How psychological distance shapes ecological farming: cognitive‐social mechanisms in smallholder decision‐making

BACKGROUND: Global agriculture is facing a contradiction between production improvement and ecological protection. Ecological farming is essential for China's smallholder-dominated green transition, but a large gap remains between policy goals and actual farmer behavior. Traditional studies over-rely on static cognitive models and treat ecological farming behaviors (EFBs) as homogeneous, lacking exploration of dynamic cognitive antecedents and heterogeneous decision mechanisms. This study integrates construal level theory, agricultural economic rationality, and social norm theory to build a 'psychological distance-perception risk-perception benefit-social norms-EFB' framework, with the aim of revealing the cognitive-social driving mechanisms of smallholders' EFBs. RESULTS: Based on a survey of 867 smallholders in Henan Province and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) estimation, hypothetical distance was found to promote EFBs significantly and positively, whereas temporal and spatial distances showed no significant direct effect. Perceived risk and perceived benefit acted as competing mediators: perceived risk drove EFBs significantly, whereas perceived benefit had a significant negative effect. Driving mechanisms differed sharply across behaviors: fertilizer and pesticide reduction were motivated mainly by perceived risk whereas conservation tillage was driven by perceived benefit. Informal social norms significantly inhibited pesticide reduction, indicating a collective risk-avoidance dilemma. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that psychological distance can be an underlying cognitive antecedent of farmers' ecological decisions and identifies various pathways for different EFBs. The results help to explain the conflict between smallholders' short-term economic rationality and long-term ecological sustainability. Policies should shorten hypothetical distance via localized and concrete communication, adopt differentiated interventions for various practices, and promote village-level unified prevention, supporting precise and effective farmland ecological governance.