As a cornerstone of agricultural modernization, agricultural mechanization plays a pivotal role in driving rural revitalization and establishing agricultural competitiveness. Drawing upon the theoretical framework of happiness economics, this study investigates the impact, mechanisms, and heterogeneous effects of agricultural machinery adoption on farmers’ subjective well-being, utilizing comprehensive household survey data collected from Jiangxi Province in July 2023. The empirical results demonstrate a significant positive correlation between agricultural machinery adoption and farmers’ subjective well-being, a finding that remains robust after addressing endogeneity concerns through instrumental variable approaches. The mechanism analysis reveals that the enhancement of well-being is primarily mediated through facilitated transitions to non-agricultural employment. The purpose of the mechanism analysis is to explain why agricultural mechanization adoption improves farmers’ subjective well-being. This analysis finds that agricultural mechanization adoption improves farmers’ subjective well-being by helping them transition to non-agricultural employment more smoothly. Furthermore, heterogeneity analysis indicates that the beneficial effects are more substantial among male farmers, individuals with higher educational attainment, and younger demographic groups. These findings suggest that policy interventions should focus on enhancing innovation in agricultural machinery technology, optimizing subsidy programs for agricultural equipment, improving rural education systems, and facilitating the structural transformation of rural labor markets.

By introducing environmental mediator, for avoiding randomness in selecting indicators and subjectivity in deciding interaction path coefficients to reveal interaction mechanism among forest industry, ecology and environmental capacity, structural Pressure–State–Impact–Response (PSIR) and quantitative Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) are utilized with data on thirty–one provinces of China. We can find that: (i) forest industry has a negative influence on ecology, whereas ecology has a positive influence on industry; (ii) the destructive influence that industry has on ecology is much greater than the positive effect ecology has on industry; and (iii) environmental capacity plays a partial mediating role between industry and ecology. According to these results we can conclude that: (i) forest industry and ecology are not in a symbiotic relationship and have not reached a level of ecological security; (ii) the interaction between industry and ecology is in a period of transition from antagonistic to beneficial; and (iii) industry dominates ecology. However, we prospect the following advice: (i) methods of forest industry should be changed; (ii) new modes of industrial integration and circular economy should be developed; and (iii) the ability of the environment to sustain itself should be enhanced. The level of forest ecological security to discuss the symbiotic mechanism of industry and ecology will propose to be measured in future.