{"paper_id":"27d4ee64-2a07-4a54-aea4-e7ae43090fc6","body_text":"The Impact of Clan Culture on Farmers' Participation in Environmental Behavior: Evidence from Fujian Province, China | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Impact of Clan Culture on Farmers' Participation in Environmental Behavior: Evidence from Fujian Province, China Senwei Huang, Rubin Shen, Niandong Chen This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415705/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Chinese rural society constitutes a social network system built upon kinship and geographical connections, within which clan culture plays a central role. Through ethical consensus and customary norms, clan culture internalizes the traditional ecological view of “harmonious coexistence between humans and nature” into farmers’ sense of environmental responsibility, thereby offering a low-cost and sustainable pathway for rural environmental protection. From the perspective of clan culture, this study investigates the impact of ritual-based protection order on farmers’ environmental protection behaviors, with a focus on the mediating role of village attachment. Using the distance between the township government seat and a renowned Song Dynasty academy as an instrumental variable for clan culture, the findings indicate: (1) Clan culture significantly promotes farmers’ participation in environmental protection by strengthening social norms and behavioral cognition. (2) Mediation analysis confirms that the endogenous mechanism through which clan culture influences environmental protection participation operates primarily by enhancing villagers’ sense of belonging, which is closely associated with social support and perceived identity. (3) Heterogeneity analysis reveals notable gender differences in the environmental protection effects of clan culture, with male farmers showing significantly higher levels of participation. This study validates the guiding function of traditional culture in rural environmental protection and provides practical insights for cultural protection within the framework of rural revitalization. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Social science/Environmental studies Scientific community and society/Geography Social science/Geography Clan Culture Farming Household Behavior Village Environmental Protection Two-stage Least Squares Model Figures Figure 1 1 Introduction Ritual protection, rooted in traditional behavioral norms and social consensus, differs from legal norms in its reliance on moral education and cultural identity rather than state power. Confucius championed “self-restraint and restoration of ritual,” emphasizing self-discipline and inner awareness, which highlights the spontaneous and moral aspects of ritual protection. Fei Xiaotong distinguished between “ritual protection society” and “legal protection society” [ 1 ] , noting that the former, prevalent in rural China, maintains social order through traditional norms and moral education. Today, Chinese rural protection features the integration of ritual and legal approaches, with ritual protection playing a key role in upholding conventional social order. While ritual protection can have both positive and negative effects—its negative aspects include outdated feudal rituals that restrict rights, while its positive aspects include the promotion of cooperation and trust—harnessing its self-organizing nature is crucial. The central argument is that by retaining the essence and discarding the flaws of ritual protection, rural society can modernize and effectively maintain order through a renewed balance of tradition and innovation. Clan culture is the core of the “ritual protection society”. It is not merely a simple blood relationship organization, but a practical means of protecting propriety. Analyzing the impact of clannish culture on the environmental protection behaviors of farmers is an important means of exploring the social mechanisms for rural environmental protection. The advancement of a rule-of-law society challenges the authority of traditional norms; the deconstruction of clans leads to the weakening of the carriers of propriety, yet propriety is not entirely passive. Its inherent 'rationality' can still provide references for protection in modern society. First, concerning rural environmental protection behavior . The Chinese sociocultural paradigm “born to this soil, bound to this soil, buried in this soil” that rural environmental protection necessitates a polycentric protection model requiring synergistic participation from governmental bodies, village collectives, and individual farmers. Regarding the analysis of influencing factors in behavior, existing research primarily focuses on farmer cognition [ 2 ] , village protection [ 3 ] , and environmental regulation [ 4 ] . Research has extensively investigated psychological cognitive factors such as environmental consciousness, risk perception, and perceived behavioral control [ 5 ] . A study has also verified that the significance of rural environmental protection lies in the mutual supervision between the government and villagers, as well as in collaborative protection [ 6 ] . Among these, Peng Yuanyua notably demonstrated how public spirit and collective regulation within village communality positively influence farmer participation in environmental protection [ 7 ] . Others have analyzed how heterogeneous forms of social capital condition participatory behavior [ 8 ] . From the Perspective of a Community with a Shared Future, Zhang, Y., and Guo, X. emphasize solving the challenges in rural environmental protection through multidimensional collaboration, villager participation, interest balancing, and legal protection, while promoting the construction of ecological civilization [ 9 ] . Environmental regulation exhibits an inverted U-shaped influence on farmers' eco-friendly behaviors, mediated partially by risk cognition and moderated by farming scale [ 10 ] . Synthesizing these insights, effective rural eco-environmental protection requires both formal institutional drivers (environmental regulations, fiscal mechanisms) and informal institutional motivators (cultural norms, village conventions) operating in concert. Second, concerning the connotations and influences of clan culture within the ritual protection order. The ritual protection order integrates ecological ethical concepts such as “Mountain-Forest Symbiosis” into local praxis, transforming environmental stewardship into internalized moral imperatives rather than external compliance, thereby voluntarily participating in ecological conservation. As the core institution of ritual protection, clan culture fosters collective identity and organizational coordination through kinship solidarities. Historically entrenched since the Xia-Shang periods and institutionalized during the Southern Song, clan structures persist as resilient socioeconomic formations despite suppression during early socialist modernization. Post-reform revitalization has seen the resurgence of ancestral hall renovations, genealogical documentation, and veneration rituals. Scholarly discourse reveals dialectical perspectives on clan culture's contemporary impacts: Promotive effects manifest in financial inclusion [ 11 ] , human capital [ 12 ] , and trust traits amidst the ongoing urbanization process [ 13 ] ; Constraining influences emerge in gendered labor participation [ 14 ] , Health Insurance [ 15 ] , and the gender inequality in the leadership of companies [ 16 ] . Notably, research examining clan culture’s causal pathways in environmental protection remains nascent. Preliminary work suggests its influence on livestock farmers’ resource utilization behaviors [ 17 ] , yet systematic analyses are lacking. In summary, while clan culture’s socioeconomic dimensions are well-documented, significant lacunae persist regarding environmental protection;(1) Limited scope : Inadequate examination of clan culture’s cross-domain effects on environmental behaviors spanning agricultural production, daily living, and ecological conservation;(2) Theoretical fragmentation : Absence of integrated frameworks connecting “clan culture—village embeddedness — household behavior”;(3) Methodological imbalance : Predominance of macro-level analysis over micro-level empirical validation. To address these gaps, this study leverages original survey data ( n = 688 valid responses ) from Fujian Province to construct a unified “Clan Culture-Perceived Belongings-Household Behavior” theoretical model. We empirically test clan culture’s micro-level causal mechanisms influencing environmental protection across agricultural, ecological, and domestic spheres. 2 Theoretical analysis and hypothesis development As the foundational organizing principle of rural China's hierarchical society, the ritual protection order—rooted in the naturalistic worldview of “Cosmic-Human Synergy” —continuously shapes farmers' environmental protection practices through clan-based informal institutions. Functioning historically as both coordinator and guardian of rural protection, clan culture establishes cohesive social mobilization networks that transform eco-friendly behaviors from externally imposed constraints to internally driven commitments. This activation of endogenous dynamics represents a core mechanism for effective rural environmental protection ( theoretical framework shown in Fig. 1 ). 2.1 Impact of clan culture on farmers' participation in environmental behavior Clan culture operates not as a static historical artifact but as a dynamic protective resource. Through dual pathways of ethical internalization and social networks, it systematically channels farmer participation in environmental protection. Ethnically, clan culture cultivates collective consciousness through perceptions of “shared roots and origins”, transforming ecological protection into moral imperatives. Members internalize the ecological paradigm of “human-nature harmony”, enabling value internalization and normative guidance to voluntarily promote green production or lifestyle adoption while constraining polluting behaviors. Second, from a social network perspective, rural Chinese society is structured as a hierarchical network based on geographical, bloodline, and clan relationships, with the intensity of these network ties gradually decreasing with the “ripple” distance. In rural areas with stronger clan cultures, clan members maintain closer connections, resulting in a “strong-tie” network [ 18 ] . This “strong-tie” network plays a functional role in environmental protection through information transmission and resource allocation, thereby regulating the behavior of rural society members. In the meantime, enhanced collective action efficiency. For example, local elites composed of clan members, through a trinity of administrative, social, and economic empowerment, can reconstruct rural protection networks and drive sustainable endogenous rural revitalization [ 19 ] . Kinship networks often achieve more efficient human and natural capital allocation than administratively-driven coordination. This ritual protection framework simultaneously addresses second-order collective action problems and mitigates commons tragedies, ultimately establishing sustainable self-protection models that transition environmental protection from state-led intervention to autonomous, stable, and self-perpetuating systems. H1 Clan culture significantly promotes farmers' participation in rural environmental protection behavior. 2.2 Mediating role of clan culture: village attachment Farmers' rational decision-making transcends material endowments (physical, human, and land resources) to encompass cultural-psychological dimensions, including value systems and belongingness perceptions. Contemporary rural socioeconomic development exhibits a transition from relational transactions, which are rooted in familiarity-based societies, and institutional transactions that are governed by formal rules [ 20 ] . Within the differential order pattern structuring rural society, village attachment embedded in clan networks constitutes a foundational bond that anchors individuals within localized relational matrices. It forges socially constrained communities bound by collective honor through kinship and territorial ties. Under traditional ritual protection norms, farmer interactions operated through social networks and trust, where clan authority and face-saving concepts and principles maintained transactional integrity [ 21 ] . However, marketization has progressively shifted rural exchanges toward institutional transaction logics. This transition attenuates clan network cohesion, diminishing belongingness and identity as direct enhancers of environmental protection efficacy. Paradoxically, as enduring social capital, clan structures retain vital functions: As an intermediary embedded within institutionalized transactions, clans mitigate information asymmetry while fortifying institutional trust. Through clan-based moral norms and social oversight, farmers enhance cooperative willingness and responsibility in collective environmental actions. Simultaneously, collective identity and honor pressures compel individuals to fulfill public obligations, avoiding communal disrepute [ 22 ] . Thus, at the institutional-network interface, village attachment reduces environmental protection organizational costs by sustaining traditional ritual protection while bridging institutional trust. This mediating role operates through two distinct pathways: For one thing, the social support Mechanism. Clan culture's core “trust-mutualism” dynamics consolidate rural social networks. It actively channels neighborhood participation in public protection through mentorship and assistance frameworks. Kinship or territorial affiliates cooperate reciprocally, forming village self-protection as a stabilizing social force [ 23 ] . For another, the belongingness Reinforcement Mechanism. Social identity theory posits that individuals adapt their behaviors according to group status and norms, facilitating social coordination and interest conflict mitigation [ 24 ] . Within clan systems, individual interests align with familial and collective interests. Collective pride—rooted in group identification—mobilizes farmers toward communal activities. Belongingness thus heightens place attachment and hometown sentiment, strengthening environmental responsibility and voluntary participation in protection to enhance clan reputation. H2a Clan culture influences farmers' environmental protection behavior by enhancing social support. H2b Clan culture influences farmers' environmental protection behavior by reinforcing belongingness. 3 Methodology 3.1 Procedure for data collection Empirical data derive from household environmental protection surveys conducted across rural Fujian Province, China, during January-February and July-August 2024. Four municipalities—Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, Putian, and Sanming—were strategically selected as survey sites based on geographic and economic criteria. Fujian's unique regional diversity encompasses coastal-inland gradients with heterogeneous rural environments, while sampled areas represent the Southside, Northside, and Middle region of Fujian province. Economic stratification follows 2023 GDP rankings (Quanzhou > Zhangzhou > Putian > Sanming), capturing advanced, intermediate, and developing economies to comprehensively assess protection conditions. Data collection employed multistage random sampling: four prefecture-level cities constituted primary sampling units; 5–8 townships were randomly selected per city, stratified by economic development; 6–8 villages were then randomly chosen per township; finally, 12–15 households per village were interviewed based on agricultural production characteristics. From 712 administered questionnaires, 688 valid responses were retained after excluding incomplete records and landless households (96.63% validity rate). The questionnaire content primarily included characteristics of the interviewed farmers, household characteristics, land use, social support, environmental awareness, and willingness and behavior regarding participation in environmental protection. Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1 . Regarding individual farmer information, males predominate in the sample, accounting for 77.18%. The age structure exhibits an aging trend, with farmers aged 41 and above constituting a high proportion of 91.28%. Among them, those aged 51–60 and 60 and above account for 32.27% and 41.42% respectively, forming the mainstay of agricultural production. Educational attainment is generally low, with only 12.65% of farmers having completed nine or more years of schooling. Over half (47.53%) possess only a junior high school or elementary school education. Additionally, 19.19% of farmers are Communist Party members. Regarding production and management characteristics, the vast majority of households operate on a small scale, with 85.90% cultivating less than 10 hectares of land, indicating that small-scale operations remain the predominant model. The number of household agricultural laborers aligns with this scale, with nearly 80% (79.80%) having two or fewer laborers. Regarding household income levels, most farmers self-rated their income as “average” (64.39%), while those who self-rated as “good” and “excellent” combined accounted for 23.83%. Those self-rated as ‘poor’ and “extremely poor” collectively made up 11.77%. Regarding digital engagement, the vast majority of farmers (85.47%) regularly use the internet, with significant proportions using it for 1–3 hours daily (34.16%) and over 3 hours daily (30.81%). However, 14.53% have never used the internet, indicating disparities in digital technology access and application within the farming community. In summary, the typical characteristics of the sampled farmers are: relatively older age, lower-middle education level, and primarily engaged in small-scale family farming operations, though most have already accessed and used the internet. This sample structure reflects, to a certain extent, the characteristics of the main population currently engaged in agricultural production in Fujian Province. Table 1 Basic information about the sample farmers. Variable Category Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Variable Category Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Gender Male 531 77.18% Cropland Area <=10hm2 591 85.90% Female 157 22.82% 10 ~ 25hm2 59 8.58% Age group 18–30 years 15 2.18% 25 ~ 40hm2 17 2.47% 31 ~ 40 years 45 6.54% 40 ~ 55hm2 8 1.16% 41 ~ 50 years 121 17.59% >=55hm2 13 1.89% 51 ~ 60 years 222 32.27% household income level Very poor 15 2.18% 60 years and above 285 41.42% Poor 66 9.59% Years of Schooling, 5 years and below 274 39.83% Fair 443 64.39% 6ཞ9 years 327 47.53% Good 154 22.38% 9 years and above 87 12.65% Excellent 10 1.45% Political party member member 132 19.19% Internet usage Never 100 14.53% Non-member 556 80.81% <=1h 141 20.49% Number of family agricultural laborers <=2 549 79.80% 1-3h 235 34.16% >=3 139 20.20% >=3h 212 30.81% 3.2 Variable selection 1.1 Dependent variables —farmers’ environmental protection behavior, it was operationalized through a 12-indicator system across three domains (Table 2 ) [ 25 , 26 ], with composite scores derived via entropy weighting. Measurement specifications follow: 1.1.1 Agricultural Production Dimension. Q1: Agricultural packaging disposal: Binary-coded (0 = improper methods: non-disposal/burning/burial; 1 = proper disposal: recycling/household management).Q2: Pesticide reduction: Dichotomous (1 = reduced application per hectare 2021–2023; 0 = no reduction).Q3:Organic fertilizer ratio: Ordinal scale (1 = 0%; 2 = 1–50%; 3 = 51–100%; 4 = 101–150%; 5 = > 150%) 1.1.2 Rural Ecology Dimension. Q1 :River management participation: Binary (0 = non-participation; 1 = decision-making/implementation involvement) Q2 : Biodiversity conservation: Binary (0 = no; 1 = yes) to measure conservation restraint. Q3 : Energy-efficient appliance usage: Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = always) 1.1.3 Livelihood Practices Dimension Aligned with Fujian's 2024 Waste Management Regulations, six items assessed waste segregation frequency via 5-point Likert scales (1 = never to 5 = always):Q1: Plastic bag reuse.Q2: Recyclables segregation (bottles/paper).Q3: Textile/appliance segregation.Q4: Kitchen waste segregation.Q5: Hazardous waste segregation.Q6: Other waste segregation. Table 2 Measuring farmers' participation in rural environmental protection behavior indicators Dimension Norm Mean SD Mini Max Agricultural Production How do you handle agricultural packaging waste? 0.717 0.451 0 1 Compared to the previous two years, have you reduced the amount of pesticides used per hectare of farmland? 0.426 0.495 0 1 What is the proportion of organic fertilizers and other chemical fertilizers you use? 2.693 1.430 1 5 Rural Ecology Have you participated in river management in your village? 0.190 0.393 0 1 How often do you use energy-efficient appliances? 3.625 1.261 1 5 Do you engage in biodiversity conservation? 0.430 0.495 0 1 Livelihood Practices How often do you reuse plastic bags? 3.513 1.345 1 5 How often do you separately collect and dispose of recyclable waste, such as mineral water bottles and waste paper? 3.834 1.429 1 5 How often do you separately collect and dispose of old clothes and old appliances? 3.551 1.375 1 5 How often do you separately collect and dispose of kitchen waste? 3.814 1.415 1 5 How often do you separately collect and dispose of hazardous waste? 2.407 1.434 1 5 How often do you separately collect and dispose of other household waste (except for the above)? 2.353 1.442 1 5 1.2 Independent Variable-Clan Culture . Operationalized through two empirically established indicators [ 27 , 28 ] : presence of ancestral clan halls and major clan status within villages. This measurement captures clan culture's dual function as kinship bond and cultural institution—embodied in ancestral veneration, lineage education, and community cohesion. 1.3 Instrumental Variable : Distance to a renowned Song Dynasty academy --“Kaoting Academy”. Following established methodologies [ 29 , 30 ] , geographical distance from township administrative centers to Kaoting Academy serves as the instrumental variable. Founded by Zhu Xi (1130–1200 CE) in Nanping's Jianyang District, this Southern Song Neo-Confucian academy constituted an institutional epicenter for Confucian-Mencian philosophy dissemination and clan cultural transmission. The variable satisfies relevance criteria: proximity correlates with intensified Confucian scholarly influence on regional clan development. Exogeneity is ensured by historical siting practices prioritizing transportation access and environmental aesthetics. Spherical distances were computed using AutoNavi Maps coordinates. 1.4 Mediating Variables. Village Attachment. Based on the above theoretical analysis, two variables—social support and perceived belongings—were selected for village attachment. Social support is divided into two aspects: economic support and time investment. First, Social Support : Measured through (1)Economic commitment: Willingness to donate for communal projects (temples/roads) on 5-point scale (1=¥0; 2=¥1-500; 3=¥501–1000; 4=¥1001–2000; 5>¥2000) [ 31 ] (2)Temporal investment: Labor days pledged for collective construction (1 = 0 days; 2 = 1–3; 3 = 3–5; 4 = 5–7; 5 ≥ 7 days). Second, Perceived Belongings : Captured via agreement with “Village development requires collective effort” using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree ~ 5 = strongly agree) [ 32 ] , reflecting place attachment and stewardship responsibility. 1.5 Control Variables. Accounting for confounding factors across three tiers [ 33 , 34 ] : Individual characteristics: Age, gender, education years, and Internet usage frequency. Household attributes: Members of an agricultural cooperative, agricultural laborers, and economic standing. Land endowments: Operational farmland area(Detailed operationalization in Table 3 ). Table 3 Descriptive statistics table and variable meanings Variant Variable Type Meaning and Assignment Mean SD Dependent Variable Farmers' Participation in Environmental Behavior Total Score Obtained via the Entropy Method 0.205 0.032 Independent Variable Clan Culture 1. Predominant Surname in Village? 2. Clan Ancestral Hall Present? (Yes = 1, No = 0; averaged)) 0.777 0.365 Instrumental Variable Distance to Kaoting Academy Spherical Distance from Township Government to Kaoting Academy (km) 239.244 89.04 Mediating Variables Social Support Willingness to Donate for Ancestral Hall Construction(¥0 = 1; ¥0–500 = 2; ¥500–1,000 = 3; ¥1,000–2,000 = 4; >¥2,000 = 5) 2.828 1.045 Willingness to Contribute Labor for Construction(0 = 1; 1–3 days = 2; 3–5 days = 3; 5–7 days = 4; ≥7 days = 5) 2.917 1.574 Perceived Belongings Agreement: “The Village is Our Home, Its Development Depends on Everyone”(Very Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Very Agree = 5) 4.440 0.727 Controls Gender Male = 1, Female = 0 0.772 0.420 Age Age of Respondent (years) 58.004 11.792 Years of education Education Level of Respondent 6.126 3.869 Internet usage Neve = 1; ≤1h = 2; 1-3h = 3; ≥3h = 4) 2.813 1.030 Members of an agricultural cooperative Non-Member = 0, Member = 1 0.192 0.394 Household Contracted Farmland Area hm² = hectare 8.520 30.359 Agricultural Labor Force in Household (persons ≥ 16 years old) Count (Includes full-time & part-time farmers) 2.047 1.027 Household Income Level Very poor = 1; Poor = 2; Fair = 3; Good = 4; Excellent = 5 3.113 0.673 3.3 Model specification OLS Model. To investigate the relationship between clan culture and farmers' participation in rural environmental protection, this study employs a benchmark Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model, specified as shown in Eq. (1): $$\\:{Y}^{*}={\\alpha\\:}_{0}+{\\beta\\:}_{1}{Clan}^{*}+{\\delta\\:}_{1}Control+{e}_{1}\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:（1）$$ in Eq. (1), \\(\\:{Y}^{*}\\) is the dependent variable, representing farmers' participation in rural environmental protection; \\(\\:{Clan}^{*}\\) is the core explanatory variable, measuring clan culture; \\(\\:\\:\\:Control\\) represents a vector of control variables encompassing individual farmer characteristics, household characteristics, and farmland conditions; \\(\\:{\\alpha\\:}_{1}\\:\\text{i}\\text{s}\\:\\text{t}\\text{h}\\text{e}\\:\\text{c}\\text{o}\\text{n}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\:\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\text{m}{;\\:\\:e}_{1\\:}\\) is the random error term. 2SLS Model. Simple OLS regression may suffer from estimation bias due to potential endogeneity issues, such as omitted variables. To address these concerns and establish a more robust causal relationship, this paper employs a Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) instrumental variables approach. The first-stage model is specified as: $$\\:{Clan}^{*}={\\alpha\\:}_{2}+{\\beta\\:}_{2}{IV}^{*}+{\\delta\\:}_{2}X+{e}_{2}\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:（2）$$ in Eq. (1), \\(\\:{\\:Clan}^{*}\\) represents clan culture (the endogenous regressor), \\(\\:{IV}^{*}\\) is the instrumental variable, \\(\\:\\:X\\) 为is a vector of control variables, including individual farmer characteristics, household characteristics, farmland conditions, and other relevant controls; \\(\\:{\\alpha\\:}_{2}\\text{i}\\text{s}\\:\\text{t}\\text{h}\\text{e}\\:\\text{c}\\text{o}\\text{n}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\:\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\text{m},\\:\\:{e}_{2}\\) is the random error term. The model settings for the second stage are as follows : $$\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:{Y}^{*}={\\alpha\\:}_{3}+{\\beta\\:}_{3}\\widehat{Clan}+{\\delta\\:}_{3}X+{e}_{3}\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:（3）$$ in Eq. (3), \\(\\:{Y}^{*}\\) represents farmers′ participation in rural environmental protection behavior (the dependent variable). \\(\\:\\:\\widehat{Clan}\\) is the fitted value of clan culture obtained from the first-stage regression (Eq. 2); \\(\\:\\:X\\) is the vector of control variables (identical to those used in the first stage); \\(\\:{\\alpha\\:}_{3}\\text{i}\\text{s}\\:\\text{t}\\text{h}\\text{e}\\:\\text{c}\\text{o}\\text{n}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\:\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\text{m};\\:{e}_{3}\\) is the random error term. 4 Data analysis and results 4.1 Direct effects test Before conducting the benchmark regression analysis, a multicollinearity test was performed to assess potential bias arising from intercorrelated variables. The results indicated that the maximum variance inflation factor (VIF) for any variable was 2.23, with an average VIF of 1.34. These values fall well below conventional thresholds, confirming the absence of significant multicollinearity concerns. Table 3 presents the estimation results from the benchmark model. Columns (1) and (2) report the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression findings. Column (1), which includes only the clan culture variable, demonstrates a statistically significant positive impact (at the 1% level) on farmers' participation in rural environmental protection. Column (2) confirms that this positive and statistically significant relationship (1% level) persists even after incorporating a comprehensive set of control variables. These results collectively indicate that clan culture exerts a positive influence on farmers' engagement in rural environmental protection, thereby supporting Hypothesis H1. A plausible explanation for this finding lies in the ongoing social transformation occurring in rural China. These areas are transitioning from traditional “familiar societies” towards modern “contract-based societies”, resulting in a hybrid “semi-acquaintance society” [ 35 ] . Within this context, the social networks and mutual aid mechanisms fostered by clan culture continue to function effectively as social capital. Furthermore, clan networks facilitate the dissemination of the ecological concept of the “mountain-water-lake-forest-field-grass life community”, significantly enhancing farmers' perception of environmental benefits and values. This heightened awareness encourages greater attention to environmental protection, suggesting that clan culture actively guides farmers towards participation in environmental protection. Table 4 Benchmark Regression OLS: Protection Behavior 2SLS Phase I: Clan Culture 2SLS Phase II: Protection Behavior (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Clan Culture 0.014 *** 0.013 *** 0.111 *** 0.096 *** (0.004) (0.004) (0.019) (0.017) Instrumental Variable 0.001 *** 0.001 *** (0.0001) (0.0001) Controls Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled Constant Term 0.194 *** (0.003) 0.185 *** (0.011) 0.532 *** (0.038) 0.571 *** (0.120) 0.119 *** (0.015) 0.114 *** (0.021) Obs 688 688 688 688 688 688 R 2 0.0248 0.0783 0.0622 0.0945 0.0622 0.0945 First Stage F -Statistics 59.995 65.215 Notes: The values in parentheses are robust standard errors. *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.10. All models control for demographic and household-level covariates 4.2 Endogeneity test To address potential endogeneity concerns stemming from reverse causality and selection bias, we employed a Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) instrumental variables approach. The instrumental variable (IV) used is the spherical distance between the township government seat of the farmer's residence and Kaoting Academy. First, a Hausman test decisively rejected the null hypothesis that clan culture is exogenous (p < 0.01), confirming the necessity of addressing endogeneity. As reported in Columns (3) and (4) of Table 4 , the first-stage regression results demonstrate that the instrumental variable (distance to Kaoting Academy) exhibits a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship (1% level) with clan culture, regardless of whether control variables are included. The first-stage F-statistics (59.995 without controls; 65.215 with controls) substantially exceed the critical threshold of 10, robustly rejecting the presence of a weak instrument problem. The results also reject the null hypothesis that “all explanatory variables are exogenous.” The second-stage estimation results, presented in Columns (5) and (6) of Table 4 , reveal that clan culture (instrumented) maintains a statistically significant positive influence (1% level) on farmers' participation in rural environmental protection. This reinforces the finding from the OLS model that clan culture significantly promotes farmers’ engagement in environmental protection practices. 4.3 Robustness type test To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the findings, this study employs four robustness checks: replacing the research data source, substituting the core explanatory variable, adjusting the clustering hierarchy, and incorporating a potentially omitted variable. 4.3.1 Replacing the Empirical Data Given the geographic focus on Fujian Province, a region with particularly strong clan traditions, the initial analysis may not fully capture how clan culture influences farmers' environmental participation across China's diverse regions, such as the north and west. To address this limitation, we supplement our analysis using data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS). Due to data availability constraints (specifically, the absence of clan culture questions in CFPS after 2014), we combine village-level data from the 2014 CFPS with individual and household-level data from the 2022 survey. Farmers' participation in environmental protection is proxied by their primary cooking fuel source. Following Ma et al. [ 36 , 37 ] , households primarily using clean energy (electricity, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or solar energy) are coded as participants (1), while those relying on non-clean energy (straw, firewood, coal) are coded as non-participants (0). This classification reflects the significant role clean energy adoption plays in reducing pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource depletion within rural environmental protection. Clan culture intensity is measured at the village level using the item: “The proportion of households belonging to the largest surname in the village relative to the total number of households.” This approach, consistent with Binkai C (2018) [ 29 ] , leverages surnames as indicators of clan networks. A higher proportion signifies closer clan ties and stronger clan culture. We then conducted OLS regression using corresponding individual and household-level controls. As shown in Table 5 , column (1), clan culture maintains a positive and statistically significant influence (10% level) on participation, with coefficient stability confirming the robustness of our core finding. 4.3.2 Substituting the Core Explanatory Variable We further test robustness by replacing the clan culture measure with farmers’ self-reported frequency of participation in clan-related traditional folk customs: “Do you frequently participate in sacrificial rituals and deity processions?” Responses were coded: 1 = Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Generally, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Always. Active participation in these rituals signifies engagement with cultural heritage and reflects the importance placed on clan traditions. The results, presented in Table 5 , column (2), show a statistically significant positive relationship (1% level) between this alternative measure and environmental participation, further corroborating the finding that clan culture promotes engagement in rural environmental protection. 4.3.3 Adjusting the Clustering Level The “familiar society” structure of rural China, characterized by geographical proximity and kinship/blood ties, suggests potential interdependence among farmers' environmental participation decisions within villages and exposure to common unobserved factors. We therefore adjusted the baseline regression model by clustering standard errors at the village level, assuming correlated errors within villages but independence across different villages. Results in Table 5 , column (3) show that the coefficient magnitude and statistical significance (1% level) of clan culture remain unchanged compared to the baseline results (Table 4 , column (2)). This consistency validates the stability of our baseline estimates under this alternative error structure. 4.3.4 Incorporating Potentially Omitted Variables Environmental cognition—defined as an individual's or group's understanding and perception of their living environment, particularly their awareness of ecological awareness [ 38 ] —is a potentially relevant omitted variable. In traditional agricultural societies, farmers' production and lifestyle choices are deeply intertwined with the natural environment, and their environmental cognition significantly shapes behavior. Understanding factors like land, water, and climate directly influences environmental attitudes and actions. Low environmental cognition may lead to neglect of protection importance, exacerbating pollution, while high cognition encourages active participation and the adoption of greener practices. Furthermore, clan culture inherently emphasizes concepts like “Clan family community” and “ Carrying on the family line” (meaning supporting the paternal descendants), which promote ecological sustainability and the creation of a better living environment for future generations. This cultural emphasis may itself shape environmental cognition. Therefore, to mitigate potential omitted variable bias, we incorporated a measure of environmental cognition as an additional control variable in our analysis. Table 4 Robustness Testing (1) Replacing the Empirical Data (2) Substituting the Explanatory Variable (3) Adjusting the Clustering Level (4) Incorporating Potentially Omitted Variables Clan Culture 0.015 * (0.008) 0.023 *** (0.003) 0.013 *** (0.004) 0.010 *** (0.017) Environmental awareness 0.002 (0.002) Environmental regulation 0.002 (0.004) Control(village) Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controls Controlled Controlled Controlled controlled Constant term 0.690 *** (0.043) 0.119 *** (0.020) 0.185 *** (0.011) 0.106 *** (0.021) Obs 6007 688 688 688 R 2 0.0122 0.1486 0.0783 0.0967 Notes: (1) and (3) were verified using the OLS method; (2) and (4) were verified using the 2SLS method. 5 Discussion Clan culture influences farmers’ sense of belonging to their villages through kinship networks that range from immediate to extended relations. This, in turn, significantly affects farmers’ participation in environmental protection. In terms of social support, clan activities—such as the renovation of ancestral halls and temples—actively engage farmers with a strong awareness of clan culture, encouraging them to take a leading role and set an example. Other farmers are motivated to participate voluntarily due to concerns about the face-saving concept and norms of cooperation. This process facilitates a shift from individual action to village-wide engagement, progressively expanding the scope of collective action in environmental protection. Regarding the sense of belonging, clan culture reinforces concepts such as “bringing honor to the clan” and “inheriting family traditions,” which strengthen farmers’ sense of ownership in village environmental protection. As a result, environmental protection responsibilities extend from the private to the public sphere, further motivating farmers to participate actively in environmental protection. 5.1 Mediating effect of village attachment The above analysis suggests that clan culture influences farmers’ behavior by enhancing their sense of village attachment, primarily through social support and a strengthened sense of identity, thereby promoting active participation in environmental protection. A two-stage least squares regression was employed to test this mechanism, with results presented in Table 5 . Firstly, in terms of social support, as shown in Table 5 (1), clan culture exerts a statistically significant positive effect at the 1% level. This indicates that in villages with stronger clan culture, local farmers exhibit a greater sense of collective honor, which substantially enhances social support. This reflects the mutual assistance and cooperation among members within clan networks, thereby increasing participation in rural environmental protection. Hypothesis H2a is thus supported. A plausible explanation can be drawn from social identity theory, which suggests that an individual’s sense of belonging, identity, and collective honor within a group are core motivators for participation in public affairs protection and the strengthening of collective responsibility. Within this framework, clan culture reinforces farmers’ attachment to their hometown through traditional customs and behavioral norms. Collective activities—such as the construction and maintenance of ancestral halls and temples, as well as ritual ceremonies—help sustain emotional bonds among clan members. Table 5 Mediation Test and Heterogeneity Analysis Independent Variable (1) Social Support (2) Perceived Belongings (3) Male (4) Female Clan culture 2.115 *** (0.453) 1.282 *** (0.301) 0.017 *** (0.004) 0.0006 (0.008) Controls Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled Constant term 0.485 (0.571) 3.140 *** (0.379) 0.193 *** (0.013) 0.178 *** (0.026) Obs 688 688 531 157 Secondly, with regard to the sense of belonging, Table 5 (2) shows that clan culture has a significant positive effect at the 1% level, substantially influencing farmers’ sense of belonging. One explanation is that a sense of belonging constitutes a form of local collective identity, mainly reflected in farmers’ emotional connection and attachment to their hometown. Through the transmission and internalization of clan culture, this sense of belonging strengthens farmers’ emotional ties to their village, enhances their perception of environmental value, increases cohesion, and stimulates intrinsic motivation for participation in the sustainable protection of the rural environment. Therefore, hypothesis H2b is supported. Overall, the positive role of cultural forces in promoting the sustainable development of rural environmental protection should not be overlooked. Within the framework of ritual protection, the constructive evolution of clan culture can significantly improve farmers’ organizational capabilities and participation in environmental protection across three dimensions: agricultural production, rural livelihoods, and rural ecology. 5.2 Gender heterogeneity In traditional Chinese culture, clan culture has long exerted a profound influence on the behavior of its members. Although contemporary society consistently emphasizes the concept of “gender equality,” the historical dominance of men in social and clan structures continues to significantly shape individual behaviors and social organization. In most rural households, men are still regarded as the primary successors of the family lineage and guardians of ancestral heritage. As a result, men maintain a dominant position in resource allocation, familial status, and social networks. On the other hand, women are often constrained by clan cultural norms, frequently assuming domestic responsibilities within the household, with comparatively fewer opportunities and less inclination to actively engage in the protection of public affairs. This traditional gender-biased perspective may influence clan members' decision-making processes and their involvement in socioeconomic activities, particularly leading to noticeable gender differences in areas such as agricultural production and environmental protection. Accordingly, this study uses gender as a grouping variable to separately examine the impact of clan culture on the participation of male and female farmers in rural environmental protection. As shown in Table 6 (1), the results indicate a statistically significant positive effect of clan culture on male farmers at the 1% level, whereas no significant effect was observed for female farmers. This suggests that clan culture positively influences the participation of male farmers in environmental protection, but has no significant impact on female farmers. Specifically, in rural Chinese society, clan organizations consist mainly of same-sex members, with opposite-sex members playing a supplementary role. Clan culture is perpetuated through the paternal line, emphasizing traditional ethical values that expect women to remain at home to “support their husbands and raise children,” embodying the role of a virtuous wife and mother. These expectations restrict women's participation in the protection of public affairs. Therefore, clan culture tends to inhibit the involvement of women in rural environmental protection. 6 Conclusions and implications As an informal protection mechanism in rural societies, clan culture—functioning within a ritual protection framework—constructs perceived belongings through a “differential hierarchy” and continuously generates endogenous motivation for participation in modern environmental protection. The findings of this study are as follows: First of all, as an integral component of the ritual protection order, clan culture plays a positive role in promoting rural environmental protection. The results remain robust after addressing endogeneity through instrumental variable estimation, altering the dataset, replacing core explanatory variables, adjusting clustering levels, and controlling for potentially omitted variables. Secondly, perceived belongings serve as a mediator in the relationship between clan culture and farmers’ participation in environmental protection. This sense of belonging, formed through dual pathways of social support and collective identity, elucidates the mechanism through which clan culture influences environmental behavior. The community bonds forged by kinship and geographical ties lead farmers to perceive environmental protection as their obligation. Thirdly, gender heterogeneity reveals the persistent dominance of clan power within the ritual protection order. Clan culture suppresses female farmers’ participation in environmental protection, reflecting deeper patriarchal norms. In sum, clan culture significantly influences farmers’ participation in environmental protection. Based on these findings, the study proposes the following recommendations: First, enhance legal support and reduce rent-seeking opportunities for local governments. Legislation should be strengthened to improve oversight, with relevant laws and regulations standardizing and guiding clan activities such as weddings, funerals, and ancestral ceremonies. This would increase the transparency and fairness of rural protection. Meanwhile, local governments should actively implement national policies, respect the constructive aspects of clan culture, and use enforcement measures to eliminate feudal superstitions and other negative practices. Such efforts would help leverage the positive role of clan culture in public affairs protection and stimulate farmers’ initiative and enthusiasm for environmental participation. Second, integrate clan culture within the ritual protection order with modern protection mechanisms. Environmental protection should utilize the cohesive power of clan culture to strengthen emotional bonds among farmers. Traditional-culture-compatible protection models should be adopted to encourage active participation in ecological protection. For example, digital tools could be employed to establish clan-based new media platforms for environmental dissemination and community building. Additionally, an activity registration system should be implemented for clan-organized events—such as the “You shen” festival in Fujian and the “Ying ge wu” in Chaozhou—to enable online supervision, dynamic management, and resource coordination. Increased investment in financial and human resources is also essential to ensure equitable distribution. Third, improve ecological literacy education and promote female farmers’ participation in protection. Institutionally, rural women should be granted environmental oversight rights through clan deliberative assemblies. Village committees comprising female elders and officials should be established to translate ethical norms of ritual protection into sustainable protection outcomes. Practically, positive incentives should be provided to encourage rural women to engage in environmental protection initiatives. Projects led by rural women could be launched to enhance ecological awareness and facilitate the transformation of cultural resources into effective protection. Declarations Ethical Statement \" Ethical approval was granted by the School of Public Administration and Law, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, on April 20, 2024. The study was conducted in accordance with Helsinki and other ethical guidelines. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was obtained from all the participants between May 26 and May 30, 2024. \" Author Contribution Conceptualization, S.H.; methodology, R.S.; software, R.S.; validation, S.H.; formal analysis, S.H.; data curation, R.S; writing-original draft preparation, R.S.; writing-review and editing, S.H.; visualization, N.C.; supervision, N.C.; project administration, S.H.; funding acquisition, S.H. For this paper, each author made different contributions. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Data Availability The data and code underlying the findings of this study are included in the Supplementary Information. Additionally, the CFPS data used in the study are publicly available at the following link: https://cfpsdata.pku.edu.cn/ References Zhongguo FXX, Hamilton GG, Zheng W (1992) From the Soil: The Foundations of Chinese Society, 1st edn. University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 10.1525/j.ctt1pn6km Purnama CY, Srisayekti W, Fitriana E, Djunaidi A (2024) Pro-environmental behavior to improve the quality of life with social value orientation as moderator: findings from Indonesia. Int J Environ Health Res 35(3):819–838. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2024.2415902 Hao D, Yan Z, Wang Y, Wang B (2023) Effect of Village Informal Institutions and Cadre-Mass Relationship for Farmers’ Participation in Rural Residential Environment Protection in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 20:3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010003 Jiao J, Yang Z, Shi B, Dogot T, Azadi H, Xu K, Yin C (2024) How Environmental Regulation Affects Rural Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Domestic Sewage Treatment: Mediating and Interaction Effects. Water 16:761. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16050761 Dong H, Zhang Y, Chen TA (2023) Study on Farmers’ Participation in Environmental Protection in the Context of Rural Revitalization: The Moderating Role of Policy Environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 20:1768. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031768 Jiang X, Zheng W (2024) Dynamic strategies for collaborative protection of rural environments: a simulation study on the most effective mechanisms. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05335-5 Peng Y, Guo J, Wang C, Zhu W How does the quality of village cadres affect farmers' approach to domestic sewage treatment? Evidence from Jiangxi Province, China, Journal of Cleaner Production, 467, 2024,142895, ISSN 0959–6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142895 Yuxin Wang W, Qu L, Zheng MY (2022) Multi-Dimensional Social Capital and Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Environmental Protection. Tropical Conservation Science. Vol. Issue, pp. -Issue published date: -01-10.1177/19400829221084562 Zhang Y, Guo X (2023) The Dilemma and Path of Rural Environmental Protection in China: From the Perspective of a Community with a Shared Future. Int J Environ Res Public Health 20:1446. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021446 Zhao J, Liu L, Qi J, Dong J (2022) Study on the influence of environmental regulation on the environmentally friendly behavior of farmers in China. Front Environ Sci 10:1009151. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1009151 Xiangnan Wang K, She W, Bian Clan culture and participation in FinTech-based risk sharing, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 83,2024,102259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2024.102259 Wang Y, Zheng Z, Feng D (2025) Historical Clans and Contemporary Human Capital. China World Econ 33:234–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12591 Chen N, Yang H From rural to urban: Clan, urbanization and trust, China Economic Review, Volume 85,2024,102172, ISSN 1043-951X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102172. Feng Huang H, Ye J, Zhang (2025) Off the books, away from the market: Clan culture and female labor force participation. China Econ Rev 89:102312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102312 Li Q, Wang X, Zhang Z The Influence of Clan Culture on the Demand for Family Commercial Health Insurance: The Case of China. J Family History Vol 50, Issue 1, pp. 78–96. Issue published date: January-01-2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/03631990241275869 Ying Q, Tian F, Na C (2024) Clan culture and gender inequality in the leadership of companies: evidence from non-state-owned listed firms in China. Appl Econ Lett 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2024.2356699 Li Sheng Jun-qi, Ma (2023) Village clans and rural households' willingness to participate in domestic waste protection: Evidence from China. J Clean Prod 425 138951:0959–6526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138951 Tang L, Qiu T, Luo B (2025) The Moderating Effect of Informal Institutions: Clans and Straw Burning in China. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 69:566–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70022 Yin J, Rui J Sustainable Endogenous Development Path Based on Rural Local Elite Protection Model: A Case Study of Xiamen. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118882 Liu SY, Zheng XY, Liu CF (2024) Rural Transactions and Industrial Transformation in the Background of the Digital Economy. Chin Rural Economic 062–24. https://doi.org/10.20077/j.cnki.11-1262/f.2024.06.002 (in Chinese with English abstract) Ma X, Ge N (2024) Study on the influencing factors of rural residents’ willingness to classify domestic waste in the context of an acquaintance society: An example from Jiangsu Province in China. PLoS ONE 19(5):e0303167. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303167 CHEN X, P.WASTI S A.TRIANDIS H C. When does group norm or group identity predict cooperation in a public goods dilemma? The moderating effects of idiocentrism and allocentrism [J]. Int J intercultural relations 2007, 31(2).259–276 Yazew BT, Kassa G (2024) Social structure and clan group networks of Afar pastoralists along the Lower Awash Valley. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11:812. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03344-3 Davis JL, Love TP, Fares P (2019) Social Psychol Q 82(3):254–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519851025 . Collective Social Identity: Synthesizing Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory Using Digital Data Fenni L, Junbiao Z, Ke H The Impact of Capital Endowment and Sense of Perceived Belongings on Participation in Rural Environmental Protection [J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University(Social Sciences Edition)),2021,(04):100–107 + 182–183 Cunxia D, Juan Y, Jiran H et al (2023) Study on Farmers ’ Participation Behavior In Ecological Environment Protection: Take Changji City in Xinjiang As An Example [J]. Chin J Agricultural Resour Reg Plann 44(10):110–122 Shuang Yu M, Yang Y, Liang The effects of clan culture on multidimensional poverty of older adults in China, Social Science Research, Volume 131,2025,103213. Yue P, Ruoyu W et al Clan Culture and the Blood Complex of Family Firm Protection[J] Management World,2019,35(07):116–135. 10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2019.0096 Binkai C, Siyu C (2018) Flowing Social Capital: Can Traditional Clan Culture Affect Migrants' Employment in Modern Society? [J]. Econ Res J 53(03):35–49 Chen Z, Ma C (2021) and A. J. Sinclair. Banking on the Confucian Clan: Why China Developed Financial Markets So Late[J].The Economic Journal Yuchan L, Mingzhong L, Clan, Participation (2022) Social Support and Relative Poverty Alleviation of Peasant Households [J]. J Agro-Forestry Econ Manage 21(02):217–227. 10.16195/j.cnki.cn36-1328/f.2022.02.24 Qingqing S The community attachment and China's urban community’s construction [J]. J Univ Chin Acad Social Sci 2006 (06):125–131 Lu Z, Biliang L Three Generations under One Roof: The Impact of Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer on the Pro-environmental Behaviors of Rural Households [J]. J Agrotechnical Econ 2024 (01):4–18 Xingdong W, Wenlu S, Geng L Expected emotion, ecological cognition, and household waste classification behavior of rural residents [J]. J Arid Land Resour Environ 2023, 37(08):68–75 Xia Z (2010) An acquaintance society or A semi-acquaintance one. J Northwest AF Univ Soc Sci Ed 10:8689 Hao W, Junbiao Z The Impact of Off-Farm Employment on C Rural Households’ Clean Energy Consumption and Its Sustainability: An Example of Cooking Clean Energy Consumption [J]. China Rural Survey,2024,(03):163–184 Ma WL, Zheng H, Gong B et al Rural income growth, ethnic differences, and household cooking fuel choice: Evidence from China[J] Arundati R, Sutiono HT, Suryono IA (2020) Effect of ecological awareness, personal norms, and ecological attitude on conservation behavior. Proceedings on Engineering Sciences. ;2(2):187–196 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 18 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 20 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 20 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 14 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 06 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 02 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 03 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 03 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-8415705\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":602810125,\"identity\":\"585e8124-4bbe-46b8-84a3-45f2199f6e8e\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Senwei Huang\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Senwei\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Huang\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":602810126,\"identity\":\"cef896b5-44c4-486e-84c5-c3e700ca69e1\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Rubin Shen\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Rubin\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Shen\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":602810127,\"identity\":\"293a832e-148e-4fd1-b518-338b862280f6\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Niandong Chen\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Niandong\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Chen\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-12-21 07:23:17\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415705/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415705/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":104780130,\"identity\":\"0c84b060-c85c-4bc4-90d1-3b6abc9fb11d\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-17 07:50:52\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":209757,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTheoretical Framework\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage1.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8415705/v1/f183e377fb4edc69c39b40eb.jpeg\"},{\"id\":104784209,\"identity\":\"5ef5f81f-631a-497f-88e4-0e4b395040ac\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-17 08:05:45\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1717518,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8415705/v1/fd287ec2-c7c0-4ebd-aa21-ecc6f19a545d.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"The Impact of Clan Culture on Farmers' Participation in Environmental Behavior: Evidence from Fujian Province, China\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"1 Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eRitual protection, rooted in traditional behavioral norms and social consensus, differs from legal norms in its reliance on moral education and cultural identity rather than state power. Confucius championed \\u0026ldquo;self-restraint and restoration of ritual,\\u0026rdquo; emphasizing self-discipline and inner awareness, which highlights the spontaneous and moral aspects of ritual protection. Fei Xiaotong distinguished between \\u0026ldquo;ritual protection society\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;legal protection society\\u0026rdquo;\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, noting that the former, prevalent in rural China, maintains social order through traditional norms and moral education. Today, Chinese rural protection features the integration of ritual and legal approaches, with ritual protection playing a key role in upholding conventional social order. While ritual protection can have both positive and negative effects\\u0026mdash;its negative aspects include outdated feudal rituals that restrict rights, while its positive aspects include the promotion of cooperation and trust\\u0026mdash;harnessing its self-organizing nature is crucial. The central argument is that by retaining the essence and discarding the flaws of ritual protection, rural society can modernize and effectively maintain order through a renewed balance of tradition and innovation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan culture is the core of the \\u0026ldquo;ritual protection society\\u0026rdquo;. It is not merely a simple blood relationship organization, but a practical means of protecting propriety. Analyzing the impact of clannish culture on the environmental protection behaviors of farmers is an important means of exploring the social mechanisms for rural environmental protection. The advancement of a rule-of-law society challenges the authority of traditional norms; the deconstruction of clans leads to the weakening of the carriers of propriety, yet propriety is not entirely passive. Its inherent 'rationality' can still provide references for protection in modern society.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eFirst, concerning rural environmental protection behavior\\u003c/b\\u003e. The Chinese sociocultural paradigm \\u0026ldquo;born to this soil, bound to this soil, buried in this soil\\u0026rdquo; that rural environmental protection necessitates a polycentric protection model requiring synergistic participation from governmental bodies, village collectives, and individual farmers. Regarding the analysis of influencing factors in behavior, existing research primarily focuses on farmer cognition\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, village protection\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, and environmental regulation\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Research has extensively investigated psychological cognitive factors such as environmental consciousness, risk perception, and perceived behavioral control \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. A study has also verified that the significance of rural environmental protection lies in the mutual supervision between the government and villagers, as well as in collaborative protection\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Among these, Peng Yuanyua notably demonstrated how public spirit and collective regulation within village communality positively influence farmer participation in environmental protection\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Others have analyzed how heterogeneous forms of social capital condition participatory behavior \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. From the Perspective of a Community with a Shared Future, Zhang, Y., and Guo, X. emphasize solving the challenges in rural environmental protection through multidimensional collaboration, villager participation, interest balancing, and legal protection, while promoting the construction of ecological civilization\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e9\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Environmental regulation exhibits an inverted U-shaped influence on farmers' eco-friendly behaviors, mediated partially by risk cognition and moderated by farming scale\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e10\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Synthesizing these insights, effective rural eco-environmental protection requires both formal institutional drivers (environmental regulations, fiscal mechanisms) and informal institutional motivators (cultural norms, village conventions) operating in concert.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eSecond, concerning the connotations and influences of clan culture within the ritual protection order.\\u003c/b\\u003e The ritual protection order integrates ecological ethical concepts such as \\u0026ldquo;Mountain-Forest Symbiosis\\u0026rdquo; into local praxis, transforming environmental stewardship into internalized moral imperatives rather than external compliance, thereby voluntarily participating in ecological conservation. As the core institution of ritual protection, clan culture fosters collective identity and organizational coordination through kinship solidarities. Historically entrenched since the Xia-Shang periods and institutionalized during the Southern Song, clan structures persist as resilient socioeconomic formations despite suppression during early socialist modernization. Post-reform revitalization has seen the resurgence of ancestral hall renovations, genealogical documentation, and veneration rituals. Scholarly discourse reveals dialectical perspectives on clan culture's contemporary impacts: Promotive effects manifest in financial inclusion \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e11\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, human capital\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e12\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, and trust traits amidst the ongoing urbanization process\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e13\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e; Constraining influences emerge in gendered labor participation \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, Health Insurance\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e15\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, and the gender inequality in the leadership of companies\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e16\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Notably, research examining clan culture\\u0026rsquo;s causal pathways in environmental protection remains nascent. Preliminary work suggests its influence on livestock farmers\\u0026rsquo; resource utilization behaviors\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, yet systematic analyses are lacking.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn summary, while clan culture\\u0026rsquo;s socioeconomic dimensions are well-documented, significant lacunae persist regarding environmental protection;(1)\\u003cb\\u003eLimited scope\\u003c/b\\u003e: Inadequate examination of clan culture\\u0026rsquo;s cross-domain effects on environmental behaviors spanning agricultural production, daily living, and ecological conservation;(2)\\u003cb\\u003eTheoretical fragmentation\\u003c/b\\u003e: Absence of integrated frameworks connecting \\u0026ldquo;clan culture\\u0026mdash;village embeddedness \\u0026mdash; household behavior\\u0026rdquo;;(3)\\u003cb\\u003eMethodological imbalance\\u003c/b\\u003e: Predominance of macro-level analysis over micro-level empirical validation. To address these gaps, this study leverages original survey data (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;688 valid responses\\u003c/em\\u003e) from Fujian Province to construct a unified \\u0026ldquo;Clan Culture-Perceived Belongings-Household Behavior\\u0026rdquo; theoretical model. We empirically test clan culture\\u0026rsquo;s micro-level causal mechanisms influencing environmental protection across agricultural, ecological, and domestic spheres.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"2 Theoretical analysis and hypothesis development\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eAs the foundational organizing principle of rural China's hierarchical society, the ritual protection order\\u0026mdash;rooted in the naturalistic worldview of \\u0026ldquo;Cosmic-Human Synergy\\u0026rdquo; \\u0026mdash;continuously shapes farmers' environmental protection practices through clan-based informal institutions. Functioning historically as both coordinator and guardian of rural protection, clan culture establishes cohesive social mobilization networks that transform eco-friendly behaviors from externally imposed constraints to internally driven commitments. This activation of endogenous dynamics represents a core mechanism for effective rural environmental protection (\\u003cem\\u003etheoretical framework shown in\\u003c/em\\u003e Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.1 Impact of clan culture on farmers' participation in environmental behavior\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan culture operates not as a static historical artifact but as a dynamic protective resource. Through dual pathways of ethical internalization and social networks, it systematically channels farmer participation in environmental protection. Ethnically, clan culture cultivates collective consciousness through perceptions of \\u0026ldquo;shared roots and origins\\u0026rdquo;, transforming ecological protection into moral imperatives. Members internalize the ecological paradigm of \\u0026ldquo;human-nature harmony\\u0026rdquo;, enabling value internalization and normative guidance to voluntarily promote green production or lifestyle adoption while constraining polluting behaviors. Second, from a social network perspective, rural Chinese society is structured as a hierarchical network based on geographical, bloodline, and clan relationships, with the intensity of these network ties gradually decreasing with the \\u0026ldquo;ripple\\u0026rdquo; distance. In rural areas with stronger clan cultures, clan members maintain closer connections, resulting in a \\u0026ldquo;strong-tie\\u0026rdquo; network \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e18\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. This \\u0026ldquo;strong-tie\\u0026rdquo; network plays a functional role in environmental protection through information transmission and resource allocation, thereby regulating the behavior of rural society members. In the meantime, enhanced collective action efficiency. For example, local elites composed of clan members, through a trinity of administrative, social, and economic empowerment, can reconstruct rural protection networks and drive sustainable endogenous rural revitalization \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e19\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Kinship networks often achieve more efficient human and natural capital allocation than administratively-driven coordination. This ritual protection framework simultaneously addresses second-order collective action problems and mitigates commons tragedies, ultimately establishing sustainable self-protection models that transition environmental protection from state-led intervention to autonomous, stable, and self-perpetuating systems.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH1\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan culture significantly promotes farmers' participation in rural environmental protection behavior.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec4\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.2 Mediating role of clan culture: village attachment\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFarmers' rational decision-making transcends material endowments (physical, human, and land resources) to encompass cultural-psychological dimensions, including value systems and belongingness perceptions. Contemporary rural socioeconomic development exhibits a transition from relational transactions, which are rooted in familiarity-based societies, and institutional transactions that are governed by formal rules \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e20\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Within the differential order pattern structuring rural society, village attachment embedded in clan networks constitutes a foundational bond that anchors individuals within localized relational matrices. It forges socially constrained communities bound by collective honor through kinship and territorial ties. Under traditional ritual protection norms, farmer interactions operated through social networks and trust, where clan authority and face-saving concepts and principles maintained transactional integrity\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e21\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. However, marketization has progressively shifted rural exchanges toward institutional transaction logics. This transition attenuates clan network cohesion, diminishing belongingness and identity as direct enhancers of environmental protection efficacy. Paradoxically, as enduring social capital, clan structures retain vital functions: As an intermediary embedded within institutionalized transactions, clans mitigate information asymmetry while fortifying institutional trust. Through clan-based moral norms and social oversight, farmers enhance cooperative willingness and responsibility in collective environmental actions. Simultaneously, collective identity and honor pressures compel individuals to fulfill public obligations, avoiding communal disrepute\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThus, at the institutional-network interface, village attachment reduces environmental protection organizational costs by sustaining traditional ritual protection while bridging institutional trust. This mediating role operates through two distinct pathways: For one thing, the social support Mechanism. Clan culture's core \\u0026ldquo;trust-mutualism\\u0026rdquo; dynamics consolidate rural social networks. It actively channels neighborhood participation in public protection through mentorship and assistance frameworks. Kinship or territorial affiliates cooperate reciprocally, forming village self-protection as a stabilizing social force \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e23\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. For another, the belongingness Reinforcement Mechanism. Social identity theory posits that individuals adapt their behaviors according to group status and norms, facilitating social coordination and interest conflict mitigation\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e24\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Within clan systems, individual interests align with familial and collective interests. Collective pride\\u0026mdash;rooted in group identification\\u0026mdash;mobilizes farmers toward communal activities. Belongingness thus heightens place attachment and hometown sentiment, strengthening environmental responsibility and voluntary participation in protection to enhance clan reputation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH2a\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan culture influences farmers' environmental protection behavior by enhancing social support.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eH2b\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan culture influences farmers' environmental protection behavior by reinforcing belongingness.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"3 Methodology\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec6\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e3.1 Procedure for data collection\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eEmpirical data derive from household environmental protection surveys conducted across rural Fujian Province, China, during January-February and July-August 2024. Four municipalities\\u0026mdash;Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, Putian, and Sanming\\u0026mdash;were strategically selected as survey sites based on geographic and economic criteria. Fujian's unique regional diversity encompasses coastal-inland gradients with heterogeneous rural environments, while sampled areas represent the Southside, Northside, and Middle region of Fujian province. Economic stratification follows 2023 GDP rankings (Quanzhou\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;Zhangzhou\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;Putian\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;Sanming), capturing advanced, intermediate, and developing economies to comprehensively assess protection conditions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eData collection employed multistage random sampling: four prefecture-level cities constituted primary sampling units; 5\\u0026ndash;8 townships were randomly selected per city, stratified by economic development; 6\\u0026ndash;8 villages were then randomly chosen per township; finally, 12\\u0026ndash;15 households per village were interviewed based on agricultural production characteristics. From 712 administered questionnaires, 688 valid responses were retained after excluding incomplete records and landless households (96.63% validity rate). The questionnaire content primarily included characteristics of the interviewed farmers, household characteristics, land use, social support, environmental awareness, and willingness and behavior regarding participation in environmental protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSample characteristics are shown in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e. Regarding individual farmer information, males predominate in the sample, accounting for 77.18%. The age structure exhibits an aging trend, with farmers aged 41 and above constituting a high proportion of 91.28%. Among them, those aged 51\\u0026ndash;60 and 60 and above account for 32.27% and 41.42% respectively, forming the mainstay of agricultural production. Educational attainment is generally low, with only 12.65% of farmers having completed nine or more years of schooling. Over half (47.53%) possess only a junior high school or elementary school education. Additionally, 19.19% of farmers are Communist Party members.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eRegarding production and management characteristics, the vast majority of households operate on a small scale, with 85.90% cultivating less than 10 hectares of land, indicating that small-scale operations remain the predominant model. The number of household agricultural laborers aligns with this scale, with nearly 80% (79.80%) having two or fewer laborers. Regarding household income levels, most farmers self-rated their income as \\u0026ldquo;average\\u0026rdquo; (64.39%), while those who self-rated as \\u0026ldquo;good\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;excellent\\u0026rdquo; combined accounted for 23.83%. Those self-rated as \\u0026lsquo;poor\\u0026rsquo; and \\u0026ldquo;extremely poor\\u0026rdquo; collectively made up 11.77%.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eRegarding digital engagement, the vast majority of farmers (85.47%) regularly use the internet, with significant proportions using it for 1\\u0026ndash;3 hours daily (34.16%) and over 3 hours daily (30.81%). However, 14.53% have never used the internet, indicating disparities in digital technology access and application within the farming community.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn summary, the typical characteristics of the sampled farmers are: relatively older age, lower-middle education level, and primarily engaged in small-scale family farming operations, though most have already accessed and used the internet. This sample structure reflects, to a certain extent, the characteristics of the main population currently engaged in agricultural production in Fujian Province.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003ccaption\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBasic information about the sample farmers.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003c/caption\\u003e\\n\\u003cthead\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eVariable\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCategory\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFrequency (n)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePercentage (%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eVariable\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCategory\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFrequency (n)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePercentage (%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003c/thead\\u003e\\n\\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"2\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eGender\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eMale\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e531\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e77.18%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"5\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCropland Area\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026lt;=10hm2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e591\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e85.90%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e157\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e22.82%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e10\\u0026thinsp;~\\u0026thinsp;25hm2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e59\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e8.58%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"5\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAge group\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e18\\u0026ndash;30 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e15\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e2.18%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e25\\u0026thinsp;~\\u0026thinsp;40hm2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e17\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e2.47%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e31\\u0026thinsp;~\\u0026thinsp;40 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e45\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e6.54%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e40\\u0026thinsp;~\\u0026thinsp;55hm2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e8\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e1.16%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e41\\u0026thinsp;~\\u0026thinsp;50 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e121\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e17.59%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026gt;=55hm2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e13\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e1.89%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e51\\u0026thinsp;~\\u0026thinsp;60 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e222\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e32.27%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"5\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ehousehold income level\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eVery poor\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e15\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e2.18%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e60 years and above\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e285\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e41.42%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePoor\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e66\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e9.59%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"3\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eYears of Schooling,\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e5 years and below\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e274\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e39.83%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFair\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e443\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e64.39%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e6ཞ9 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e327\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e47.53%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eGood\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e154\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e22.38%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e9 years and above\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e87\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e12.65%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eExcellent\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e10\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e1.45%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"2\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ePolitical party member\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003emember\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e132\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e19.19%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"4\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eInternet usage\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNever\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e100\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e14.53%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNon-member\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e556\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e80.81%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026lt;=1h\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e141\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e20.49%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"2\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNumber of family agricultural laborers\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026lt;=2\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e549\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e79.80%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e1-3h\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e235\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e34.16%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026gt;=3\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e139\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e20.20%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026gt;=3h\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e212\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e30.81%\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e3.2 Variable selection\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1.1 Dependent variables\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u0026mdash;farmers\\u0026rsquo; environmental protection behavior, it was operationalized through a 12-indicator system across three domains (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e)\\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e26\\u003c/span\\u003e],\\u003c/sup\\u003e with composite scores derived via entropy weighting. Measurement specifications follow:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1.1.1 Agricultural Production Dimension.\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\nQ1: Agricultural packaging disposal: Binary-coded (0\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;improper methods: non-disposal/burning/burial; 1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;proper disposal: recycling/household management).Q2: Pesticide reduction: Dichotomous (1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;reduced application per hectare 2021\\u0026ndash;2023; 0\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;no reduction).Q3:Organic fertilizer ratio: Ordinal scale (1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0%; 2\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1\\u0026ndash;50%; 3\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;51\\u0026ndash;100%; 4\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;101\\u0026ndash;150%; 5\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;150%)\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1.1.2 Rural Ecology Dimension.\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cstrong\\u003eQ1\\u003c/strong\\u003e:River management participation: Binary (0\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;non-participation; 1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;decision-making/implementation involvement)\\u003cstrong\\u003eQ2\\u003c/strong\\u003e: Biodiversity conservation: Binary (0\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;no; 1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;yes) to measure conservation restraint.\\u003cstrong\\u003eQ3\\u003c/strong\\u003e: Energy-efficient appliance usage: Likert scale (1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;never to 5\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;always)\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec9\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1.1.3 Livelihood Practices Dimension\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\nAligned with Fujian's 2024 Waste Management Regulations, six items assessed waste segregation frequency via 5-point Likert scales (1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;never to 5\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;always):Q1: Plastic bag reuse.Q2: Recyclables segregation (bottles/paper).Q3: Textile/appliance segregation.Q4: Kitchen waste segregation.Q5: Hazardous waste segregation.Q6: Other waste segregation.\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"colspec\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"colspec\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"colspec\\\" align=\\\"char\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003ccaption\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003eMeasuring farmers' participation in rural environmental protection behavior indicators\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003c/caption\\u003e\\n\\u003cthead\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eDimension\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eNorm\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eMean\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eSD\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eMini\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eMax\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003c/thead\\u003e\\n\\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"3\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eAgricultural Production\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHow do you handle agricultural packaging waste?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.717\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.451\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eCompared to the previous two years, have you reduced the amount of pesticides used per hectare of farmland?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.426\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.495\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eWhat is the proportion of organic fertilizers and other chemical fertilizers you use?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e2.693\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.430\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"3\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eRural Ecology\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHave you participated in river management in your village?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.190\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.393\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHow often do you use energy-efficient appliances?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e3.625\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.261\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eDo you engage in biodiversity conservation?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.430\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.495\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"6\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eLivelihood Practices\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHow often do you reuse plastic bags?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e3.513\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.345\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHow often do you separately collect and dispose of recyclable waste, such as mineral water bottles and waste paper?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e3.834\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.429\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHow often do you separately collect and dispose of old clothes and old appliances?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e3.551\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.375\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHow often do you separately collect and dispose of kitchen waste?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e3.814\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.415\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHow often do you separately collect and dispose of hazardous waste?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e2.407\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.434\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHow often do you separately collect and dispose of other household waste (except for the above)?\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e2.353\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.442\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1.2 Independent Variable-Clan Culture\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Operationalized through two empirically established indicators \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e27\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e28\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e: presence of ancestral clan halls and major clan status within villages. This measurement captures clan culture's dual function as kinship bond and cultural institution\\u0026mdash;embodied in ancestral veneration, lineage education, and community cohesion.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1.3 Instrumental Variable\\u003c/strong\\u003e: Distance to a renowned Song Dynasty academy --\\u0026ldquo;Kaoting Academy\\u0026rdquo;. Following established methodologies \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e29\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e30\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, geographical distance from township administrative centers to Kaoting Academy serves as the instrumental variable. Founded by Zhu Xi (1130\\u0026ndash;1200 CE) in Nanping's Jianyang District, this Southern Song Neo-Confucian academy constituted an institutional epicenter for Confucian-Mencian philosophy dissemination and clan cultural transmission. The variable satisfies relevance criteria: proximity correlates with intensified Confucian scholarly influence on regional clan development. Exogeneity is ensured by historical siting practices prioritizing transportation access and environmental aesthetics. Spherical distances were computed using AutoNavi Maps coordinates.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1.4 Mediating Variables. Village Attachment.\\u003c/strong\\u003e Based on the above theoretical analysis, two variables\\u0026mdash;social support and perceived belongings\\u0026mdash;were selected for village attachment. Social support is divided into two aspects: economic support and time investment. First, \\u003cstrong\\u003eSocial Support\\u003c/strong\\u003e: Measured through (1)Economic commitment: Willingness to donate for communal projects (temples/roads) on 5-point scale (1=\\u0026yen;0; 2=\\u0026yen;1-500; 3=\\u0026yen;501\\u0026ndash;1000; 4=\\u0026yen;1001\\u0026ndash;2000; 5\\u0026gt;\\u0026yen;2000) \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e31\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e (2)Temporal investment: Labor days pledged for collective construction (1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0 days; 2\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1\\u0026ndash;3; 3\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3\\u0026ndash;5; 4\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;5\\u0026ndash;7; 5\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026ge;\\u0026thinsp;7 days). Second, \\u003cstrong\\u003ePerceived Belongings\\u003c/strong\\u003e: Captured via agreement with \\u0026ldquo;Village development requires collective effort\\u0026rdquo; using a 5-point Likert scale (1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree\\u0026thinsp;~\\u0026thinsp;5\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;strongly agree) \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e32\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, reflecting place attachment and stewardship responsibility.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1.5 Control Variables.\\u003c/strong\\u003e Accounting for confounding factors across three tiers \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e33\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e34\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e: Individual characteristics: Age, gender, education years, and Internet usage frequency. Household attributes: Members of an agricultural cooperative, agricultural laborers, and economic standing. Land endowments: Operational farmland area(Detailed operationalization in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"colspec\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable id=\\\"Tab3\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003ccaption\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 3\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003eDescriptive statistics table and variable meanings\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003c/caption\\u003e\\n\\u003cthead\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eVariant\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eVariable Type\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eMeaning and Assignment\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eMean\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eSD\\u003c/th\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003c/thead\\u003e\\n\\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eDependent Variable\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eFarmers' Participation in Environmental Behavior\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eTotal Score Obtained via the Entropy Method\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.205\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.032\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eIndependent Variable\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eClan Culture\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003e1. Predominant Surname in Village? 2. Clan Ancestral Hall Present?\\u0026nbsp;(Yes\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, No\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0; averaged))\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.777\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.365\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eInstrumental Variable\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eDistance to Kaoting Academy\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eSpherical Distance from Township Government to Kaoting Academy (km)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e239.244\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e89.04\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"3\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eMediating Variables\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"2\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eSocial Support\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eWillingness to Donate for Ancestral Hall Construction(\\u0026yen;0\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1; \\u0026yen;0\\u0026ndash;500\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2; \\u0026yen;500\\u0026ndash;1,000\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3; \\u0026yen;1,000\\u0026ndash;2,000\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4; \\u0026gt;\\u0026yen;2,000\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;5)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e2.828\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.045\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eWillingness to Contribute Labor for Construction(0\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1; 1\\u0026ndash;3 days\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2; 3\\u0026ndash;5 days\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3; 5\\u0026ndash;7 days\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4; \\u0026ge;7 days\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;5)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e2.917\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.574\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003ePerceived Belongings\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eAgreement: \\u0026ldquo;The Village is Our Home, Its Development Depends on Everyone\\u0026rdquo;(Very Disagree\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1; Disagree\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2; Neutral\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3; Agree\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4; Very Agree\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;5)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e4.440\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.727\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"8\\\" align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eControls\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eGender\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eMale\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1, Female\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.772\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.420\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eAge\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eAge of Respondent (years)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e58.004\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e11.792\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eYears of education\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eEducation Level of Respondent\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e6.126\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e3.869\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eInternet usage\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eNeve\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1; \\u0026le;1h\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2; 1-3h\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3; \\u0026ge;3h\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e2.813\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.030\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eMembers of an agricultural cooperative\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eNon-Member\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0, Member\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.192\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.394\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHousehold Contracted Farmland Area\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003ehm\\u0026sup2; = hectare\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e8.520\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e30.359\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eAgricultural Labor Force in Household (persons\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026ge;\\u0026thinsp;16 years old)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eCount (Includes full-time \\u0026amp; part-time farmers)\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e2.047\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e1.027\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctr\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eHousehold Income Level\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\"\\u003eVery poor\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1; Poor\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2; Fair\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3; Good\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4; Excellent\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;5\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e3.113\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\"\\u003e0.673\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n\\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec10\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e3.3 Model specification\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eOLS Model.\\u003c/strong\\u003e To investigate the relationship between clan culture and farmers' participation in rural environmental protection, this study employs a benchmark Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model, specified as shown in Eq.\\u0026nbsp;(1):\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Equa\\\" class=\\\"Equation\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"FileID_Equa\\\" class=\\\"mathdisplay\\\"\\u003e$$\\\\:{Y}^{*}={\\\\alpha\\\\:}_{0}+{\\\\beta\\\\:}_{1}{Clan}^{*}+{\\\\delta\\\\:}_{1}Control+{e}_{1}\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:（1）$$\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ein Eq.\\u0026nbsp;(1), \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:{Y}^{*}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003eis the dependent variable, representing farmers' participation in rural environmental protection; \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:{Clan}^{*}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e is the core explanatory variable, measuring clan culture;\\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:Control\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e represents a vector of control variables encompassing individual farmer characteristics, household characteristics, and farmland conditions; \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:{\\\\alpha\\\\:}_{1}\\\\:\\\\text{i}\\\\text{s}\\\\:\\\\text{t}\\\\text{h}\\\\text{e}\\\\:\\\\text{c}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{n}\\\\text{s}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{a}\\\\text{n}\\\\text{t}\\\\:\\\\text{t}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{r}\\\\text{m}{;\\\\:\\\\:e}_{1\\\\:}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003eis the random error term.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e2SLS Model.\\u003c/strong\\u003e Simple OLS regression may suffer from estimation bias due to potential endogeneity issues, such as omitted variables. To address these concerns and establish a more robust causal relationship, this paper employs a Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) instrumental variables approach. The first-stage model is specified as:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Equb\\\" class=\\\"Equation\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"FileID_Equb\\\" class=\\\"mathdisplay\\\"\\u003e$$\\\\:{Clan}^{*}={\\\\alpha\\\\:}_{2}+{\\\\beta\\\\:}_{2}{IV}^{*}+{\\\\delta\\\\:}_{2}X+{e}_{2}\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:（2）$$\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ein Eq.\\u0026nbsp;(1),\\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:{\\\\:Clan}^{*}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e represents clan culture (the endogenous regressor), \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:{IV}^{*}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e is the instrumental variable,\\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:\\\\:X\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e为is a vector of control variables, including individual farmer characteristics, household characteristics, farmland conditions, and other relevant controls; \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:{\\\\alpha\\\\:}_{2}\\\\text{i}\\\\text{s}\\\\:\\\\text{t}\\\\text{h}\\\\text{e}\\\\:\\\\text{c}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{n}\\\\text{s}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{a}\\\\text{n}\\\\text{t}\\\\:\\\\text{t}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{r}\\\\text{m},\\\\:\\\\:{e}_{2}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e is the random error term.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eThe model settings for the second stage are as follows\\u003c/strong\\u003e:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Equc\\\" class=\\\"Equation\\\"\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"FileID_Equc\\\" class=\\\"mathdisplay\\\"\\u003e$$\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:{Y}^{*}={\\\\alpha\\\\:}_{3}+{\\\\beta\\\\:}_{3}\\\\widehat{Clan}+{\\\\delta\\\\:}_{3}X+{e}_{3}\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:\\\\:（3）$$\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003ein Eq.\\u0026nbsp;(3), \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:{Y}^{*}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003erepresents farmers\\u0026prime; participation in rural environmental protection behavior (the dependent variable). \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:\\\\:\\\\widehat{Clan}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003eis the fitted value of clan culture obtained from the first-stage regression (Eq.\\u0026nbsp;2); \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:\\\\:X\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003eis the vector of control variables (identical to those used in the first stage); \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:{\\\\alpha\\\\:}_{3}\\\\text{i}\\\\text{s}\\\\:\\\\text{t}\\\\text{h}\\\\text{e}\\\\:\\\\text{c}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{n}\\\\text{s}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{a}\\\\text{n}\\\\text{t}\\\\:\\\\text{t}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{r}\\\\text{m};\\\\:{e}_{3}\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e is the random error term.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"4 Data analysis and results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.1 Direct effects test\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBefore conducting the benchmark regression analysis, a multicollinearity test was performed to assess potential bias arising from intercorrelated variables. The results indicated that the maximum variance inflation factor (VIF) for any variable was 2.23, with an average VIF of 1.34. These values fall well below conventional thresholds, confirming the absence of significant multicollinearity concerns. Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e presents the estimation results from the benchmark model. Columns (1) and (2) report the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression findings. Column (1), which includes only the clan culture variable, demonstrates a statistically significant positive impact (at the 1% level) on farmers' participation in rural environmental protection. Column (2) confirms that this positive and statistically significant relationship (1% level) persists even after incorporating a comprehensive set of control variables. These results collectively indicate that clan culture exerts a positive influence on farmers' engagement in rural environmental protection, thereby supporting Hypothesis H1.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA plausible explanation for this finding lies in the ongoing social transformation occurring in rural China. These areas are transitioning from traditional \\u0026ldquo;familiar societies\\u0026rdquo; towards modern \\u0026ldquo;contract-based societies\\u0026rdquo;, resulting in a hybrid \\u0026ldquo;semi-acquaintance society\\u0026rdquo; \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e35\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e. Within this context, the social networks and mutual aid mechanisms fostered by clan culture continue to function effectively as social capital. Furthermore, clan networks facilitate the dissemination of the ecological concept of the \\u0026ldquo;mountain-water-lake-forest-field-grass life community\\u0026rdquo;, significantly enhancing farmers' perception of environmental benefits and values. This heightened awareness encourages greater attention to environmental protection, suggesting that clan culture actively guides farmers towards participation in environmental protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab4\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 4\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBenchmark Regression\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOLS:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProtection Behavior\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c5\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2SLS Phase I:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan Culture\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c7\\\" namest=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2SLS Phase II:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProtection Behavior\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(1)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(2)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(3)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(4)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(5)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(6)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan Culture\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.014\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.013\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.111\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.096\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.004)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.004)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.019)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.017)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInstrumental Variable\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.001\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.001\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.0001)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.0001)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControls\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUncontrolled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUncontrolled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUncontrolled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConstant Term\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.194\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.003)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.185\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.011)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.532\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.038)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.571\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.120)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.119\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.015)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.114\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.021)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eObs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eR\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0248\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0783\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0622\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0945\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0622\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0945\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFirst Stage F -Statistics\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e59.995\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e65.215\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"7\\\"\\u003eNotes: The values in parentheses are robust standard errors. *** p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.01; ** p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05; * p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.10. All models control for demographic and household-level covariates\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.2 Endogeneity test\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo address potential endogeneity concerns stemming from reverse causality and selection bias, we employed a Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) instrumental variables approach. The instrumental variable (IV) used is the spherical distance between the township government seat of the farmer's residence and Kaoting Academy. First, a Hausman test decisively rejected the null hypothesis that clan culture is exogenous (p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.01), confirming the necessity of addressing endogeneity. As reported in Columns (3) and (4) of Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab5\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e, the first-stage regression results demonstrate that the instrumental variable (distance to Kaoting Academy) exhibits a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship (1% level) with clan culture, regardless of whether control variables are included. The first-stage F-statistics (59.995 without controls; 65.215 with controls) substantially exceed the critical threshold of 10, robustly rejecting the presence of a weak instrument problem. The results also reject the null hypothesis that \\u0026ldquo;all explanatory variables are exogenous.\\u0026rdquo; The second-stage estimation results, presented in Columns (5) and (6) of Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab5\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e, reveal that clan culture (instrumented) maintains a statistically significant positive influence (1% level) on farmers' participation in rural environmental protection. This reinforces the finding from the OLS model that clan culture significantly promotes farmers\\u0026rsquo; engagement in environmental protection practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec14\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.3 Robustness type test\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo ensure the reliability and accuracy of the findings, this study employs four robustness checks: replacing the research data source, substituting the core explanatory variable, adjusting the clustering hierarchy, and incorporating a potentially omitted variable.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.3.1 Replacing the Empirical Data\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGiven the geographic focus on Fujian Province, a region with particularly strong clan traditions, the initial analysis may not fully capture how clan culture influences farmers' environmental participation across China's diverse regions, such as the north and west. To address this limitation, we supplement our analysis using data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS). Due to data availability constraints (specifically, the absence of clan culture questions in CFPS after 2014), we combine village-level data from the 2014 CFPS with individual and household-level data from the 2022 survey.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFarmers' participation in environmental protection is proxied by their primary cooking fuel source. Following Ma et al. \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e36\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e37\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, households primarily using clean energy (electricity, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or solar energy) are coded as participants (1), while those relying on non-clean energy (straw, firewood, coal) are coded as non-participants (0). This classification reflects the significant role clean energy adoption plays in reducing pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource depletion within rural environmental protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan culture intensity is measured at the village level using the item: \\u0026ldquo;The proportion of households belonging to the largest surname in the village relative to the total number of households.\\u0026rdquo; This approach, consistent with Binkai C (2018) \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e29\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e, leverages surnames as indicators of clan networks. A higher proportion signifies closer clan ties and stronger clan culture. We then conducted OLS regression using corresponding individual and household-level controls. As shown in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab6\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e, column (1), clan culture maintains a positive and statistically significant influence (10% level) on participation, with coefficient stability confirming the robustness of our core finding.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec16\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.3.2 Substituting the Core Explanatory Variable\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWe further test robustness by replacing the clan culture measure with farmers\\u0026rsquo; self-reported frequency of participation in clan-related traditional folk customs: \\u0026ldquo;Do you frequently participate in sacrificial rituals and deity processions?\\u0026rdquo; Responses were coded: 1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Never, 2\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Occasionally, 3\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Generally, 4\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Frequently, 5\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Always. Active participation in these rituals signifies engagement with cultural heritage and reflects the importance placed on clan traditions. The results, presented in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab6\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e, column (2), show a statistically significant positive relationship (1% level) between this alternative measure and environmental participation, further corroborating the finding that clan culture promotes engagement in rural environmental protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec17\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.3.3 Adjusting the Clustering Level\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe \\u0026ldquo;familiar society\\u0026rdquo; structure of rural China, characterized by geographical proximity and kinship/blood ties, suggests potential interdependence among farmers' environmental participation decisions within villages and exposure to common unobserved factors. We therefore adjusted the baseline regression model by clustering standard errors at the village level, assuming correlated errors within villages but independence across different villages. Results in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab6\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e, column (3) show that the coefficient magnitude and statistical significance (1% level) of clan culture remain unchanged compared to the baseline results (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab5\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e, column (2)). This consistency validates the stability of our baseline estimates under this alternative error structure.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec18\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.3.4 Incorporating Potentially Omitted Variables\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEnvironmental cognition\\u0026mdash;defined as an individual's or group's understanding and perception of their living environment, particularly their awareness of ecological awareness \\u003csup\\u003e[\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e38\\u003c/span\\u003e]\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026mdash;is a potentially relevant omitted variable. In traditional agricultural societies, farmers' production and lifestyle choices are deeply intertwined with the natural environment, and their environmental cognition significantly shapes behavior. Understanding factors like land, water, and climate directly influences environmental attitudes and actions. Low environmental cognition may lead to neglect of protection importance, exacerbating pollution, while high cognition encourages active participation and the adoption of greener practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFurthermore, clan culture inherently emphasizes concepts like \\u0026ldquo;Clan family community\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo; Carrying on the family line\\u0026rdquo; (meaning supporting the paternal descendants), which promote ecological sustainability and the creation of a better living environment for future generations. This cultural emphasis may itself shape environmental cognition. Therefore, to mitigate potential omitted variable bias, we incorporated a measure of environmental cognition as an additional control variable in our analysis.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab5\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 4\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRobustness Testing\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(1)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReplacing the\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmpirical Data\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(2)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSubstituting the\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExplanatory Variable\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(3)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAdjusting the\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClustering Level\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(4)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIncorporating Potentially Omitted Variables\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan Culture\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.015\\u003csup\\u003e*\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.008)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.023\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.003)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.013\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.004)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.010\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.017)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEnvironmental awareness\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.002\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.002)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEnvironmental regulation\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.002\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.004)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControl(village)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUncontrolled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUncontrolled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUncontrolled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControls\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003econtrolled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConstant term\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.690\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.043)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.119\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.020)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.185\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.011)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.106\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.021)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eObs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6007\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eR\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0122\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.1486\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0783\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0967\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"5\\\"\\u003eNotes: (1) and (3) were verified using the OLS method; (2) and (4) were verified using the 2SLS method.\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"5 Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eClan culture influences farmers\\u0026rsquo; sense of belonging to their villages through kinship networks that range from immediate to extended relations. This, in turn, significantly affects farmers\\u0026rsquo; participation in environmental protection. In terms of social support, clan activities\\u0026mdash;such as the renovation of ancestral halls and temples\\u0026mdash;actively engage farmers with a strong awareness of clan culture, encouraging them to take a leading role and set an example. Other farmers are motivated to participate voluntarily due to concerns about the face-saving concept and norms of cooperation. This process facilitates a shift from individual action to village-wide engagement, progressively expanding the scope of collective action in environmental protection. Regarding the sense of belonging, clan culture reinforces concepts such as \\u0026ldquo;bringing honor to the clan\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;inheriting family traditions,\\u0026rdquo; which strengthen farmers\\u0026rsquo; sense of ownership in village environmental protection. As a result, environmental protection responsibilities extend from the private to the public sphere, further motivating farmers to participate actively in environmental protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec20\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.1 Mediating effect of village attachment\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe above analysis suggests that clan culture influences farmers\\u0026rsquo; behavior by enhancing their sense of village attachment, primarily through social support and a strengthened sense of identity, thereby promoting active participation in environmental protection. A two-stage least squares regression was employed to test this mechanism, with results presented in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab6\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFirstly, in terms of social support, as shown in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab6\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e (1), clan culture exerts a statistically significant positive effect at the 1% level. This indicates that in villages with stronger clan culture, local farmers exhibit a greater sense of collective honor, which substantially enhances social support. This reflects the mutual assistance and cooperation among members within clan networks, thereby increasing participation in rural environmental protection. Hypothesis H2a is thus supported. A plausible explanation can be drawn from social identity theory, which suggests that an individual\\u0026rsquo;s sense of belonging, identity, and collective honor within a group are core motivators for participation in public affairs protection and the strengthening of collective responsibility. Within this framework, clan culture reinforces farmers\\u0026rsquo; attachment to their hometown through traditional customs and behavioral norms. Collective activities\\u0026mdash;such as the construction and maintenance of ancestral halls and temples, as well as ritual ceremonies\\u0026mdash;help sustain emotional bonds among clan members.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab6\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 5\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMediation Test and Heterogeneity Analysis\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIndependent Variable\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(1)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSocial Support\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(2)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceived Belongings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(3)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(4)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClan culture\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.115\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.453)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.282\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.301)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.017\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.004)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.0006\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.008)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControls\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eControlled\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConstant term\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.485\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.571)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.140\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.379)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.193\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.013)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.178\\u003csup\\u003e***\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(0.026)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eObs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e688\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e531\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e157\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSecondly, with regard to the sense of belonging, Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab6\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e (2) shows that clan culture has a significant positive effect at the 1% level, substantially influencing farmers\\u0026rsquo; sense of belonging. One explanation is that a sense of belonging constitutes a form of local collective identity, mainly reflected in farmers\\u0026rsquo; emotional connection and attachment to their hometown. Through the transmission and internalization of clan culture, this sense of belonging strengthens farmers\\u0026rsquo; emotional ties to their village, enhances their perception of environmental value, increases cohesion, and stimulates intrinsic motivation for participation in the sustainable protection of the rural environment. Therefore, hypothesis H2b is supported.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOverall, the positive role of cultural forces in promoting the sustainable development of rural environmental protection should not be overlooked. Within the framework of ritual protection, the constructive evolution of clan culture can significantly improve farmers\\u0026rsquo; organizational capabilities and participation in environmental protection across three dimensions: agricultural production, rural livelihoods, and rural ecology.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec21\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.2 Gender heterogeneity\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn traditional Chinese culture, clan culture has long exerted a profound influence on the behavior of its members. Although contemporary society consistently emphasizes the concept of \\u0026ldquo;gender equality,\\u0026rdquo; the historical dominance of men in social and clan structures continues to significantly shape individual behaviors and social organization. In most rural households, men are still regarded as the primary successors of the family lineage and guardians of ancestral heritage. As a result, men maintain a dominant position in resource allocation, familial status, and social networks. On the other hand, women are often constrained by clan cultural norms, frequently assuming domestic responsibilities within the household, with comparatively fewer opportunities and less inclination to actively engage in the protection of public affairs. This traditional gender-biased perspective may influence clan members' decision-making processes and their involvement in socioeconomic activities, particularly leading to noticeable gender differences in areas such as agricultural production and environmental protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAccordingly, this study uses gender as a grouping variable to separately examine the impact of clan culture on the participation of male and female farmers in rural environmental protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs shown in Table\\u0026nbsp;6 (1), the results indicate a statistically significant positive effect of clan culture on male farmers at the 1% level, whereas no significant effect was observed for female farmers. This suggests that clan culture positively influences the participation of male farmers in environmental protection, but has no significant impact on female farmers. Specifically, in rural Chinese society, clan organizations consist mainly of same-sex members, with opposite-sex members playing a supplementary role. Clan culture is perpetuated through the paternal line, emphasizing traditional ethical values that expect women to remain at home to \\u0026ldquo;support their husbands and raise children,\\u0026rdquo; embodying the role of a virtuous wife and mother. These expectations restrict women's participation in the protection of public affairs. Therefore, clan culture tends to inhibit the involvement of women in rural environmental protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"6 Conclusions and implications\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eAs an informal protection mechanism in rural societies, clan culture\\u0026mdash;functioning within a ritual protection framework\\u0026mdash;constructs perceived belongings through a \\u0026ldquo;differential hierarchy\\u0026rdquo; and continuously generates endogenous motivation for participation in modern environmental protection. The findings of this study are as follows:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFirst of all, as an integral component of the ritual protection order, clan culture plays a positive role in promoting rural environmental protection. The results remain robust after addressing endogeneity through instrumental variable estimation, altering the dataset, replacing core explanatory variables, adjusting clustering levels, and controlling for potentially omitted variables. Secondly, perceived belongings serve as a mediator in the relationship between clan culture and farmers\\u0026rsquo; participation in environmental protection. This sense of belonging, formed through dual pathways of social support and collective identity, elucidates the mechanism through which clan culture influences environmental behavior. The community bonds forged by kinship and geographical ties lead farmers to perceive environmental protection as their obligation. Thirdly, gender heterogeneity reveals the persistent dominance of clan power within the ritual protection order. Clan culture suppresses female farmers\\u0026rsquo; participation in environmental protection, reflecting deeper patriarchal norms. In sum, clan culture significantly influences farmers\\u0026rsquo; participation in environmental protection. Based on these findings, the study proposes the following recommendations:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eFirst, enhance legal support and reduce rent-seeking opportunities for local governments.\\u003c/b\\u003e Legislation should be strengthened to improve oversight, with relevant laws and regulations standardizing and guiding clan activities such as weddings, funerals, and ancestral ceremonies. This would increase the transparency and fairness of rural protection. Meanwhile, local governments should actively implement national policies, respect the constructive aspects of clan culture, and use enforcement measures to eliminate feudal superstitions and other negative practices. Such efforts would help leverage the positive role of clan culture in public affairs protection and stimulate farmers\\u0026rsquo; initiative and enthusiasm for environmental participation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eSecond, integrate clan culture within the ritual protection order with modern protection mechanisms.\\u003c/b\\u003e Environmental protection should utilize the cohesive power of clan culture to strengthen emotional bonds among farmers. Traditional-culture-compatible protection models should be adopted to encourage active participation in ecological protection. For example, digital tools could be employed to establish clan-based new media platforms for environmental dissemination and community building. Additionally, an activity registration system should be implemented for clan-organized events\\u0026mdash;such as the \\u0026ldquo;You shen\\u0026rdquo; festival in Fujian and the \\u0026ldquo;Ying ge wu\\u0026rdquo; in Chaozhou\\u0026mdash;to enable online supervision, dynamic management, and resource coordination. Increased investment in financial and human resources is also essential to ensure equitable distribution.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eThird, improve ecological literacy education and promote female farmers\\u0026rsquo; participation in protection.\\u003c/b\\u003e Institutionally, rural women should be granted environmental oversight rights through clan deliberative assemblies. Village committees comprising female elders and officials should be established to translate ethical norms of ritual protection into sustainable protection outcomes. Practically, positive incentives should be provided to encourage rural women to engage in environmental protection initiatives. Projects led by rural women could be launched to enhance ecological awareness and facilitate the transformation of cultural resources into effective protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eEthical Statement\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\\" Ethical approval was granted by the School of Public Administration and Law, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, on April 20, 2024. The study was conducted in accordance with Helsinki and other ethical guidelines. Prior to data collection, written informed consent was obtained from all the participants between May 26 and May 30, 2024. \\\"\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eAuthor Contribution\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eConceptualization, S.H.; methodology, R.S.; software, R.S.; validation, S.H.; formal analysis, S.H.; data curation, R.S; writing-original draft preparation, R.S.; writing-review and editing, S.H.; visualization, N.C.; supervision, N.C.; project administration, S.H.; funding acquisition, S.H. For this paper, each author made different contributions. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eData Availability\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe data and code underlying the findings of this study are included in the Supplementary Information. Additionally, the CFPS data used in the study are publicly available at the following link: https://cfpsdata.pku.edu.cn/\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZhongguo FXX, Hamilton GG, Zheng W (1992) From the Soil: The Foundations of Chinese Society, 1st edn. University of California Press. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"http://www.jstor.org/stable/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1525/j.ctt1pn6km\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1525/j.ctt1pn6km\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePurnama CY, Srisayekti W, Fitriana E, Djunaidi A (2024) Pro-environmental behavior to improve the quality of life with social value orientation as moderator: findings from Indonesia. Int J Environ Health Res 35(3):819\\u0026ndash;838. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2024.2415902\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/09603123.2024.2415902\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHao D, Yan Z, Wang Y, Wang B (2023) Effect of Village Informal Institutions and Cadre-Mass Relationship for Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Participation in Rural Residential Environment Protection in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 20:3. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010003\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/ijerph20010003\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJiao J, Yang Z, Shi B, Dogot T, Azadi H, Xu K, Yin C (2024) How Environmental Regulation Affects Rural Residents\\u0026rsquo; Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Domestic Sewage Treatment: Mediating and Interaction Effects. Water 16:761. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/w16050761\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/w16050761\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDong H, Zhang Y, Chen TA (2023) Study on Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Participation in Environmental Protection in the Context of Rural Revitalization: The Moderating Role of Policy Environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 20:1768. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031768\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/ijerph20031768\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJiang X, Zheng W (2024) Dynamic strategies for collaborative protection of rural environments: a simulation study on the most effective mechanisms. Environ Dev Sustain. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05335-5\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s10668-024-05335-5\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePeng Y, Guo J, Wang C, Zhu W How does the quality of village cadres affect farmers' approach to domestic sewage treatment? Evidence from Jiangxi Province, China, Journal of Cleaner Production, 467, 2024,142895, ISSN 0959\\u0026ndash;6526, \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142895\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142895\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYuxin Wang W, Qu L, Zheng MY (2022) Multi-Dimensional Social Capital and Farmers\\u0026rsquo; Willingness to Participate in Environmental Protection. Tropical Conservation Science. Vol. Issue, pp. -Issue published date: -01-10.1177/19400829221084562\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZhang Y, Guo X (2023) The Dilemma and Path of Rural Environmental Protection in China: From the Perspective of a Community with a Shared Future. Int J Environ Res Public Health 20:1446. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021446\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/ijerph20021446\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZhao J, Liu L, Qi J, Dong J (2022) Study on the influence of environmental regulation on the environmentally friendly behavior of farmers in China. Front Environ Sci 10:1009151. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.3389/fenvs.2022.1009151\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3389/fenvs.2022.1009151\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eXiangnan Wang K, She W, Bian Clan culture and participation in FinTech-based risk sharing, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 83,2024,102259, \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2024.102259\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.pacfin.2024.102259\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWang Y, Zheng Z, Feng D (2025) Historical Clans and Contemporary Human Capital. China World Econ 33:234\\u0026ndash;270. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12591\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/cwe.12591\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eChen N, Yang H From rural to urban: Clan, urbanization and trust, China Economic Review, Volume 85,2024,102172, ISSN 1043-951X. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102172.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102172.\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFeng Huang H, Ye J, Zhang (2025) Off the books, away from the market: Clan culture and female labor force participation. China Econ Rev 89:102312. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102312\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102312\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLi Q, Wang X, Zhang Z The Influence of Clan Culture on the Demand for Family Commercial Health Insurance: The Case of China. J Family History Vol 50, Issue 1, pp. 78\\u0026ndash;96. Issue published date: January-01-2025. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/03631990241275869\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/03631990241275869\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYing Q, Tian F, Na C (2024) Clan culture and gender inequality in the leadership of companies: evidence from non-state-owned listed firms in China. Appl Econ Lett 1\\u0026ndash;6. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2024.2356699\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/13504851.2024.2356699\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLi Sheng Jun-qi, Ma (2023) Village clans and rural households' willingness to participate in domestic waste protection: Evidence from China. J Clean Prod 425 138951:0959\\u0026ndash;6526. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138951\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138951\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTang L, Qiu T, Luo B (2025) The Moderating Effect of Informal Institutions: Clans and Straw Burning in China. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 69:566\\u0026ndash;583. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70022\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/1467-8489.70022\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYin J, Rui J Sustainable Endogenous Development Path Based on Rural Local Elite Protection Model: A Case Study of Xiamen. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8882. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su15118882\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/su15118882\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLiu SY, Zheng XY, Liu CF (2024) Rural Transactions and Industrial Transformation in the Background of the Digital Economy. Chin Rural Economic 062\\u0026ndash;24. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20077/j.cnki.11-1262/f.2024.06.002\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.20077/j.cnki.11-1262/f.2024.06.002\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e(in Chinese with English abstract)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMa X, Ge N (2024) Study on the influencing factors of rural residents\\u0026rsquo; willingness to classify domestic waste in the context of an acquaintance society: An example from Jiangsu Province in China. PLoS ONE 19(5):e0303167. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303167\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1371/journal.pone.0303167\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCHEN X, P.WASTI S A.TRIANDIS H C. When does group norm or group identity predict cooperation in a public goods dilemma? The moderating effects of idiocentrism and allocentrism [J]. Int J intercultural relations 2007, 31(2).259\\u0026ndash;276\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYazew BT, Kassa G (2024) Social structure and clan group networks of Afar pastoralists along the Lower Awash Valley. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11:812. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03344-3\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-024-03344-3\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDavis JL, Love TP, Fares P (2019) Social Psychol Q 82(3):254\\u0026ndash;273. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519851025\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0190272519851025\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e. Collective Social Identity: Synthesizing Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory Using Digital Data\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFenni L, Junbiao Z, Ke H The Impact of Capital Endowment and Sense of Perceived Belongings on Participation in Rural Environmental Protection [J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University(Social Sciences Edition)),2021,(04):100\\u0026ndash;107\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;182\\u0026ndash;183\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCunxia D, Juan Y, Jiran H et al (2023) Study on Farmers \\u0026rsquo; Participation Behavior In Ecological Environment Protection: Take Changji City in Xinjiang As An Example [J]. Chin J Agricultural Resour Reg Plann 44(10):110\\u0026ndash;122\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eShuang Yu M, Yang Y, Liang The effects of clan culture on multidimensional poverty of older adults in China, Social Science Research, Volume 131,2025,103213.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYue P, Ruoyu W et al Clan Culture and the Blood Complex of Family Firm Protection[J] Management World,2019,35(07):116\\u0026ndash;135.\\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2019.0096\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2019.0096\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBinkai C, Siyu C (2018) Flowing Social Capital: Can Traditional Clan Culture Affect Migrants' Employment in Modern Society? [J]. Econ Res J 53(03):35\\u0026ndash;49\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eChen Z, Ma C (2021) and A. J. Sinclair. Banking on the Confucian Clan: Why China Developed Financial Markets So Late[J].The Economic Journal\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYuchan L, Mingzhong L, Clan, Participation (2022) Social Support and Relative Poverty Alleviation of Peasant Households [J]. J Agro-Forestry Econ Manage 21(02):217\\u0026ndash;227. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.16195/j.cnki.cn36-1328/f.2022.02.24\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.16195/j.cnki.cn36-1328/f.2022.02.24\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eQingqing S The community attachment and China's urban community\\u0026rsquo;s construction [J]. J Univ Chin Acad Social Sci 2006 (06):125\\u0026ndash;131\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLu Z, Biliang L Three Generations under One Roof: The Impact of Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer on the Pro-environmental Behaviors of Rural Households [J]. J Agrotechnical Econ 2024 (01):4\\u0026ndash;18\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eXingdong W, Wenlu S, Geng L Expected emotion, ecological cognition, and household waste classification behavior of rural residents [J]. J Arid Land Resour Environ 2023, 37(08):68\\u0026ndash;75\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eXia Z (2010) An acquaintance society or A semi-acquaintance one. J Northwest AF Univ Soc Sci Ed 10:8689\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHao W, Junbiao Z The Impact of Off-Farm Employment on C Rural Households\\u0026rsquo; Clean Energy Consumption and Its Sustainability: An Example of Cooking Clean Energy Consumption [J]. China Rural Survey,2024,(03):163\\u0026ndash;184\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMa WL, Zheng H, Gong B et al Rural income growth, ethnic differences, and household cooking fuel choice: Evidence from China[J]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eArundati R, Sutiono HT, Suryono IA (2020) Effect of ecological awareness, personal norms, and ecological attitude on conservation behavior. Proceedings on Engineering Sciences. ;2(2):187\\u0026ndash;196\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":false,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"palcomms\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Humanities \\u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)\",\"snPcode\":\"41599\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3\",\"title\":\"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Nature AJ\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":false},\"keywords\":\"Clan Culture, Farming Household Behavior, Village Environmental Protection, Two-stage Least Squares Model\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415705/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415705/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eChinese rural society constitutes a social network system built upon kinship and geographical connections, within which clan culture plays a central role. Through ethical consensus and customary norms, clan culture internalizes the traditional ecological view of \\u0026ldquo;harmonious coexistence between humans and nature\\u0026rdquo; into farmers\\u0026rsquo; sense of environmental responsibility, thereby offering a low-cost and sustainable pathway for rural environmental protection. From the perspective of clan culture, this study investigates the impact of ritual-based protection order on farmers\\u0026rsquo; environmental protection behaviors, with a focus on the mediating role of village attachment. Using the distance between the township government seat and a renowned Song Dynasty academy as an instrumental variable for clan culture, the findings indicate: (1) Clan culture significantly promotes farmers\\u0026rsquo; participation in environmental protection by strengthening social norms and behavioral cognition. (2) Mediation analysis confirms that the endogenous mechanism through which clan culture influences environmental protection participation operates primarily by enhancing villagers\\u0026rsquo; sense of belonging, which is closely associated with social support and perceived identity. (3) Heterogeneity analysis reveals notable gender differences in the environmental protection effects of clan culture, with male farmers showing significantly higher levels of participation. This study validates the guiding function of traditional culture in rural environmental protection and provides practical insights for cultural protection within the framework of rural revitalization.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"The Impact of Clan Culture on Farmers' Participation in Environmental Behavior: Evidence from Fujian Province, China\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2026-03-11 16:08:00\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8415705/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0},{\"type\":\"decision\",\"content\":\"Revision requested\",\"date\":\"2026-04-18T06:44:01+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-03-20T09:20:39+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-03-20T04:00:26+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-03-14T13:29:54+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"8129249680484026079603718526468467977\",\"date\":\"2026-03-12T01:38:08+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-03-09T04:22:00+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"239360308231300617912875041135830984597\",\"date\":\"2026-03-09T03:03:21+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"40492090961663569372115884494129035701\",\"date\":\"2026-03-08T09:39:19+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"76809099819203491578912647783599428629\",\"date\":\"2026-03-06T09:21:54+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"52334138004059705481857670542779534101\",\"date\":\"2026-03-06T08:57:36+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewersInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-03-06T08:47:46+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorAssigned\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-03-02T07:08:48+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"checksComplete\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-02-03T13:34:49+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"submitted\",\"content\":\"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications\",\"date\":\"2026-02-03T12:57:07+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"palcomms\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Humanities \\u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)\",\"snPcode\":\"41599\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3\",\"title\":\"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Nature AJ\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":false}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"470f30da-10da-498d-80d6-03bf2be59466\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"March 11th, 2026\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"in-revision\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":64140381,\"name\":\"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences\"},{\"id\":64140382,\"name\":\"Social science/Environmental studies\"},{\"id\":64140383,\"name\":\"Scientific community and society/Geography\"},{\"id\":64140384,\"name\":\"Social science/Geography\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2026-04-18T06:55:02+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2026-03-11 16:08:00\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-8415705\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-8415705\",\"identity\":\"rs-8415705\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}