农户宅基地退出补偿偏好与异质性来源——基于选择实验法的分析

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.07.15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

推进宅基地腾退是缓解中国土地资源配置效率低下的重要举措。这一政策的核心在于了解农户补偿偏好,设计合理的补偿方案,促进农户自愿退出宅基地。本文设计了一个包括补偿方式、补偿速度、补偿比例、付款模式、配套服务和资金来源6个属性在内的分组选择实验方案,在调查数据的基础上,重点比较了货币补偿、住房置换和就业安置3种补偿方式下的农户选择偏好以及异质性来源。结果发现：①只要政策公开透明,补偿标准合理,多数农户具备参与宅基地腾退的意愿,且更倾向于选择直接的货币补偿方式;②非货币补偿方式也表现出了一定的政策潜力,对于更为年轻、受教育程度更高、收入水平更高以及所拥有的宅基地距离县城更远、重要程度更低的群体具有吸引力;③受教育程度和收入水平是影响农户选择何种配套服务和资金来源的两个重要因素,受教育程度越低、年收入越低的农户越偏好教育培训与补缴社保,且更倾向选择财政拨付渠道的补偿资金来源。本文的发现为如何更加科学精准地制定退地补偿计划提供政策启示。

关键词: 宅基地退出, 补偿方案, 政策偏好, 异质性, 选择实验法

Abstract:

Promoting the withdrawal of rural homesteads is an important measure to alleviate the inefficient allocation of land resources in China. The core of this policy is to understand farmers’ compensation preferences, design a reasonable compensation plan, and promote farmers to voluntarily withdraw from their homesteads. This study designed experimental plan scenarios including six attributes compensation method, compensation delivery speed, compensation ratio, payment mode, supporting services, and funding sources. Based on the survey data, we focused on comparing farming household choice preferences and sources of heterogeneity under the three compensation methods of monetary compensation, housing replacement, and employment. The results show that: (1) As long as the policies are open and transparent and the compensation standards are reasonable, most farmers show the willingness to participate in the withdrawal of homesteads and tend to choose direct monetary compensation; (2) Non-monetary compensation also shows certain policy potentials. Groups of people who are younger, more educated, have higher income levels, and have homesteads farther from county seats and less important are more attracted by non-monetary compensation plans; (3) Education and income levels are the two important factors that affect what supporting services and source of funds farmers choose. The lower the level of education and annual income of the farmers, the more they prefer education and training and paying social security contribution retrospectively, and they are more inclined to choose the source of compensation funds through the financial appropriation channel. The findings of this study have policy implications for formulating residential land withdrawal compensation plans more scientifically and accurately.

Key words: homestead withdrawal, compensation plan, policy preference, heterogeneity, choice experiment method

陈鸣. 农户宅基地退出补偿偏好与异质性来源——基于选择实验法的分析[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(7): 1467-1478.

CHEN Ming. Compensation preference and heterogeneity sources of homestead withdrawal of farming households: Based on choice experiment method[J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(7): 1467-1478.

图/表 6

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

参考文献 34

[1]	Coase R H. The Problem of Social Cost[M]. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1960.
[2]	Lisec A, Ferlan M, Lobnik F. Modeling the rural land transaction procedure[J]. Land Use Policy, 2004, 25(2):286-297. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.08.003
[3]	Moteva M. Legal conditions and data provision for land property exchange in the processes of land consolidation and land compensation in Bulgaria[J]. Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, 2020, DOI: 10.7494/geom.2020.14.2.59. doi: 10.7494/geom.2020.14.2.59
[4]	Costedoat S, Koetse M, Corbera E, et al. Cash only? Unveiling preferences for a PES contract through a choice experiment in Chiapas[J]. Land Use Policy, 2016, 58:302-317. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.023
[5]	Tanrivermis H, Aliefendioglu Y. Land values and compensation payments from the viewpoint of owners and users affected by projects: Analysis of selected land and water development projects in Turkey[J]. European Real Estate Society, 2019, 335:112-128.
[6]	Lavee D. Land use for transport projects: Estimating land value[J]. Land Use Policy, 2015, 42:594-601. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.020
[7]	Yang X Y, Ritter M, Odening M. Testing for regional convergence of agricultural land prices[J]. Land Use Policy, 2017, 64:64-75. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.030
[8]	Nakamura H. Relationship among land price, entrepreneurship, the environment, economics, and social factors in the value assessment of Japanese cities[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 217:144-152. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.201
[9]	Forte F. New land values patterns in the space of the Italian Metropolitan areas: The case of the logistic retro-port in Naples[J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016, 223:503-508. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.308
[10]	Koguashvili P, Ramishvili B. Specific of agricultural land’s priceformation[J]. Annals of Agrarian Science, 2018, 16(3):324-326. doi: 10.1016/j.aasci.2018.06.007
[11]	Alfons W, Greg D, Peter S. Farm return and land price effects from environmental standards and stocking density restrictions[J]. Agricultural & Resource Economics Review, 2016, 33(2):272-281.
[12]	Bórawski P, Bełdycka-Bórawska A, Szymanska E J, et al. Price volatility of agricultural land in Poland in the context of the European Union[J]. Land Use Policy, 2019, 82:486-496. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.027
[13]	Kok N, Monkkonen P, Quigley J M. Land use regulations and the value of land and housing: An intra-metropolitan analysis[J]. Journal of Urban Economics, 2014, 81(4):136-148. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2014.03.004
[14]	梁发超, 刘丽惠. 不同模式下农村宅基地退出的农户选择偏好及其影响因素: 基于福建省晋江市的实证分析[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2020, 41(9):128-135.
	[ Liang F C, Liu L H. Research on farmers’ selection preference and influencing factors of rural residential land withdrawal under different patterns: Empirical analysis based on Jinjiang City, Fujian Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2020, 41(9):128-135.]
[15]	龚宏龄, 林铭海. 农民的异质化特征对宅基地退出补偿偏好的影响: 基于大足和涪陵两地的调研数据[J]. 农村经济, 2019, (2):31-38.
	[ Gong H L, Lin M H. The impact of farmers’ heterogeneous characteristics on homestead withdrawal compensation preference: Based on the survey data of Dazu and Fuling[J]. Rural Economy, 2019, (2):31-38.]
[16]	丰雷, 胡依洁, 蒋妍, 等. 中国农村土地转让权改革的深化与突破: 基于2018年“千人百村”调查的分析和建议[J]. 农村经济, 2020, (12):2-21.
	[ Feng L, Hu Y J, Jiang Y, et al. The deepening and breakthrough of China’s rural land transfer rights reform: An analysis based on the 2018 “one thousands students and one hundred villages” survey[J]. Rural Economy, 2020, (12):2-21.]
[17]	钱龙, 陈会广, 陈方丽. 确权促进了宅基地流转吗?基于温州农户的调查[J]. 经济体制改革, 2020, (2):186-193.
	[ Qian L, Chen H G, Chen F L. Can certification promote the transfer of homesteads: Based on the survey of farmers in Wenzhou City[J]. Reform of Economic System, 2020, (2):186-193.]
[18]	彭长生, 王全忠, 钟钰. 确权、农民分化与宅基地处置意愿: 基于安徽、湖南两省农户调查数据的实证分析[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, 19(5):118-129.
	[ Peng C S, Wang Q Z, Zhong Y. Rural land right confirmation, farmers’ differentiation and willingness of homestead disposal: An empirical analysis based on survey data of Anhui and Hunan provinces[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Science Edition), 2019, 19(5):118-129.]
[19]	王良健, 吴佳灏. 基于农户视角的宅基地空心化影响因素研究[J]. 地理研究, 2019, 38(9):2202-2211. doi: 10.11821/dlyj020180669
	[ Wang L J, Wu J H. Study on the influencing factors of homestead hollowing in a households’ perspective[J]. Geographical Research, 2019, 38(9):2202-2211.]
[20]	郭贯成, 李学增, 王茜月. 新中国成立70年宅基地制度变迁、困境与展望: 一个分析框架[J]. 中国土地科学, 2019, 33(12):1-9.
	[ Guo G C, Li X Z, Wang Q Y. Changes, dilemmas and prospects of the 70-year rural residential land institution in new China: An analytical framework[J]. China Land Science, 2019, 33(12):1-9.]
[21]	李婷婷, 龙花楼, 王艳飞, 等. 黄淮海平原农区宅基地扩展时空特征及整治潜力分析: 以禹城市5个村庄为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(9):2241-2253.
	[ Li T T, Long H L, Wang Y F, et al. The spatio-temporal characteristics and consolidation potential of rural housing land in farming area of the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain: The cases of five villages in Yucheng City[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020, 35(9):2241-2253.] doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20200916
[22]	Useche P, Bradford B L, Foltz J D. Integrating technology traits and producer heterogeneity: A mixed-multinomial model of genetically modified corn adoption[J]. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009, 91(2):444-461. doi: 10.1111/ajae.v91.2
[23]	徐涛, 倪琪, 乔丹, 等. 农村居民流域生态治理参与意愿的距离效应: 以石羊河流域为例[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(7):1395-1404.
	[ Xu T, Ni Q, Qiao D, et al. Distance effect on the willingness of rural residents to participate in watershed ecological restoration: Evidence from the Shiyang River Basin[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(7):1395-1404.]
[24]	李英, 潘鹤思, 邹玉友, 等. 社会信任与城镇居民森林生态补偿支付意愿研究: 基于黑龙江省的调查数据[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(7):90-96.
	[ Li Y, Pan H S, Zou Y Y, et al. Social trust and willingness of urban residents to pay for forest ecological compensation: Based on the survey of Heilongjiang[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(7):90-96.]
[25]	庞洁, 靳乐山. 基于渔民受偿意愿的鄱阳湖禁捕补偿标准研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2020, 30(7):169-176.
	[ Pang J, Jin L S. Compensation rate for fishing withdrawal from Poyang Lake based on fishermen’s willingness to accept[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2020, 30(7):169-176.]
[26]	刘晓, 徐建华. 公众对电力来源清洁化的支付意愿[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(12):2328-2340.
	[ Liu X, Xu J H. Public willingness to pay for cleaner power sources[J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12):2328-2340.]
[27]	史恒通, 睢党臣, 吴海霞, 等. 公众对黑河流域生态系统服务消费偏好及支付意愿研究: 基于选择实验法的实证分析[J]. 地理科学, 2019, 39(2):342-350. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2019.02.019
	[ Shi H T, Sui D C, Wu H X, et al. Public preference and willingness to pay for the Heihe River watershed ecosystem service: An empirical study on choice experiments[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2019, 39(2):342-350.]
[28]	高杨, 赵端阳, 于丽丽. 家庭农场绿色防控技术政策偏好与补偿意愿[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(10):1837-1848.
	[ Gao Y, Zhao D Y, Yu L L. Family farms’ policy preferences and willingness to accept compensation on green pest control techniques[J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(10):1837-1848.]
[29]	Lancaster K J. A new approach to consumer theory[J]. Mathematical Models in Marketing, 1976, 132:106-107.
[30]	Fadden M, Daniel L. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice[A]. Zarembka E B P. Frontiers in Econometrics[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
[31]	Luce D R. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis[J]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2005, DOI: 10.2307/2282347. doi: 10.2307/2282347
[32]	Hensher D A, Greene W H. The mixed logit model: The state of practice[J]. Transportation, 2003, 30(2):133-176. doi: 10.1023/A:1022558715350
[33]	Train K E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[34]	Gao Z F, House L O, Yu X H, et al. Using choice experiments to estimate consumer valuation: The role of experimental design and attribute information loads[J]. Agricultural Economics, 2010, 41(6):555-565. doi: 10.1111/agec.2010.41.issue-6

属性特征	定义	属性特征的水平
属性特征	定义	水平1	水平2	水平3	水平4
补偿方式	农户退出宅基地所选择的补偿方式	货币补偿	住房置换	就业安置
补偿速度	农户获得资金或政策补偿的时间	1个月	3个月	6个月及以上
补偿比例	农户可获得补偿占宅基地价值之比	全额	适度
付款模式	农户接受补偿资金的渠道和地点	公开方式	私下方式
配套服务	农户可获得的其他配套服务措施	教育培训	补缴社保	过渡性生活补贴	金融优惠
资金来源	农户可获得补偿资金的来源渠道	财政拨付	银行贷款	企业投资

具体项目	补偿方案一	补偿方案二	补偿方案三
补偿方式	货币补偿	住房置换	两种方式都不选
补偿速度	1个月	3个月
补偿比例	全额	适度
付款模式	公开	私下
配套服务	教育培训	补缴社保
资金来源	企业投资	政府拨付

	变量	定义	变量值	最小值	最大值	平均值	标准差
农户个体特征	年龄	户主的年龄	18岁以下=1;18~30岁=2;31~45岁=3;46~60岁=4;61岁以上=5	2	5	3.867	1.724
	务农年限	户主从事农业生产的年限	5年以下=1;6~10年=2;11~20年=3;21~30年=4;30年以上=5	1	5	3.231	1.451
	受教育程度	户主接受教育的层次	小学=1;初中=2;高中=3;大专=4	1	4	2.232	0.675
生产经营特征	家庭农务人数	农户家庭中从事农业生产的人数总和	1人=1;2人=2;3人=3;4人=4;5人及以上=5	1	5	1.976	0.935
	家庭年纯收入	农户家庭年收入总和	1万元以下=1;1~3万元=2;4~5万元=3;6~10万元=4;10万元以上=5	1	5	2.122	1.132
	家庭耕地规模	农户家庭所经营的耕地面积	1亩以下=1;1~3亩=2;4~9亩=3;10~30亩=4;30亩以上=5	1	5	2.632	1.266
	宅基地资产占比	农户拥有的宅基地价值占其所有资产的价值比例	10%以下=1;11~30%=2;31~50%=3;51~80%=4;80%以上=5	1	5	1.543	0.865
	宅基地距离县城远近	农户的宅基地距离县城远近程度	城中村=1;近郊=2;远郊=3	1	3	2.261	0.876
认知水平特征	宅基地的重要程度	农户拥有的宅基地对其而言的重要程度	低=1;一般=2;高=3	1	3	2.103	0.652
	对宅基地退出的认知	农户对于宅基地退出的重要性的认知程度	低=1;一般=2;高=3	1	3	1.453	0.843
	对补偿政策的认知	农户对于宅基地退出政策内容的认知程度	低=1;一般=2;高=3	1	3	1.696	0.785

属性变量		系数估计值	标准误
随机变量参数
补偿方式	均值	-0.393**	0.164
	标准差	1.064***	0.357
配套服务	均值	-1.803***	0.431
	标准差	0.347*	0.239
资金来源	均值	-1.037***	0.576
	标准差	1.116***	0.382
固定变量参数
补偿速度		-2.237***	0.446
补偿比例		-0.957***	0.244
付款模式		-2.618***	0.310
ASC		-0.738**	0.299
Log likelihood		-284
McFadden LRI		0.336

变量	模型2		模型3		模型4
变量	系数估计	标准误	系数估计	标准误	系数估计	标准误
随机参数变量
补偿方式均值	1.432***	0.654	1.393***	0.452	2.754***	0.435
标准差	-0.433*	0.232	-0.448*	0.246	-0.463*	0.240
配套服务均值	-2.042***	0.522	3.327***	0.863	-3.633***	0.664
标准差	2.132***	0.235	2.543***	1.444	3.643***	1.564
资金来源均值	-0.893***	0.290	-0.889***	0.304	-0.837***	0.459
标准差	-0.516***	0.643	4.122***	1.375	0.515***	1.345
固定参数变量
补偿速度	3.643***	0.323	3.122***	0.432	1.865***	0.421
补偿比例	0.715***	0.454	1.335***	0.267	1.347***	0.422
补偿模式	1.593***	0.533	3.654***	0.373	1.854***	0.332
异质性来源
补偿方式×年龄	-0.174**	0.079
补偿方式×受教育程度	0.247**	0.104
补偿方式×距离县城远近	0.192**	0.2981
补偿方式×家庭年纯收入	0.095*	0.133
补偿方式×宅基地资产占比	-0.727***	0.252
配套服务×家庭务农人数			-0.270**	0.251
配套服务×受教育程度			0.453*	0.147
配套服务×家庭年纯收入			0.052*	0.434
配套服务×重要程度			-0.322*	0.326
资金来源×受教育程度					-0.711***	0.203
资金来源×家庭年纯收入					-0.994*	0.542
Log likelihood	-322		-433		-489
McFadden LRI	0.255		0.276		0.225