.; Lu, Q.; Zhang, S. Effect of Environmental Regulation on Household Dead Pig Recycling Disposal Behavior: Based on the Empirical Data in Hebei, Henan, and Hubei Province. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 7, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, R.; He, K.; Zhang, J. How Do Environmental Regulations Affect Farmers’ Decision-making of Utilizing Livestock and Poultry Manure as Resources? From the Perspective of Perceptions of Large-scale Pig Farmers. China Rural Surv. 2021, 6, 85–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, K.; Zhang, J. The Ecological Value of Agricultural Waste Recycling: A Comparative Analysis of the Willingness to Pay between New Generation and Previous Generation Farmers. China Rural Econ. 2014, 5, 62–73+85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, D.; Kong, F. Analysis of Livestock Farmers’ Choices for Environmentally Friendly Animal Manure Disposal: A Case Study of Pig Farming. China Rural Econ. 2015, 9, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Wang, G. Influence of Social Capital on Farmers’ Adoption of Breeding Waste Recycling Technology: Regulatory Role of Environmental Regulation Policy. J. Agric. For. Econ. Manag. 2021, 20, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Yan, T.; Zhang, J. How the Rural Cadre-farmer Relationship Affects the Farmers’ Agricultural Waste Utilization: Based on the Survey Data of 1372 Farmers in Four Provinces. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2020, 20, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, T.; He, K.; Zhang, J. Analysis of Social Capital Influencing Farmers’ Willingness of Environmental Protection Investment: Evidence from Empirical Study on Reusing Agricultural Wastes in Hubei Rural Areas. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2016, 26, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouma, J.; Bulte, E.; Van, S.D. Trust and Cooperation: Social Capital and Community Resource Management. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2008, 56, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Luo, X.; Zhang, J. Social Supervision, Group Identity and Farmers’ Domestic Waste Centralized Disposal Behavior: An Analysis Based on Mediation Effect and Regulation Effect of the Face Concept. China Rural Surv. 2019, 2, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Jiang, Y. The Impact of Environmental Risk Perception on Pig Farmers’ Environmental Behavior under Environmental Regulation Policy Context: A Survey of 280 Large-Scale Farmers in Hubei Province. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2016, 11, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, L. The Complementarity and Substitutability of Reputation and Regulation: Empirical Study Based on Online Transaction Data. Manag. World 2008, 7, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, F.; Zhang, J.; He, K. lmpact of Informal Institutions and Environmental Regulations on Farmers’ Green Production Behavior: Based on Survey Data of 1105 Households in Hubei Province. Res. Sci. 2019, 41, 1227–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z. Ageing, Social Network and the Adoption of Green Production Technology: Evidence from Farm Households in Six Provinces in the Yangtze River Basin. China Rural Surv. 2018, 4, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, T.; Zong, Y.; Wang, J. Farmers’ Adoption Behavior of Organic Soil Improvement Technology: External Incentives and Endogenous Driving. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2021, 8, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Li, Y.; Li, H. Capital Endowment and Farmers’ Participation Behavior in Social Governance: An Empirical Analysis Based on Data from 1599 Farmers in Five Provinces. China Rural Surv. 2016, 1, 27–37+50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Wang, D.; Lu, Q. Impact of Agricultural Productive Services on Green Production Behavior of Farmers. J. Arid Land Res. Environ. 2024, 38, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, K.; Zhang, R.; Sun, P. The Impacts of Capital Endowment on Farmers’ Adoption Behaviors of Agricultural Socialization Services: From the Perspective of Family Life Cycle. Agric. Mod. Res. 2022, 43, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
AVE | CR | Interpersonal Trust | Institutional Trust | Environmental Regulation Policy | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
interpersonal trust | 0.810 | 0.895 | 0.900 | ||
institutional trust | 0.847 | 0.917 | −0.055 | 0.920 | |
environmental regulation policy | 0.550 | 0.826 | 0.169 *** | 0.239 *** | 0.742 |
Variable Type | Variables | Definition | Mean | Std. Dev. |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | agricultural waste resource utilization behavior | Has the respondent participated in the resource utilization of agricultural waste: Yes = 1; no = 0 | 0.725 | 0.447 |
Explanatory Variables | interpersonal trust | I trust my relatives and the surrounding farmers very much, and they influence my agricultural waste resource utilization behavior: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; generally agree = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5 | 3.606 | 0.923 |
institutional trust | “I trust the village officials very much, and they influence my agricultural waste resource utilization behavior” and “I have great trust in policies, and I believe the government can promote the regulation of agricultural waste pollution”: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; generally agree = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5 | 3.526 | 0.693 | |
Moderating Variables | guiding policy | Government promotion and technical training on agricultural waste resource utilization: never = 1; occasionally = 2; generally = 3; frequently = 4; always = 5 | 2.769 | 1.065 |
restrictive policy | Strong regulatory pressure from environmental protection agencies during agricultural waste resource utilization: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; generally agree = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5 | 3.047 | 0.746 | |
incentive-based policy | Government economic incentives for agricultural waste resource utilization: never = 1; occasionally = 2; generally = 3; frequently = 4; always = 5 | 2.850 | 1.172 | |
Control Variables | gender | Male = 1; female = 0 | 0.609 | 0.488 |
age | 18–29 = 1; 30–39 = 2; 40–49 = 3; 50–59 = 4; above 60 = 5 | 4.024 | 0.964 | |
education level | Middle school and below = 1; vocational/high school = 2; undergraduate = 3; graduate and above = 4 | 1.438 | 0.712 | |
numbers of family labor | Actual number | 3.736 | 2.023 | |
agricultural income proportion | 0–20% = 1; 21–40% = 2; 41–60% = 3; 61–80% = 4; 81–100% = 5 | 2.093 | 0.235 | |
mode of production | Ordinary farmer = 1; professional household = 2; family farm = 3; farmers’ cooperative = 4; agricultural enterprise = 5 | 1.198 | 0.632 | |
fixed agricultural waste recycling point | There are local fixed agricultural waste recycling points: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; generally agree = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5 | 3.458 | 0.977 | |
distance to fixed agricultural waste recycling point | The agricultural waste recycling point is nearby: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; generally agree = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5 | 3.094 | 1.055 | |
perceived value of agricultural waste resource utilization | Agricultural waste resource utilization is beneficial for improving the rural ecological environment: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; generally agree = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5 | 3.735 | 0.808 | |
expectations for agricultural waste resource utilization | I have an optimistic expectation for the future of agricultural waste resource utilization: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; generally agree = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5 | 3.462 | 0.741 | |
regional dummy variables | Suqian = 1; other = 0 Taizhou = 1; other = 0 Wuxi = 1; other = 0 | 0.265 0.310 0.425 | 0.442 0.463 0.495 |
Variables | Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization Behavior | Interpersonal Trust | Institutional Trust | Guiding Policy | Restrictive Policy | Incentive-Based Policy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
agricultural waste resource utilization behavior | 1 | |||||
interpersonal trust | 0.126 ** | 1 | ||||
institutional trust | 0.168 ** | 0.042 | 1 | |||
guiding policy | −0.02 | 0.143 ** | 0.324 ** | 1 | ||
restrictive policy | −0.001 | 0.186 ** | 0.325 ** | 0.491 ** | 1 | |
incentive-based policy | −0.054 | 0.147 ** | 0.114 ** | 0.424 ** | 0.340 ** | 1 |
Variables | Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (4) | Model (5) | Marginal Effects (Based on Model (5)) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
interpersonal trust | 0.256 *** (0.099) | 0.260 ** (0.102) | 0.250 ** (0.104) | 0.247 ** (0.104) | 0.199 * (0.109) | 0.032 * (0.018) |
institutional trust | 0.871 *** (0.147) | 0.864 *** (0.150) | 0.845 *** (0.152) | 0.822 *** (0.167) | 0.620 *** (0.173) | 0.101 *** (0.027) |
gender | 0.886 *** (0.189) | 0.892 *** (0.193) | 0.922 *** (0.195) | 0.899 *** (0.198) | 0.147 *** (0.031) | |
age | −0.026 (0.116) | −0.048 (0.118) | −0.062 (0.120) | −0.053 (0.122) | −0.009 (0.020) | |
education level | 0.054 (0.164) | 0.016 (0.167) | −0.007 (0.168) | −0.094 (0.174) | −0.015 (0.028) | |
numbers of family labor | 0.115 (0.073) | 0.109 (0.073) | 0.101 (0.072) | 0.016 (0.012) | ||
agricultural income proportion | −0.124 (0.081) | −0.144 * (0.082) | −0.160 * (0.084) | −0.026 * (0.014) | ||
mode of production | 0.543 *** (0.203) | 0.568 *** (0.205) | 0.438 ** (0.203) | 0.071 ** (0.031) | ||
fixed agricultural waste recycling point | 0.209 (0.129) | 0.005 (0.139) | 0.001 (0.023) | |||
distance to fixed agricultural waste recycling point | −0.157 (0.117) | −0.216 * (0.123) | −0.035 * (0.020) | |||
perceived value of agricultural waste resource utilization | 0.454 *** (0.162) | 0.074 *** (0.026) | ||||
expectations for agricultural waste resource utilization | 0.339 * (0.176) | 0.055 * (0.029) | ||||
regional dummy variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled |
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Pseudo R2 | 0.087 | 0.115 | 0.134 | 0.138 | 0.160 | |
log likelihood | −376.544 | −365.240 | −357.388 | −355.773 | −346.346 | |
numbers of observation | 701 | 701 | 701 | 701 | 701 |
Variables | Guiding Policy | Restrictive Policy | Incentive-Based Policy | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Below Mean Group | Above Mean Group | Below Mean Group | Above Mean Group | Below Mean Group | Above Mean Group | |
interpersonal trust | 0.070 (0.125) | 0.704 ** (0.280) | 0.196 (0.124) | 0.510 (0.311) | 0.353 * (0.210) | 0.105 (0.138) |
institutional trust | 0.728 *** (0.197) | −0.508 (0.601) | 0.689 *** (0.195) | 1.140 ** (0.554) | 0.809 ** (0.361) | 0.552 *** (0.212) |
control variables | controlled | controlled | controlled | controlled | controlled | controlled |
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.180 | 0.232 | 0.177 | 0.303 | 0.312 | 0.217 |
log likelihood | −266.991 | −64.606 | −271.181 | −57.985 | −94.065 | −213.302 |
numbers of observation | 535 | 166 | 560 | 141 | 260 | 441 |
empirical p-value | interpersonal trust 0.070 | institutional trust 0.073 | interpersonal trust 0.384 | institutional trust 0.051 | interpersonal trust 0.363 | institutional trust 0.547 |
Variables | Model Substitution (1) | Extreme Value Treatment (2) | Sample Restriction (3) |
---|---|---|---|
interpersonal trust | 0.111 * (0.062) | 0.200 * (0.117) | 0.251 * (0.148) |
institutional trust | 0.354 *** (0.101) | 0.628 *** (0.179) | 0.869 *** (0.230) |
control variables | controlled | controlled | controlled |
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.159 | 0.160 | 0.204 |
log likelihood | −347.067 | −346.665 | −210.385 |
numbers of observation | 701 | 701 | 435 |
Variables | Educational Level | Numbers of Household Labor | Proportion of Agricultural Income | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Below Mean Group | Above Mean Group | Below Mean Group | Above Mean Group | Below Mean Group | Above Mean Group | |
interpersonal trust | 0.231 * (0.139) | 0.216 (0.199) | 0.057 (0.144) | 0.412 ** (0.193) | 0.188 (0.135) | 0.111 (0.214) |
institutional trust | 0.384 * (0.219) | 1.117 *** (0.322) | 0.840 *** (0.237) | 0.570 * (0.299) | 0.566 *** (0.210) | 0.866 ** (0.391) |
control variables | controlled | controlled | controlled | controlled | controlled | controlled |
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.171 | 0.253 | 0.161 | 0.235 | 0.221 | 0.285 |
log likelihood | −230.909 | −99.607 | −174.524 | −149.054 | −216.283 | −96.124 |
numbers of observation | 484 | 217 | 319 | 382 | 481 | 220 |
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. |
© 2025 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, J.; Ma, L. A Study on the Impact of Social Trust on Farmers’ Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization Behavior in the Context of Environmental Regulation Policy. Agriculture 2025, 15, 759. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15070759
Wang J, Ma L. A Study on the Impact of Social Trust on Farmers’ Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization Behavior in the Context of Environmental Regulation Policy. Agriculture. 2025; 15(7):759. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15070759
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Jianhua, and Ling Ma. 2025. "A Study on the Impact of Social Trust on Farmers’ Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization Behavior in the Context of Environmental Regulation Policy" Agriculture 15, no. 7: 759. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15070759
APA StyleWang, J., & Ma, L. (2025). A Study on the Impact of Social Trust on Farmers’ Agricultural Waste Resource Utilization Behavior in the Context of Environmental Regulation Policy. Agriculture, 15(7), 759. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15070759