Abstract. The purpose of the study was to examine the subjective factors that determine the behavior of the ones making the decisions in terms of biological processes in the format of ecological development of land-utilization. Methodology and methods. The study was carried out using a survey of a representative selection of respondents, which included owners, managers and specialists of agricultural enterprises in the Tambov region. Results. Using a standardized methods of testing the core components of readiness for activity, it became possible to assess the overall level of readiness for biologization as sufficiently low. The most problematic components turned out to be: cognitive, motivational and organizational readiness, especially in comparison with relatively high rate of personal and emotional readiness. This can prevalently be related to the low level, and often the complete absence of knowledge of the theoretical background, regularities, mechanisms and possible effects of biologization. The analysis of the relationships between the behavioural parameters of the ones making the decisions about environmental improvements in land-utilization at the enterprise level made it possible to create a model of typology of behavior in the process of biologization. The scientific novelty lies in the justification of the need to shift priorities in managing the process of forming sustainable land use systems, from administrative regulation and directive intervention towards the use of methods to activate the introduction of biological practices, which should be based on the assessment and prediction of individual behavioral factors.
stable development, agriculture, land-utilization, biologization, organic agriculture, readiness for action, subjective factor
1. Vegren S., Trocuk I. V. Ustoychivo li promyshlennoe sel'skoe hozyaystvo v usloviyah klimaticheskih izmeneniy i ekologicheskih ugroz? // Ekonomicheskaya sociologiya. 2020. T. 21. № 5. C. 12-38.
2. Zharnikov V. B., Larionov Yu. S., Koneva A. V. Koncepciya biozemledeliya i ee rol' v razvitii agrarnogo sektora strany // Biosfernoe hozyaystvo: teoriya i praktika. 2019. № 5 (14). S. 5-11.
3. Hlystun V. N. O strategicheskih celyah, zadachah i instrumentah realizacii sovremennoy zemel'noy politiki // Ekonomika sel'skohozyaystvennyh i pererabatyvayuschih predpriyatiy. 2021. № 3. S. 9-14.
4. Monahov S., Shihanova Yu., Potockaya L. Teoreticheskie aspekty razvitiya «zelenoy» ekonomiki v sel'skom hozyaystve Rossii: ekologizaciya sel'skohozyaystvennogo zemlepol'zovaniya // Ekonomika sel'skogo hozyaystva Rossii. 2019. № 10. S. 15-19.
5. Dubovitski A., Klimentova E., Nikitin A., Babushkin V., Goncharova N. [e-resource] Ecological and Economic Aspects of Efficiency of the Use of Land Resources // E3S Web of Conferences. 2020. Vol. 210. URL: https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/abs/2020/70/e3sconf_itse2020_11004/e3sconf_itse2020_11004.html (date of reference: 25.04.2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202021011004.
6. Manzhina S. A. Analiz obespecheniya APK Rossii udobreniyami // Nauchnyy zhurnal Rossiyskogo NII problem melioracii. 2017. № 3 (27). S. 199-221.
7. Seitov S. K. Ekologo-ekonomicheskaya effektivnost' subsidirovaniya udobreniy v sel'skom hozyaystve Kazahstana // Izvestiya Timiryazevskoy sel'skohozyaystvennoy akademii. 2021. № 4. S. 128-141.
8. Gliessman S. Evaluating the impact of agroecology // Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2020. No. 4 (8). Pp. 973-974. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2020.1774110.
9. Garmanov V. V., Grik A. R., Terleev V. V., Osipov A. G. Upravlenie sel'skohozyaystvennym zemlepol'zovaniem: upravlyaemaya podsistema // Vestnik fakul'teta zemleustroystva Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta. 2019. № 5. S. 5-11.
10. Shanin S. A., Shanina E. N. Bazovye modeli formirovaniya rynka zemli i sistemy zemel'nyh otnosheniy // Belgorodskiy ekonomicheskiy vestnik. 2019. № 2 (94). S. 47-56.
11. Demidov P. V., Ulez'ko A. V. Ocenka usloviy vosproizvodstva sel'skohozyaystvennyh ugodiy // Dal'nevostochnyy agrarnyy vestnik. 2018. № 2 (46). S. 176-184.
12. Komov N. V. O sozdanii sistemy edinogo gosudarstvennogo upravleniya zemel'nymi resursami Rossii // Zemleustroystvo, kadastr i monitoring zemel'. 2019. № 1 (168). S. 5-8.
13. Dessart F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé J., Van Bavel R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review // European Review of Agricultural Economics. Oxford University Press. 2019. Vol. 46. Pr. 417-471. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019.
14. Salaisook P., Faysse N., Tsusaka T. W. Reasons for adoption of sustainable land management practices in a changing context: A mixed approach in Thailand [e-resource] // Land Use Policy. 2020. Vol. 96. Article number 104676. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837719317351?via%3Dihub (date of reference: 25.04.2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104676.
15. Neganova V. P., Dudnik A. V. Gotovnost' k innovaciyam v APK regiona kak sub'ektivnyy faktor innovacionnoy aktivnosti // Ekonomika regiona. 2019. T. 15. Vyp. 3. S. 880-892.
16. Panteleeva V. V., Knysheva T. P. Oprosnik innovacionnoy gotovnosti personala // Akmeologiya. 2016. № 3. S. 81-86.
17. Dubovickiy A. A., Klimentova E. A. Strategiya upravleniya racional'nym zemlepol'zovaniem v sel'skom hozyaystve // APK: Ekonomika, upravlenie. 2021. № 12. S. 53-59.
