Transfer or Surrender Rural Homestead Land? An Investigation of farmers' Preferences in China

被引:1
|
作者
Zheng, Qiujie [1 ]
Diao, Weiyang [2 ,5 ]
Lu, Yonggang [1 ]
Wang, Yunfeng [2 ,3 ]
Chi, Guangqing [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maine, Maine Business Sch, Orono, ME USA
[2] Jilin Univ Finance & Econ, Sch Int Econ & Trade, Changchun, Jilin, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Sanya, Sch Management, Sanya, Hainan, Peoples R China
[4] Penn State Univ, Dept Agr Econ Sociol & Educ, University Pk, PA USA
[5] Jilin Univ Finance & Econ, Sch Int Econ & Trade, 3699 Jingyue St, Changchun 130117, Jilin, Peoples R China
关键词
Rural homestead land; farmers' preference; China; MIGRATION; MARKETS; TENURE;
D O I
10.1080/10971475.2023.2266966
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
With rapid industrialization and urbanization in China, a large rural population has migrated to cities and left their rural homestead land (RHL) idled. Land use policy on RHL utilization is crucial to the efficient use of land resources. However, due to farmers' limited knowledge of regulations and lack of participation in rural land governance, their preference is sometimes overlooked in the policy-making process. The purpose of this paper is to examine farmers' preferences for the two primary RHL utilization programs, i.e., transfer and surrender. We conducted a farmer household survey of 405 households in rural areas in Changchun at Jilin Province, China in 2018 and estimated farmers' willingness to participate in the mechanisms using a bivariate ordered probit model. Various options under the two mechanisms are also investigated. We find a positive correlation between rural households' willingness to participate in these two mechanisms. This is the first comprehensive study taking into consideration the correlation and tradeoff in farmers' choice between the two mechanisms. The results shed light on the heterogeneity of households' needs and interests in RHL utilization, an important component to be considered in rural development policy-making decisions.
引用
收藏
页码:61 / 81
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Citizenship Ability, Homestead Utility, and Rural Homestead Transfer of "Amphibious" Farmers
    Yuan, Zhongyou
    Fu, Chenchen
    Kong, Shujie
    Du, Jifeng
    Li, Wei
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (04)
  • [2] A novel framework for rural homestead land transfer under collective ownership in China
    Kong, Xuesong
    Liu, Yaolin
    Jiang, Ping
    Tian, Yasi
    Zou, Yafeng
    [J]. LAND USE POLICY, 2018, 78 : 138 - 146
  • [3] Governance Structure of Rural Homestead Transfer in China: Government and/or Market?
    Zhang, Yongchao
    Torre, Andre
    Ehrlich, Marianne
    [J]. LAND, 2021, 10 (07)
  • [4] Farmers' Risk Preferences in Rural China: Measurements and Determinants
    Jin, Jianjun
    He, Rui
    Gong, Haozhou
    Xu, Xia
    He, Chunyang
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2017, 14 (07)
  • [5] Does Land Transfer Improve Farmers' Quality of Life? Evidence from Rural China
    He, Qiang
    Deng, Xin
    Li, Chuan
    Kong, Fangxia
    Qi, Yanbin
    [J]. LAND, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [6] The Homestead or the Unassailabiltiy of rural Land Ownership
    不详
    [J]. ARCHIV FUR SOZIALWISSENSCHAFT UND SOZIALPOLITIK, 1908, 27 (01): : 296 - 297
  • [7] Using Risk System Theory to Explore Farmers' Intentions towards Rural Homestead Transfer: Empirical Evidence from Anhui, China
    Guan, Gexin
    Zhao, Wei
    [J]. LAND, 2023, 12 (03)
  • [8] Land Transfer Contract and Farmers' Straw-Returning Behavior: Evidence from Rural China
    Li, Ruisheng
    Huang, Bin
    Liu, Shaoquan
    Xu, Dingde
    [J]. LAND, 2024, 13 (07)
  • [9] The Management and Strategy to Rural Homestead In China
    Zhu Lifang
    Chen Jing
    Liu Yang
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2013 THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (ICETIS 2013), 2013, 65 : 1093 - 1096
  • [10] Rural Land Tenure and Land Transfer Polices in China
    Si, Zhi-Zhi
    Nie, Feng-Ying
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2014 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT AND TRADE COOPERATION, 2014, 107 : 545 - 549