Farmers’ Economic Status and Satisfaction with Homestead Withdrawal Policy: Expectation and Perceived Value
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory Hypotheses and Model
2.1. Theory and Research Hypotheses
- Relationship between farmers’ economic status and policy satisfaction.
- 2
- Relationship between policy expectation and policy satisfaction
- 3
- Relationship between PPV and PS
- 4
- Relationships among ES, PE, and PPV
2.2. Conceptual Model
3. Methodology
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Questionnaire and Data Collection
3.3. Structural Equation Modeling
4. Results
4.1. Demographic Information
4.2. Measurement Model
4.3. Hypothesis Testing
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Discussion
5.2. Practical Implications
- 1
- Select more developed regions to implement the policy
- 2
- Strengthen publicity to lower policy expectations
- 3
- Enhance public participation to improve policy perception
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Long, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Woods, M.; Zou, J. Accelerated restructuring in rural China fueled by ‘increasing vs. decreasing balance’ land-use policy for dealing with hollowed villages. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, H.; Zou, J.; Liu, Y. Differentiation of rural development driven by industrialization and urbanization in eastern coastal China. Habitat Int. 2009, 33, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gui, H. Inefficient Utilizing of the Residential Land in the Process of Urbanization and Its Solution—Ideas of Village Update. J. Yunnan Adm. Coll. 2017, 5, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, B. The Dilemma of “Hollow Village” and Ways to Solve It. Henan Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 108–112. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X.; Feng, J. Renovation Planning System Construction of Hollow Village in Less Developed Ecological Mountainous Areas: A Case Study of Xiji County, Ningxia Province. Urban Dev. Stud. 2016, 12, 91–99. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, H.; Huang, B. Analysis and Forecast on China’s Rural Economy (2018–2019); Social Sciences Academic Press (China): Beijing, China, 2019; pp. 228–248. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, X.; Li, Y.; Yu, R.; Zhao, X. Reconsidering the Controversial Land Use Policy of “Linking the Decrease in Rural Construction Land with the Increase in Urban Construction Land”: A Local Government Perspective. China Rev. 2014, 14, 175–198. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, C.; Fang, L. The Impossible in China’s Homestead Management: Free Access, Marketization and Settlement Containment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chen, H.; Zhao, L.; Zhao, Z. Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Rural Homesteads: A Survey in Zhejiang, China. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 524–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J. Practical Exploration and Path Selection of Withdrawal of Residential Land Access: Based on Initial Stage of Rural Revitalization. Jianghai Acad. J. 2020, 3, 84–90. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Y.; Xu, J. Analysis on Withdrawal of Rural Homestead in China under the Background of Urban and Rural Overall Development—A Case Study of Centralized Residence. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Seminar on Education Research and Social Science (ISERSS 2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 27–29 July 2018; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 482–485. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, C. Analysis of Compensation for Exiting Rural Homestead and Construction of Interest Mechanism. Rural Econ. 2014, 31, 441–442. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.; Wang, D.; MI, C. The influence of livelihood assets difference on farmers’ willingness to exit from rural residential land—An empirical study in Tianjin City. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2017, 9, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G. How to avoid “pushing the gourd down and floating the boat” in grassroots governance. Governance 2020, 3, 29–31. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, L. Effective measure to improve the migrant farmers’ ability to buy house—Linking mechanism of rural residential land and buying house in the city. J. Northwest A&F Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2017, 17, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Bao, T. An Analysis of the Driving Force of the Exit of Rural Homestead—Based on the Perspective of Push-Pull Theory. Rural Econ. 2017, 4, 18–23. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, Q.; Sarker, M.N.I.; Sun, J. Model of the influencing factors of the withdrawal from rural homesteads in China: Application of grounded theory method. Land Use Policy 2019, 85, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, W.; Zhang, L. Does cognition matter? Applying the push-pull-mooring model to Chinese farmers’ willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2019, 98, 2355–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, G.; Xu, S.; Gao, J. Value-added Income Distribution of Homestead Exit Compensation in Major Grain Producing Areas in Northeast China from the Perspective of Land Development Right. J. Nat. Resour. 2017, 32, 1883–1891. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Y.; Wang, C.; Liao, C.; Wu, X. Study on mode of paid exit in rural homestead under different governance structures—Based on three typical pilot projects in Jinzhai, Jizhou and Yiwu. Resour. Dev. Mark. 2017, 33, 1411–1416. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Y. Empirical research on satisfaction of farmers with different income status in homestead exchange project. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2008, 10, 4314–4326. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, W.; Guo, J.; Ou, M.; Meng, L.; Yin, S. Cost-benefit, policy recognition and households’compensation satisfaction of rural settlements consolidation. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2017, 27, 138–145. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X.; Yong, Y.; Wang, X. A Study of Satisfaction Evaluation System of Residents in Replacement Residential Homestead Plot. Huazhong Archit. 2010, 1, 54–56. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Hu, Y.; Liao, C. Research on satisfaction of farmers’ living environment in the Chinese rural homestead exit—A case study of the four quardrant analysis method. In Proceedings of the 2016 China New Era Land Resource Science and New Normal Innovation Development Strategy Seminar and the 30th Anniversary Commemorative Meeting of the Land Resources Research Professional Committee of the Chinese Natural Resources Society, Shenyang, China, 23–25 July 2016; pp. 280–288. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, L. Satisfaction of the Rural Homestead Readjustment in the Context of the New Urbanization: A Survey of Pengdun Village in Hubei Province. China Land Sci. 2014, 28, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Z.; Zhang, W. Study on the Evaluation of Farmer Satisfaction with the Rural Homestead Reform—An Example of Chengdu’s Surrounding Counties. World Surv. Res. 2013, 9, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Y.; Wu, X.; Wang, C.; Yu, Y.; Dong, W.; Xu, X. The Impact Factors of Rural Household Decision-making Behavior of Rural Residential Land Paid-exit and Paid-use: Evidence from the Traditional Agricultural Regions of Yicheng City. China Land Sci. 2018, 32, 22–29. [Google Scholar]
- Li, M.; Feng, Y.; Tang, P. Study on Influential Factors of Farmers’ Satisfaction with Rural Homestead Withdrawal: Based on the Survey Data of Typical Areas in Sichuan Province. West Forum. 2019, 29, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Wang, K.; Ou, M. Study on the Welfare Level of Farmers’ Exiting from Homestead and Living in Concentration from the Perspective of Farmers’ Differentiation. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2020, 29, 748–757. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, X. The Perfection of Rural Homestead Withdrawal Mechanism from the Perspective of Farmers’ Rights Protection. Rural Econ. 2015, 4, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Z.; Wang, H. The constrcucion of a new customer satisfaction index model based on the analysis of SCSB, ACSI and ECSI. Nankai Bus. Rev. 2003, 6, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, A.; Zhang, C.; Hu, Y.; Lu, W.; Li, H. Influence mechanism of the corporate image on passenger satisfaction with public transport in China. Transp. Policy 2020, 94, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Wang, D.; Ni, A.; Ni, X.; Xiao, G. Different Effects of Contractual Form on Public Transport Satisfaction: Evidence from Large- and Medium-Sized Cities in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Zhang, C.; Liu, Y.; Lu, W.; Xiao, G. Evaluating passenger satisfaction index based on PLS-SEM model: Evidence from Chinese public transport service. Transp. Res. A-Pol. 2019, 120, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Gan, C.; Mei, Y.; Zhang, M. Analysis on Influential Factors of Farmers’ Satisfaction with Land Transfer based on the CSI Theory: A Case Study of Wuhan Metropolitan Area. China Land Sci. 2017, 31, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, D.M.; Fornell, C. A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across individuals and product categories. J. Econ. Psychol. 1991, 12, 267–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Zhang, H.; Liang, Y.; Ni, Q. Satisfaction Analysis of Rural Land Credit Cooperatives—Based on a questionnaire survey of farmers in Pingluo County, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Qinghai Soc. Sci. 2011, 6, 43–47. [Google Scholar]
- Lian, Y.; Li, W.; Huang, B. The impact of children migration on the health and life satisfaction of parents left behind. China Econ. Q. 2015, 14, 185–202. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, W.; Timothy, D.J. An assessment of farmers’ satisfaction with land consolidation performance in China. Land Use Policy 2017, 61, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, M.; Zhang, L.; Chen, D. Policy cognition, characteristics of farmland and farmers’ satisfaction with land rights confirmation. Mod. Econ. Res. 2017, 10, 104–110. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, J.; He, D.; Zhu, Y. Satisfaction of framers to accurate poverty alleviation policy and its influencing factors. J. Northwest A&F Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2017, 4, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, T.; Zhang, A.; Deng, S. Expected return, risk expectation and residential land quitting behavior among farmers in Songjiang and Jinshan Districts, Shanghai. Resour. Sci. 2016, 38, 1503–1514. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, L.R. Effect of Expectation and Disconfirmation on Postexposure Product Evaluations: An Alternative Interpretation. J. Appl. Psychol. 1977, 62, 480–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, L.R. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 1991, 106, 1039–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Yang, Y.; Tang, P. Policy Incentives and Choice of Exit Methods for Farmers’ Homesteads—Based on Investigation of Typical Areas in Sichuan Province. J. Sichuan Agric. Univ. 2019, 37, 734–742. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y. How Does Perceived Value Affect Travelers’ Satisfaction and Loyalty? Soc. Behav. Personal. 2014, 42, 1733–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeithaml, V. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrick, J.F.; Backman, S.J. An Examination of the Construct of Perceived Value for the Prediction of Golf Travelers’ Intentions to Revisit. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallarza, M.G.; Gil Saura, I. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.; Tsai, D. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 1115–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronin, J.J.; Brady, M.K.; Hult, G.T.M. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J. Retail. 2000, 76, 193–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eid, R.; El-Gohary, H. Muslim Tourist Perceived Value in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 774–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, G.; Li, S. How can the government make people happy? An empirical study on the influence of government quality on residents’ happiness. Manag. Worl 2012, 8, 55–67. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS–SEM); Sage Publications: California, CA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Chin, W.W.; Peterson, R.A.; Brown, S.P. Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing: Some Practical Reminders. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2008, 16, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed.; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1998–2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Tatham, R.L.; Anderson, R.E.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McDonald, R.P.; Ho, M.R. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analysis. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, L.; Liu, Y.; Brown, G.; Searle, G. Factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction with contemporary China’s land allocation policy—The Link Policy: Based on the empirical research of Ezhou. Habitat Int. 2018, 75, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, F.; Ding, D. Land Issues in Village Relocation and Combination: Status, Causes and Countermeasures. Mod. Urban Res. 2013, 6, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, L.; Zhu, C.; Yuan, S.; Li, S. Analysis on Farmers’ Willingness to Rural Residential Land Exit and Welfare Change based on the Supply-side Reform: A Case of Yiwu City in Zhejiang Province. China Land Sci. 2018, 32, 35–41. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Q.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, S. Empirical Study on the Evaluation Model of Public Satisfaction With Local Government Budget Transparency: A Case From China. SAGE Open. 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisec, A.; Primožič, T.; Ferlan, M.; Šumrada, R.; Drobne, S. Land owners’ perception of land consolidation and their satisfaction with the results—Slovenian experiences. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 550–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, B.; Wang, L. Obstacles and pathways to community participation for urban and rural residents. Study Pract. 2017, 12, 86–105. [Google Scholar]
Dimensions | Items | Definition |
---|---|---|
Economic status (Y1) | Cultivated land per capita/X1 | 1 = [0,0.5], 2 = (0.5,0.8], 3 = (0.8,1], 4 = (1,1.5], 5 = (1.5,+] |
Homestead area of family/X2 | 1 = [0,100], 2 = (100,200], 3 = (200,300], 4 = (300,400], 5 = (500, +] | |
Annual net income of family/X3 | 1 = [0,10000], 2=(10000,20000], 3 = (20000,30000], 4 = (30000,50000], 5 = (50000, +] | |
Percentage of non-agriculture income /X4 | 1 = [0,10%], 2 = (10%, 30%], 3 = (30%, 60%], 4 = (60%, 80%], 5 = (80%, 100%] | |
Policy expectations (Y2) | Overall policy expectations/X5 | 1 = Very low; 2 = Low; 3= moderate; 4 = High; 5 = Very high |
Expectation of compensation rate/X6 | 1 = Very low; 2 = Low; 3 = moderate; 4 = High; 5 = Very high | |
Expectation of quality of life/X7 | 1 = Very low; 2 = Low; 3 = moderate; 4 =High; 5 = Very high | |
Policy perceived value(Y3) | Changes in employment/X8 | 1 = Very little, 2 = Little, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Big, 5 = Great |
Changes in income/X9 | 1 = Very little, 2 = Little, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Big, 5 = Great | |
Changes in the living environment/X10 | 1 = Very little, 2 = Little, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Big, 5 = Great | |
Changes in social security/X11 | 1 =Very little, 2 = Little, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Big, 5 = Great | |
Policy satisfaction (Y4) | Overall satisfaction with the policy/X12 | 1 = Very unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Satisfied, and 5 = Very satisfied |
Satisfaction compared to expectations /X13 | 1 = Very unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Satisfied, and 5 = Very satisfied | |
Satisfaction compared to other land acquisition policies /X14 | 1 = Very unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Satisfied, and 5 = Very satisfied |
Variable | Description | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male = 1, female = 0 | 0.631 | 0.487 |
Age | Age of respondent (years) | 43.776 | 10.265 |
Education | Primary school = 1, Middle school = 2, High school = 3, College degree or above = 4 | 2.100 | 0.656 |
Household size | Number of household member (persons) | 5.453 | 1.781 |
Labor size | Number of the Labor force in a household (persons) | 3.107 | 1.351 |
Annual family members income | Yuan(CNY)/year | 9854 | 10412 |
Cultivated land area | The cultivated land area of household (Mu/667 m2) | 4.702 | 2.430 |
Homestead area | Homestead area of household (m2) | 206.229 | 99.400 |
Dimensions | Items | Parameters of Significant Test | Item Reliability | Composite Reliability | Convergence Validity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | SE. | Est./S.E | p-Value | SMC | CR | AVE | ||
EC | X1 | 0.740 | 0.037 | 20.228 | *** | 0.548 | 0.833 | 0.556 |
X2 | 0.827 | 0.03 | 27.502 | *** | 0.684 | |||
X3 | 0.719 | 0.038 | 18.743 | *** | 0.517 | |||
X4 | 0.691 | 0.049 | 14.166 | *** | 0.477 | |||
PE | X5 | 0.798 | 0.03 | 26.446 | *** | 0.637 | 0.832 | 0.624 |
X6 | 0.841 | 0.027 | 31.519 | *** | 0.707 | |||
X7 | 0.727 | 0.034 | 21.361 | *** | 0.529 | |||
PPV | X8 | 0.796 | 0.026 | 30.346 | *** | 0.634 | 0.896 | 0.683 |
X9 | 0.837 | 0.023 | 35.615 | *** | 0.701 | |||
X10 | 0.829 | 0.023 | 36.684 | *** | 0.687 | |||
X11 | 0.842 | 0.023 | 36.583 | *** | 0.709 | |||
PS | X12 | 0.877 | 0.017 | 51.017 | *** | 0.769 | 0.898 | 0.745 |
X13 | 0.843 | 0.023 | 37.312 | *** | 0.711 | |||
X14 | 0.869 | 0.02 | 44.486 | *** | 0.755 |
Factor | Correlations | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
1. ES | (0.746) ** | |||
2. PE | −0.294 | (0.790) ** | ||
3. PPV | 0.472 | −0.642 | (0.826) ** | |
4. PS | 0.632 | −0.602 | 0.759 | (0.863) ** |
Hypothesis | Path | Estimate | SE. | T | 95% Confidence Interval | p-Value | Results | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
1 | ES→PS | 0.355 | 0.053 | 6.649 | 0.248 | 0.462 | *** | Support |
2 | PE→PS | −0.201 | 0.066 | −3.020 | −0.327 | −0.069 | 0.003 | Support |
3 | PPV→PS | 0.463 | 0.067 | 6.911 | 0.332 | 0.595 | *** | Support |
4 | ES→PE | −0.294 | 0.063 | −4.667 | −0.412 | −0.161 | *** | Support |
5 | ES→PPV | 0.310 | 0.058 | 5.375 | 0.191 | 0.423 | *** | Support |
6 | PE→PPV | −0.551 | 0.052 | −10.666 | −0.652 | −0.451 | *** | Support |
Mediating Effects | Point Estimate | Product of Coefficients | p-Value | Bootstrap 1000 Times 95% CI | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bias-Corrected | Percentile | |||||||
S.E. | Z. | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||
ES→PE→PS | 0.059 | 0.022 | 2.632 | 0.008 | 0.020 | 0.108 | 0.018 | 0.104 |
ES→PPV→PS | 0.143 | 0.033 | 4.317 | *** | 0.088 | 0.223 | 0.085 | 0.218 |
ES→PExPPV→PS | 0.075 | 0.021 | 3.513 | *** | 0.041 | 0.127 | 0.038 | 0.121 |
PE→PPV→PS | −0.255 | 0.048 | −5.305 | *** | −0.366 | −0.17 | −0.361 | −0.168 |
ES→PE→PPV | 0.162 | 0.037 | 4.417 | *** | 0.090 | 0.236 | 0.089 | 0.231 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, Y.; Cloutier, S.; Li, H. Farmers’ Economic Status and Satisfaction with Homestead Withdrawal Policy: Expectation and Perceived Value. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7110. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197110
Zhao Y, Cloutier S, Li H. Farmers’ Economic Status and Satisfaction with Homestead Withdrawal Policy: Expectation and Perceived Value. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(19):7110. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197110
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Yaoyang, Scott Cloutier, and Hongqing Li. 2020. "Farmers’ Economic Status and Satisfaction with Homestead Withdrawal Policy: Expectation and Perceived Value" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19: 7110. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197110