随着人口增长与城市化进程加速，我国农业发展面临粮食安全压力、劳动力短缺与资源环境约束的多重挑战。农业生产对化学投入品的过度依赖加剧了生态退化，推动农业向生态循环模式转型已成为实现可持续发展的必然选择。生态循环农业标志着传统农业向现代集约化经营的转变，更是重构农村生产关系的系统性工程，其技术嵌入过程深刻影响乡村社会的经济形态、治理结构与文化生态。

本研究基于嵌入性理论视角，以南京市Z村为田野调查对象，采用参与式观察和深度访谈相结合的研究方法，系统探讨生态循环农业技术的应用机制及其社会影响。研究发现，生态循环农业技术的成功嵌入依赖于结构、关系、文化与制度四重机制的协同作用：结构性嵌入通过合作社主导的土地整合与资源重组，突破小农分散经营限制，为技术规模化应用奠定基础；关系性嵌入依托村干部的“桥梁型能人”角色与农技人员的在地化服务，构建信任网络与技术认知共同体；文化嵌入通过传统生态智慧与现代技术的融合，增强技术本土适应性；制度嵌入则以弹性政策设计平衡农民理性选择与政策目标。技术扩散呈现双轨互补路径，政府主导型技术（如炭基循环技术）依赖政策与科研支持，内生需求型技术（如稻虾共作）则根植于农民经济诉求，两者的协同规避外部主体社会网络薄弱引发的合作困境。

生态循环农业技术引发村庄内部复杂的嵌入效应：在经济效应上，生态循环农业技术推动生态链条修复与农产品产业链延伸，如富硒米酿酒、稻虾加工，促进资源整合与人才回流。在社会效应上，Z村形成“村民-村集体-高校”的生态协同治理模式，并促进村庄社会资本增值。而在文化效应上，农户的“去技能化”导致村庄分化与权力分层，村庄弱势群体陷入低薪零工困境，宗族关系与技术权力交织加剧社会不平等。因此生态循环农业的可持续发展需平衡技术效率与农民主体性，通过参与式研发与开放式培训激活地方性知识，同时构建包容性制度框架以保障弱势群体权益。

本研究试图揭示生态循环农业的技术扩散系统需植根本土社会文化脉络，其核心在于通过多维嵌入机制重构技术应用与社会系统的互构关系。未来研究需进一步关注跨区域案例比较与长期社会变迁追踪，以深化对生态循环农业转型动态规律的认识。

With accelerating population growth and urbanization, China's agricultural development faces multiple challenges including food security pressures, labor shortages, and resource-environmental constraints. The over-reliance on chemical inputs in agricultural production has exacerbated ecological degradation, making the transition to an eco-circular agricultural model an imperative for sustainable development. Ecological circular agriculture not only signifies the shift from traditional extensive farming to modern intensive management but also constitutes a systematic project to restructure rural production relations. Its technological embeddedness profoundly influences economic patterns, rural governance structures, and cultural ecosystems.

This study adopts the perspective of embeddedness theory, selecting Village Z in Nanjing as a field research site. Through participatory observation and in-depth interviews, it systematically explores the application mechanisms and social impacts of ecological circular agricultural technologies. The findings reveal that the successful embedding of these technologies relies on the synergistic interplay of four mechanisms—structural, relational, cultural, and institutional embeddedness. Structural embeddedness, facilitated by cooperatives’ land consolidation and resource reorganization, overcomes the limitations of fragmented smallholder farming, laying the foundation for large-scale technology adoption. Relational embeddedness leverages the "bridge-type elites" role of village cadres and the localized services of agricultural technicians to build trust networks and a technology-aware community. Cultural embeddedness enhances local adaptability through the integration of traditional ecological wisdom with modern techniques, while institutional embeddedness balances farmers’ rational choices with policy goals via flexible governance designs. The technology diffusion follows dual-track complementary pathways: government-led technologies (e.g., biochar recycling) rely on policy and academic support, whereas endogenous-demand-driven technologies (e.g., rice-crayfish co-culture) emerge from farmers’ economic aspirations. Their coordination mitigates cooperation dilemmas caused by weak social networks among external actors.

The technological embeddedness of ecological circular agriculture also triggers complex social effects within the village. Economically, this technology facilitates ecological chain restoration and extends agricultural product industrial chains, exemplified by selenium-rich rice winemaking and rice-shrimp processing, which drive resource integration and attract skilled workers back to rural areas. Socially, Village Z has developed an "villagers–village collective–universities" eco-collaborative governance model, enhancing social capital within the community. Culturally, however, farmer deskilling has led to village differentiation and power stratification. Vulnerable groups are trapped in low-paid precarious employment, while the intertwining of kinship ties and technocratic power exacerbates social inequality. Consequently, sustainable development of eco-circular agriculture requires balancing technological efficiency with farmer agency. This involves activating local knowledge through participatory R&D and open-access training programs, while establishing inclusive institutional frameworks to safeguard the rights of marginalized groups.

This study highlights that technology diffusion systems must be rooted in local socio-cultural contexts, with multidimensional embeddedness mechanisms serving as the core for reconstructing the mutual shaping of technological applications and social systems. Future research should prioritize cross-regional case comparisons and long-term tracking of social transformations to deepen understanding of the dynamic patterns underlying ecological circular agricultural transitions.