基于感知价值理论的农户宅基地有偿退出决策行为研究——以安徽省金寨县典型试点区为例

doi:10.18402/resci.2020.04.08

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在城乡建设用地双扩背景下,宅基地有偿退出是提高农村建设用地利用效率的重要手段,而农户主体的决策行为是宅基地有偿退出政策得以实施的关键。本文立足农户微观视角,以安徽省金寨县为例,基于感知价值理论构建农户宅基地退出感知价值权衡模型,分析农户感知价值对其宅基地退出决策行为的影响。结果表明：①农户参与宅基地退出行为遵循“感知价值→退出意愿→决策行为”的路径模式,感知价值是农户具有宅基地退出意愿和决策行为的基础,退出意愿是产生实际退出行为的主要动力,农户感知利益对感知价值和退出意愿具有正向影响,感知风险对感知价值和退出意愿具有负向影响;②农户在宅基地退出过程中是“风险规避者”,政策制度会促使农户的退出意愿转化为实际退出行为;③农户的宅基地退出行为兼具“主动性”和“诱导性”双重行动逻辑,“诱导性”行为效用高于“主动性”行为效用,表明“诱导性”行为逻辑占主导地位。因此,提出维护农户宅基地退出的权益、加大对宅基地退出政策的支持力度等2个建议,以确保宅基地退出工作的顺利开展。

关键词: 宅基地, 有偿退出, 感知价值, 结构方程模型, 决策行为, 安徽省金寨县

Abstract:

In the context of urban and rural construction land expansion, the paid withdrawal of homestead is important to improve the efficiency of rural construction land use, and the decision-making behavior of farmers is the key to the policy implementation of paid withdrawal of homestead. Based on the perspective of farmers and taking Jinzhai County in Anhui Province as an example, this study constructed a tradeoff model of perceived value of homestead withdrawal based on the theory of perceived value, and analyzed the impact of perceived value of farmers on their decision-making behavior in the process of homestead withdrawal. The results show that: (1) Farmers’ participation in the withdrawal of homestead follows the path of perceived value → willingness to withdraw → decision-making behavior. Perceived value is the basis of farmers’ willingness to withdraw from homestead and decision-making behavior, the willingness to withdraw is the main driving force for the actual withdrawal behavior, farmers’ perceived benefits have a positive impact on perceived value and willingness to withdraw, and perceived risk has a negative impact on perceived value and willingness to withdraw; (2) Farmers are “risk averse” in the process of the withdraw of homestead, but the policy system will promote farmers’ willingness to withdraw into the actual withdrawal behavior; (3) The surveyed farmers showed the dual action logic of “initiative” and “inducement,” and the effect of “inducement” behavior is higher than “initiative,” indicating that “inducement” behavior logic is dominant. Therefore, this article put forward two suggestions to ensure the smooth development and pilot promotion of homestead exit: safeguarding the rights and interests of farmers’ homestead exit; and increasing the support for the policy of homestead exit.

Key words: homestead, paid exit, perceived value, structural equation model, decision behavior, Jinzhai County, Anhui Province

胡银根, 杨春梅, 董文静, 齐琪, 张也, 林书达. 基于感知价值理论的农户宅基地有偿退出决策行为研究——以安徽省金寨县典型试点区为例[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(4): 685-695.

HU Yingen, YANG Chunmei, DONG Wenjing, QI Qi, ZHANG Ye, LIN Shuda. Farmers’ homestead exit behavior based on perceived value theory：A case of Jinzhai County in Anhui Province[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(4): 685-695.

图/表 9

表1

农户宅基地退出感知价值模型指标内涵"

模型变量	各变量的观测变量题项	题项含义
感知经济利益PEB	PEB1：宅基地退出能够获得金钱收入	增加收入
	PEB2：宅基地退出后能提升家庭生活水平	生活水平
	PEB3：宅基地退出后能获得额外奖励	额外奖励
感知社会利益PSB	PSB1：增加创业、就业的机会,就业渠道更广	机会平等
	PSB2：获得更好的社会资源（户籍、医疗、教育）	社会资源
	PSB3：新居的社会治安更好	公共秩序
	PSB4：新居的基础设施、居住环境、出行便利度更好	基础设施
	PSB5：新居的生活娱乐方式更加多样化	娱乐多样
感知心理利益PPB	PPB1：积极响应国家政策,促进乡村发展	实现价值
	PPB2：促进农村宅基地公平取得	责任意识
	PPB3：有利于个人威望提升	获得尊重
农户感知利益FPB	FPB：总的来说,宅基地退出能在多方面带来好处	总体利益
感知经济风险PER	PER1：宅基地退出后家庭生活成本高	成本提升
	PER2：宅基地退出补偿标准不合理	补贴不合理
	PER3：宅基地退出补贴不到位	补贴不到位
感知社会风险PSR	PSR1：就业风险加大了,工作难找	就业风险
	PSR2：很难融入新的生活环境	环境融入困难
	PSR3：农业生产不便利	生产不便利
	PSR4：新居面积无法满足生产生活需求	生产生活
	PSR5：宅基地越来越值钱	房子增值
感知心理风险PPR	PPR1：周围退出的环境压力	环境压力
	PPR2：没有足够的政策及相关技术支持	相关条件
	PPR3：宅基地退出是一件耗时耗力的事	退出程序
农户感知风险FPR	FPR：总的来说,宅基地退出能在多方面存在风险和损失	总体风险
政策制度PS	PS1：货币激励政策能够促使农户参与宅基地退出	货币政策
	PS2：乡镇政府及国土部门尊重村民宅基地有偿退出的意见	非货币政策
	PS3：乡镇政府及国土部门有积极宣传分享宅基地退出政策	非货币政策

表1

图1

表2

表3

表4

潜在变量信效度检验表"

一级潜在变量	二级潜在变量	信度检验	效度检验
一级潜在变量	二级潜在变量	Cronbach’s $α$	KMO	Bartlett球体检验
感知利益	经济利益	0.75	0.68	0.00
	社会利益	0.89	0.86	0.00
	心理利益	0.82	0.71	0.00
感知风险	经济风险	0.73	0.66	0.00
	社会风险	0.91	0.88	0.00
	心理风险	0.82	0.68	0.00
政策制度	—	—	0.74	0.00

表4

图2

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 34

[1]	黄贻芳, 钟涨宝 . 不同类型农户对宅基地退出的响应: 以重庆梁平县为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2013,22(7):852-857.
	[ Huang Y F, Zhong Z B . Reaction of different types of rural households on the rural residential land quittance policy: Based on the survey from Liangping County[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2013,22(7):852-857.]
[2]	韩立达, 王艳西, 韩冬 . 农村宅基地“三权分置”: 内在要求、权利性质与实现形式[J]. 农业经济问题, 2018, ( 7):36-45.
	[ Han L D, Wang Y X, Han D . The separation of “Three Rights” in rural homestead: Intrinsic requirements, nature and forms[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2018, ( 7):36-45.]
[3]	赵志泉 . 农村宅基地三权分置探讨[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019, ( 3):261-262.
	[ Zhao Z Q . Discussions on the separation of three rights of rural homestead[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019, ( 3):261-262.]
[4]	赵海锋 . 基于农户意愿视角的宅基地退出机制研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江财经学院, 2013.
	[ Zhao H F . A Study on Exit Mechanism of Rural Housing under the Perspective of Farmers’Intend[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics, 2013.]
[5]	张思路 . 我国农村宅基地现状研究与建议[J]. 农业经济, 2009, ( 5):64-65.
	[ Zhang S L . Research and suggestions on the current situation of rural homestead in China[J]. Agricultural Economy, 2009, ( 5):64-65.]
[6]	薛力 . 城市化背景下的“空心村”现象及其对策探讨: 以江苏省为例[J]. 城市规划, 2001,25(6):8-13.
	[ Xue L . Study on the inner-decaying village and the countermeasures with Jiangsu Province as the case[J]. City Planning Review, 2001,25(6):8-13.]
[7]	胡银根, 吴欣, 王聪 , 等. 农户宅基地有偿退出与有偿使用决策行为影响因素研究: 基于传统农区宜城市的实证[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018,32(11):22-29.
	[ Hu Y G, Wu X, Wang C , et al. 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[J]. China Land Science, 2018,32(11):22-29.]
[8]	庄开明, 黄敏 . 完善农村宅基地退出与补偿机制的思考[J]. 农村经济, 2017, ( 7):13-19.
	[ Zhuang K M, Huang M . Thoughts on perfecting the mechanism of withdrawing and compensation of rural homestead[J]. Rural Economy, 2017, ( 7):13-19.]
[9]	孙宇, 苏悦, 胡银根 . 基于Logistic与AHP混合模型的宅基地有偿退出影响因素研究: 以湖北省宜城市为例[J]. 资源开发与市场, 2019,35(9):1113-1119.
	[ Sun Y, Su Y, Hu Y G . Study on influencing factors of paid withdrawal of homestead based on the mixed model of Logistic and AHP: Taking Yicheng City in Hubei Province as an example[J]. Resource Development & Market, 2019,35(9):1113-1119.]
[10]	Vikas R . Agrarian reform and land markets: A study of land transactions in two villages of west Bengal, 1977-1995[J]. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 2001,49(3):611-629.
[11]	Stiglitz J . The new development economics[J]. World Development, 1986,14(2):257-265.
[12]	Bogaerts T, Willimason L P, Fendel E M . The role of land administration in the accession of Central European countries to the European Union[J]. Land Use Policy, 2002,19(1):29-46.
[13]	Kung J K . Off-farm labor markets and the emergence of land rental markets in rural China[J]. Journal of Comparative Economics, 2002,30(2):395-414.
[14]	Jin S Q, Deininger K . Land rental markets in the process of rural structural transformation: Productivity and equity impacts from China[J]. Journal of Comparative Economics, 2009,37(4):629-646.
[15]	Sanga S A, Mwasumbi A N . Land and housing transactions in Tanzania: An evaluation of title risk vulnerabilities in Kinondoni Municipality Dar es Salaam[J]. Urban Forum, 2019,30:261-287.
[16]	胡银根, 王聪, 廖成泉 , 等. 不同治理结构下农村宅基地有偿退出模式探析: 以金寨、蓟州、义乌3个典型试点为例[J]. 资源开发与市场, 2017,33(12):1411-1416.
	[ Hu Y G, Wang C, Liao C C , et al. Study on mode of paid exit in rural homestead under different governance structures: Based on three typical pilot projects in Jinzhai, Jizhou and Yiwu[J]. Resource Development & Market, 2017,33(12):1411-1416.]
[17]	古圣钰, 吴英伟 . 基于演化博弈理论的农村宅基地退出模式[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019,47(16):344-346.
	[ Gu S Y, Wu Y W . Study on withdrawal model of rural homestead based on evolutionary game theory[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2019,47(16):344-346.]
[18]	王兆林, 杨庆媛, 骆东奇 . 农民宅基地退出差异性受偿意愿及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018,32(9):28-34.
	[ Wang Z L, Yang Q Y, Luo D Q . Farmers’ diverse willingness to accept rural residential land exit and its impact factors[J]. China Land Science, 2018,32(9):28-34.]
[19]	胡银根, 余依云, 王聪 , 等. 基于成本收益理论的宅基地自愿有偿退出有效阈值: 以改革试点区宜城市为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019,34(6):1317-1330.
	[ Hu Y G, Yu Y Y, Wang C , et al. The effective threshold of compensation for the voluntary withdrawal from rural homestead: Empirical research based on the reform of pilot city in Yicheng City[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2019,34(6):1317-1330.]
[20]	徐小峰 . 城乡建设用地增减挂钩区农村宅基地退出补偿研究: 以湖北省鄂州市为例[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2012.
	[ Xu X F . Study on Exit Mechanism for Rural Homestead Land in the District of Increase or Decrease Link on Urban and Countryside Construction Land: Case in Fuzhou City Hubei Province[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2012.]
[21]	王得坤 . 构建农村宅基地退出机制的探索与思考[J]. 经济师, 2019, ( 1):27-28.
	[ Wang D K . Exploration and thought on establishment of rural housestead withdrawal mechanism[J]. China Economist, 2019, ( 1):27-28.]
[22]	李芳 . 南宁市农村宅基地退出机制的探索[J]. 农村经济与科技, 2019, ( 14):183-185.
	[ Li F . Study on the withdrawal mechanism of rural homestead in Nanning[J]. Rural Economy and Science-Technology, 2019, ( 14):183-185.]
[23]	彭长生 . 农民分化对农村宅基地退出补偿模式选择的影响分析: 基于安徽省的农户调查数据[J]. 经济社会体制比较, 2013, ( 6):133-146.
	[ Peng C S . Analysis of the influence of peasants’ social stratum on their choice of monetary compensation model for leaving their rural homestead: Based on survey data of farmers in Anhui Province[J]. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, 2013, ( 6):133-146.]
[24]	杨丽霞, 朱从谋, 苑韶峰 , 等. 基于供给侧改革的农户宅基地退出意愿及福利变化分析: 以浙江省义乌市为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018,32(1):35-41.
	[ Yang L X, Zhu C M, Yuan S F , et al. 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[J]. China Land Science, 2018,32(1):35-41.]
[25]	郭贯成, 戈楚婷 . 推拉理论视角下的农村宅基地退出机制研究: 基于南京市栖霞区农户意愿调查[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017,26(6):816-823.
	[ Guo G C, Ge C T . Study on exit mechanism of rural housing land under the perspective of Push-Pull Theory: Based on the investigation of farmers’ willingness in QiXia District[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2017,26(6):816-823.]
[26]	张勇 . 农村宅基地制度改革的内在逻辑、现实困境与路径选择: 基于农民市民化与乡村振兴协同视角[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2018,18(6):118-127.
	[ Zhang Y . The internal logic, realistic predicament and path choice of the rural homestead system reform: Based on the coordination perspective of peasant’s citizenship and rural revitalization[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2018,18(6):118-127.]
[27]	许恒周, 殷红春, 石淑芹 . 代际差异视角下农民工乡城迁移与宅基地退出影响因素分析: 基于推拉理论的实证研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2013,23(8):75-80.
	[ Xu H Z, Yin H C, Shi S Q . Analysis of influential factors of withdrawing from rural residential land and migrant workers’ urban -rural migration under the perspective of intergenerational differences: An empirical study on the basis of Push-Pull Theory[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2013,23(8):75-80.]
[28]	Zeithaml V A . Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synjournal of evidence[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1988,52(3):2-22.
[29]	Gronroos C . Value-driven relational marketing: from product to resource and competences[J]. Journal of Marketing Management, 1997,13(5):407-409.
[30]	罗光宇, 欧阳晨 . 农村宅基地使用权流转的合法性探析[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2013,13(2):6-11.
	[ Luo G Y, Ouyang C . Study on transition of homestead use right in rural areas[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Social Science Edition), 2013,13(2):6-11.]
[31]	张童 . 银行理财顾客感知利益维度构建及其量表开发[J]. 现代财经(天津财经大学学报), 2012,32(3):81-88.
	[ Zhang T . On the construction of perceived benefit dimension of bank financial customer and its measurement sale development[J]. Modern Finance and Economics (Journal of Tianjin University of Finance and Economics), 2012,32(3):81-88.]
[32]	黄志刚, 陈晓楠, 李健瑜 . 生态移民政策对农户收入影响机理研究: 基于形成型指标的结构方程模型分析[J]. 资源科学, 2018,40(2):439-451.
	[ Huang Z G, Chen X N, Li J Y . Research on the impact mechanism of ecological migration policy on rural household income based on the Structural Equation Model with formative indicators[J]. Resources Science, 2018,40(2):439-451.]
[33]	任立, 吴萌, 甘臣林 , 等. 基于SEM-SD模型的城市近郊区农户土地投入行为决策机制仿真研究[J]. 资源科学, 2020,42(2):286-297.
	[ Ren L, Wu M, Gan C L , et al. Decision-making mechanism simulation of farmers’ land investment behavior in suburbs based on structural equation modeling-system dynamics[J]. Resources Science, 2020,42(2):286-297.]
[34]	孟小燕 . 基于结构方程的居民生活垃圾分类行为研究[J]. 资源科学, 2019,41(6):1111-1119.
	[ Meng X Y . Analysis on residents’ behavior of domestic solid waste source separation based on structural equation[J]. Resources Science, 2019,41(6):1111-1119.]

假设项	假设内容	作用方向
H1	农户宅基地退出感知利益（FPB）对其感知价值（FPV）、退出意愿（FWI）有显著正向影响	+
H2	农户宅基地退出感知风险（FPR）对其感知价值（FPV）、退出意愿（FWI）有显著负向影响	-
H3	农户宅基地退出感知价值（FPV）对其退出意愿（FWI）、退出行为（FWB）有显著正向影响	+
H4	农户宅基地退出意愿（FWI）对其退出行为（FWB）有显著正向影响	+
H5	政策制度（PS）在农户退出意愿（FWI）与退出行为（FWB）之间起正向中介作用	+

变量	类别	频数	频率/%	变量	类别	频数	频率/%
性别	男	194	75.19	是否为（曾为）村干部	是	10	3.88
性别	女	64	24.81	是否为（曾为）村干部	否	248	96.12
年龄/岁	<40	36	13.95	家庭年纯收入/万元	≤1	11	4.26
	40~50	85	32.95		<1且≤5	151	58.53
	51~60	72	27.91		<5且≤10	87	33.72
	61~70	42	16.28		<10且≤15	8	3.10
	>70	23	8.91		>15	1	0.39
文化程度	小学及以下	148	57.36	耕地耕种面积/亩	≤1	128	49.61
	初中	108	41.86		<1且≤5	118	45.74
	高中/中专	2	0.70		<5且≤10	4	1.55
	大专及以上	0	0.08		>10	8	3.10
住宅数量	1	217	84.11	宅基地利用现状	均在使用	252	97.67
	2	38	14.73		部分空置、部分使用	6	2.33
	3	3	1.16		全部空置	0	0.00
村庄基础设施条件	很不满意	11	4.26	村庄居住环境	很差	6	2.33
	较不满意	54	20.93		较差	51	19.77
	一般	102	39.54		一般	110	42.63
	较满意	90	34.88		较好	89	34.50
	很满意	1	0.39		很好	2	0.77

统计检验指标类型	适拟合优度统计量	适拟合优度统计值	标准值
绝对适配度指标	卡方自由度比(χ²/df)	2.33	<3
	适配度指数(GFI)	0.82	>0.8
	近似误差均方根(RMSEA)	0.07	<0.08
增值适配度指标	规范适配指数(NFI)	0.86	>0.8
	比较适配指数(CFI)	0.92	>0.8
	增值适配指数(IFI)	0.92	>0.8
简约适配度指标	简约适配度指数(PGFI)	0.62	>0.5
简约适配度指标	规则适配指数(PNFI)	0.75	>0.5

路径	Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P值
感知利益FPB→感知价值FPV	0.33	0.06	6.61	***
感知风险FPR→感知价值FPV	-0.48	0.06	-9.65	***
感知利益FPB→退出意愿FWI	0.15	0.04	4.82	***
感知风险FPR→退出意愿FWI	-0.16	0.05	-4.59	***
感知价值FPV→退出意愿FWI	0.71	0.04	19.24	***
退出意愿FWI→退出行为FWB	0.27	0.08	3.96	***
感知价值FPV→退出行为FWB	0.14	0.07	2.50	**
退出意愿FWI→政策制度PS	0.82	0.04	17.52	***
政策制度PS→退出行为FWB	0.52	0.08	8.91	***
经济利益PEB→感知利益FPB	0.21	0.16	2.28	**
社会利益PSB→感知利益FPB	0.60	0.11	5.92	***
心理利益PPB→感知利益FPB	0.11	0.11	1.65	*
经济风险PER→感知风险FPR	0.26	0.15	2.40	**
社会风险PSR→感知风险FPR	0.42	0.10	5.09	***
心理风险PPR→感知风险FPR	0.15	0.14	1.73	*

效应类型	感知利益	感知风险	感知价值	退出意愿	政策制度
直接效应	0.09	-0.02	0.14	0.27	0.52
间接效应	0.31	-0.41	0.49	0.42	—
总效应	0.40	-0.42	0.63	0.69	0.52