Farmers’ protection behavior largely depends on their perceived value of cultivated land quality protection. However, existing research shows that the impact path of these perceived factors on farmers’ cultivated land protection behavior is not clear. Based on the survey data of 288 farmers in Ningbo City, this study empirically analyzed the impact of farmers’ perception on their cultivated land quality protection behavior through structural equation modeling (SEM). The results showed that farmers’ cultivated land quality protection behavior largely depended on perceived value, and they followed the logic paradigm of “perceived tradeoff→perceived value→behavioral intention→behavioral response”. Among them, farmers’ perceived value comes from farmers’ comprehensive tradeoff of benefits and risks in the process of cultivated land quality protection. In other words, improving farmers’ perceived benefits and reducing perceived risks is conducive to improving farmers’ perceived value of cultivated land quality protection. The above findings are helpful to improve farmers’ behavior of farmland land quality protection and provide new ideas and empirical basis for the design and improvement of cultivated land quality protection policies.

Faced with problems such as unordered expansion, inefficient utilization, and the decay of old cities in the current urban development process, many scholars have considered introducing land use mix as a coping strategy. However, due to a lack of understanding of the evolution process and the theoretical connotation of land use mix, it fails to guide its role in practice. Therefore, this study summarizes the theoretical evolution of land use mix from four levels: ideological evolution, conceptual model, quantitative measurements, and influential factors and effects. It is found that after decades of evolution, although the land use mix theory initially formed a certain theoretical and methodological system, there are still some gaps or deficiencies that need to be filled or improved: (1) the theoretical framework lags behind the needs of practice; (2) in the process of evolution, the idea of modern land use mix has been given a deeper meaning; (3) the conceptual model still needs to be further improved; (4) the influencing mechanism is still unclear.