Does family life cycle influence farm households’ adoption decisions concerning sustainable agricultural technology?

References

• Amirtha, R., Sivakumar, V. J., & Hwang, Y. (2020). Influence of perceived risk dimensions on e-shopping behavioural intention among women: A family life cycle stage perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(3), 320–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amirtha, R., & Sivakumar, V. J. (2018). Does family life cycle stage influence e-shopping acceptance by Indian women: An examination using the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(3), 267–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andres, T. B., Pennings, J. M. E., & Dianne, H. (2016). Understanding producers’ motives for adopting sustainable practices: The role of expected rewards, risk perception, and risk tolerance. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 1, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Barbieri, A. F., Bilsborrow, R. E., & Pan, W. K. (2005). Farm household lifecycles and land use in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Population and Environment, 27(1), 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. A., Venkatesh, & Viswanath. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. Mis Quarterly, 29(3), 399–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, Q., Li, X. P., Xie, X. X., & Zhao, M. J. (2020). The impact of non-agricultural employment on farmers’ ecological production behavior: Based on the mediating effect of agricultural production and operation characteristics and the regulating effect of the family life cycle. China Rural Survey, 1, 76–93.
   Google Scholar
• Chao, G. L., & Wan, G. S. (2016). Life-cycle variation of migrant workers’ households and the impact on their household consumption structure. Management World, 11, 96–109.
   Google Scholar
• Christine, A. E., & David, E. E. (1982). Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: Hypotheses, evidence, and policy implications. Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, 58(3), 277–292.
   Google Scholar
• Derrick, F. W., & Lehfeld, A. K. (1980). The family life cycle: An alternative approach. The Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duvall, E. M. (1971). Family Development (4th ed., pp. 106–132). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company.
   Google Scholar
• Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovation in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 255–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• García, A. B., & Gruat, J. V. (2003). A life cycle continuum investment for social justice. Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development, 11, 1–57.
   Google Scholar
• Glick, P. C. (1947). The Family Cycle. American Sociological Review, 12(2), 164–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, K., Zhang, J. B., & Tian, Y. (2013). Family life cycle, demographic characteristics and labor-saving technique needs: Based on the data of 582 farmers. Soft Science, 5, 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• He, Z. W., Hu, L., & Lu, Q. (2018). Influence of farmer’s risk preference and risk perception on water-saving irrigation technology adoption. Resources Science, 40(4), 797–808.
   Google Scholar
• Hou, L. K., Qiu, H. G., Bai, J. F., & Xu, Z. G. (2014). The influence of farmers’ risk preference on agricultural production factor inputs: An example of farmers’ maize variety choice. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 5, 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, X. X., Jiang, S. T., An, X. R., Wu, W. L., Xie, C. Y., Shen, Z. Z., … Shen, Q. R. (2020). Effects of combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers on Mango yield, quality and economic benefit. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 43(6), 1107–1115.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Q., Wang, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Do water saving technologies save water: Empirical evidence from North China. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 82, 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Just, R. E., & Pope, R. D. (1978). Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications. Journal of Econometrics, 7(1), 67–86.
   Google Scholar
• Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., Shiferaw, B., Mmbando, F., & Mekuria, M. (2013). Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 525–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassie, M., Teklewold, H., Jaleta, M., Paswel, M., & Olaf, E. (2015). Understanding the adoption of a portfolio of sustainable intensification practices in eastern and Southern Africa. Land Use Policy, 42, 400–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khonje, M. G., Julius, M., Petros, M., Hirpa, T. A., & Alene, A. D. (2018). Adoption and welfare impacts of multiple agricultural technologies: Evidence from eastern Zambia. Agricultural Economics, 49(5), 599–609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuscu, H. (2013). Effect of irrigation amounts applied with drip irrigation. Turkish Journal of Field Crops Research, 18(1), 13–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansing, J. B., & Kish, L. (1957). Family life cycle as an independent variable. American Sociological Review, 22, 512–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. R. (2005). Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: Issues and policies for developing countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(5), 1325–1334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leinbach Thomas R., &, Smith Adrian. (1994). Off-farm employment, land, and life cycle: Transmigrant households in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Economic Geography, 70(3), 273–296 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, F. N., Zhang, J. B., & He, K. (2019). Impact of informal institutions and environmental regulations on farmers’ green production behavior: Based on survey data of 1105 households in Hubei Province. Resources Science, 41(7), 1227–1239.
   Google Scholar
• Li, H. (2005). Family life cycle and peasant income in Socialist China: Evidence from Qin Village. Journal of Family History Studies En Family Kinship & Demography, 30(1), 121–138.
   Google Scholar
• Li, M., Chen, Y., Tang, P., & Feng, Y. (2020). Influence of family life cycle on farming households’ willingness to exitrural residential land. Resources Science, 42(9), 1692–1703.
   Google Scholar
• Liang, L., Lin, S. L., & Zhang, Z. X. (2015). Effect of the family life cycle on the family farm scale in Southern China. Agricultural Economics, 61(9), 429–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, S. L., Zhang, Z. X., & Lin, Y. M. (2011). The impact analysis of family life cycle on rural labor return: Based on the survey of Fujian rural area. Journal of Public Management, 8(4), 76–84+126.
   Google Scholar
• Luo, L., Qin, L., Wang, Y., & Wang, Q. (2016). Environmentally-friendly agricultural practices and their acceptance by smallholder farmers in China-a case study in Xinxiang County, Henan Province. Science of the Total Environment, 571(15), 737–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, M. Z., Lin, Y. C., & Qiu, H. L. (2021). Risk preferences, training participation and farmers’ adoption of new technology: Case of Henan province. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 35(1), 43–48.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, P. E., & Staples, W. A. (1979). A modernized family life cycle. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(6), 12–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neulinger, A., & Rado, M. (2018). The impact of household life-cycle stages on subjective well-being: Considering the effect of household expenditures in Hungary. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42(1), 16–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofuoku, A. U., Egho, E. O., & Enujeke, E. C. (2008). Integrated pest management (IPM) adoption among farmers in central agro-ecological zone of Delta State, Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 12, 123–130.
   Google Scholar
• Peng, J. Q., & Wu, H. T. (2017). Study on the influencing factors of multi dimension poverty of farmers from the perspective of family life cycle. World Economic Papers, 6, 72–87.
   Google Scholar
• Perz, S. G., Walker, R. T., & Caldas, M. M. (2006). Beyond population and environment: Household demographic life cycles and land use allocation among small farms in the Amazon. Human Ecology, 34(6), 829–849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perz, S. G., & Walker, R. T. (2002). Household life cycles and secondary forest cover among small farm colonists in the Amazon. World Development, 30(6), 1009–1027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley, W. B., & Chow, K. V. (1992). Asset allocation and individual risk aversion. Financial Analysts Journal, 48(6), 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd edition) (pp. 200–255). London: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sall, S., Norman, D., & Featherstone, A. M. (2000). Quantitative assessment of improved rice variety adoption: The farmer’s perspective. Agricultural Systems, 66(2), 129–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz, R., Makary, T., Hubert, S., Hartung, K., & Donath, G. (2015). Is it necessary to split nitrogen fertilization for winter wheat: On-farm research on Luvisols in South-West Germany. Journal of Agricultural Science, 153(4), 575–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherbinin, A. D., Vanwey, L. K., Mcsweeney, K., Aggarwal, R., & Walker, R. (2008). Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 38–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, D. L., & Khaled, S. (2015). The effect of conservative treatment of urinary incontinence among older and frail older people: A systematic review. Informatics in Primary Care, 44, 338–347.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, L. A. (1994). Off-farm employment, land, and life cycle: Transmigrant households in South Sumatra, Indonesia. Economic Geography, 70(3), 273–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorokin, P. A., Zimmermann, C. C., & Galpin, C. J. (1931). A Systematic Source Book in Rural Sociology (Vol. 1). New York, NY, USA: Russell& Russell.
   Google Scholar
• Su, M., Feng, S. Y., & Zhu, P. X. (2020). Impact of household life cycle and risk preference on rural households’ willingness to engage in land scale operation: Based on the survey data from two counties of Jiangsu Province. China Land Science, 34(7), 88–96.
   Google Scholar
• Supaporn, P., Kobayashi, T., & Supawadee, C. (2013). Factors affecting farmers’ decisions on utilization of rice straw compost in Northeastern Thailand. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 114(1), 21–27.
   Google Scholar
• Teklewold, H., Kassie, M., & Shiferaw, B. (2013). Adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3), 597–623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thangata, P. H., & Alavalapati, J. (2003). Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: The case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize. Agricultural Systems, 78(1), 57–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, R., Perz, S., Caldas, M., & Silva, L. G. T. (2002). Land use and land cover change in forest frontiers: The role of household life cycles. International Regional Science Review, 25(2), 169–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, W., & Wu, H. T. (2017). The determinants of rural labor transfer to non-agricultural sectors from the perspective of family life cycle: An analysis using field survey data in Hubei Province. China Rural Survey, 6, 57–70.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Z. W., & Deng, D. S. (2015). Research on risk measurement and risk prevention mechanism for rural families: Validity of social security system against risks in rural Areas. China Soft Science, 7, 182–192.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, W. D., & Gubar, G. (1966). Life cycle concept in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 3(12), 355–363.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, D. D., Ma, Z. X., Deng, X., Liu, Y., Huang, K., Zhou, W. F., & Yong, Z. L. (2020). Relationships between land management scale and livelihood strategy selection of rural households in China from the perspective of family life cycle. Land, 9(1), 11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye, Z., Cai, J., Chen, Y., & Xia, X. L. (2019). Study on the effect of family life cycle on farmers’ farmland transfer behavior: An empirical analysis based on survey data of farmers in Qinba mountain area. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 28(8), 1929–1937.
   Google Scholar
• Yi, Z., & Zhu, C. (2017). Demographic structure and financial market risk structure: Time-variant risk aversion in the life cycle. Economic Research Journal, 52(9), 150–164.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Y. M., Zhang, J. B., He, K., & Chen, L. L. (2019). Who cares what parents think or do: Observational learning and experience-based learning through communication in rice farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural technologies in Hubei Province, China. Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 26(12), 12522–12536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, W. K., He, B., & Yang, M. W. (2020). Population age structure and financial assets choices: A thinking based on view of the individual life cycle. Rural Finance Research, 6, 53–62.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, X. Y., Wang, F., & Ying, R. Y. (2018). Farmers’ endowment constraints, technical properties and agricultural technology selection preferences: An analytical framework of farmers’ technology adoption under an incomplete factor market. Chinese Rural Economy, 3, 105–122.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, P. X., Yang, Z., & Rao, F. P. (2017). The effect of family life cycle on land-scale management. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 6, 43–53+126-127.
   Google Scholar
• Zinda, J., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Land tenure legacies, household life cycles, and livelihood strategies in Upland China. Rural Sociology, 83(1), 51–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar