农户生计视角下农地流转绩效评价及障碍因子诊断——基于武汉城市圈典型农户调查

doi:10.18402/resci.2019.08.14

Abstract

Abstract:

Farmers are the most directly affected by farmland transfer policy. Their livelihood satisfaction is the subjective evaluation of the livelihood change based on their own standards and the ultimate assessment of farmland transfer performance. Examining the performance of farmland transfer and its barriers from the perspective of farmers’ livelihoods is of great significance for improving the performance of farmland transfer and promoting the sustainable development of rural land transfer. This study constructed a satisfaction index system from seven dimensions of natural, human, physical, financial, social, psychological, and policy capitals. The Wuhan Metropolitan Area was selected for case study, and the entropy weight Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method and the obstacle degree model were used to evaluate the performance of farmland transfer policy and reveal the obstacles. We found that the performance level of the entire surveyed area is average. The most important factors affecting the performance of farmland transfer are policy capital, natural capital, and psychological capital. The main obstacles that affect the performance of farmland transfer were farmers’ satisfaction with government’s respect for individual willingness to transfer (PS₁), farmers’ satisfaction with changes in land quality after transfer (N₁), and farmers’ satisfaction with government’s farmland transfer policy supervision work (PO₄). The government plays a vital role in promoting the transfer of agricultural land. In order to improve the performance of farmland transfer, the government should improve the farmland transfer system and process, standardize the management mechanism, and prevent the non-food production and non-agricultural use of the transferred land on the basis of fully respecting the farmers’ wishes.

Key words: farmland transfer, livelihood capital, livelihood satisfaction, performance evaluation, obstacles, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Wuhan Metropolitan Area

Man CHEN,Chenlin GAN,Yun MEI,Yinrong CHEN. Farmland transfer performance and obstacles from the perspective of farmers’ livelihood:Based on rural household survey of greater Wuhan Metropolitan Area[J].Resources Science, 2019, 41(8): 1551-1562.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1

Figure 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

References 26

[1]	马贤磊, 仇童伟, 钱忠好 . 农地流转中的政府作用: 裁判员抑或运动员: 基于苏、鄂、桂、黑四省(区)农户农地流转满意度的实证分析[J]. 经济学家, 2016, ( 11):83-89.
	[ Ma X L, Qiu T W, Qian Z H . The role of government in farmland transfer: Referee or player: Empirical evidence from households’ satisfaction about farmland transfer in Jiangsu, Hubei, Guangxi and Heilongjiang provinces[J]. Economist, 2016, ( 11):83-89.]
[2]	黄东学, 程久苗, 费罗成 , 等. 安徽省农地流转绩效差异分析[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2017,38(3):73-78.
	[ Huang D X, Cheng J M, Fei L C , et al. Analysis on differences of the performance of rural land transfer in Anhui Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2017,38(3):73-78.]
[3]	李军波 . 试论新时期农村土地承包经营权流转法律制度的构建与完善: 以《中共中央关于推进农村改革发展若干重大问题的决定》相关内容为分析视角[J]. 理论导刊, 2009(12):69-71, 75.
	[ Li J B . On the construction and improvement of the legal system of rural land contractual management rights transfer in the new era:Analysis of the relevant content of the “CPC Central Committee’s Decision on Promoting Rural Reform and Development”[J].Theory Guide , 2009(12):69-71, 75.]
[4]	韩长赋 . 切实把《关于引导农村土地经营权有序流转发展农业适度规模经营的意见》宣传好贯彻好落实好[J]. 农村经营管理, 2015, ( 1):10-14.
	[ Han C F . Effectively publicize and implement the “opinions on guiding the orderly transfer of rural land management rights to develop moderate scale management of agriculture” management and administration on rural cooperative[J]. Management and Administration on Rural Cooperative, 2015, ( 1):10-14.]
[5]	中共中央办公厅, 国务院办公厅. 关于完善农村土地所有权承包权经营权分置办法的意见[J]. 新农村, 2017, ( 1):3-4.
	[ General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on improving the separation of management rights of rural land ownership contracting rights[J]. New Countryside, 2017, ( 1):3-4.]
[6]	严立冬, 刘新勇 . 河南省鹤壁市农村土地流转现状分析[J]. 农业经济问题, 2008, ( 1):90-93.
	[ Yan L D, Liu X Y . Analysis of current situation of rural land transfer in Hebi City, Henan Province[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2008, ( 1):90-93.]
[7]	杨德才 . 论我国农村土地流转模式及其选择[J]. 当代经济研究, 2005, ( 12):49-52.
	[ Yang D C . On the pattern of rural land deal and the choice[J]. Contemporary Economic Research, 2005, ( 12):49-52.]
[8]	钟晓兰, 李江涛, 冯艳芬 , 等. 农户认知视角下广东省农村土地流转意愿与流转行为研究[J]. 资源科学, 2013,35(10):2082-2093.
	[ Zhong X L, Li J T, Feng Y F , et al. Farmland transfer willingness and behavior in the perspective of farm household cognition in Guangdong Province[J]. Resources Science, 2013,35(10):2082-2093.]
[9]	王亚运, 蔡银莺, 李海燕 . 空间异质性下农地流转状况及影响因素: 以武汉、荆门、黄冈为实证[J]. 中国土地科学, 2015,29(6):18-25.
	[ Wang Y Y, Cai Y Y, Li H Y . The status of farmland transfer in the context of spatial heterogeneity and its influencing factors: Case studies in Wuhan, Jingmen and Huanggang[J]. China Land Science, 2015,29(6):18-25.]
[10]	刘卫柏, 李中 . 新时期农村土地流转模式的运行绩效与对策[J]. 经济地理, 2011,31(2):300-304.
	[ Liu W B, Li Z . Operating performance for the modes of rural land transfer and strategies in new times[J]. Economic Geography, 2011,31(2):300-304.]
[11]	赵立娟, 康晓虹, 史俊宏 . 农地流转对农户生计转型影响的实证分析[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2017,38(8):158-163.
	[ Zhao L J, Kang X H, Shi J H . The empirical analysis on the effects of the farmland transfer on households’ livelihood transformation[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2017,38(8):158-163.]
[12]	翟黎明, 夏显力, 吴爱娣 . 政府不同介入场景下农地流转对农户生计资本的影响: 基于PSM-DID的计量分析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2017, ( 2):2-15.
	[ Zhai L M, Xia X L, Wu A D . The effects of government behavior in land transfer on farmers’ livelihood capital: An empirical analysis based on differences-in-differences propensity score matching approaches[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2017, ( 2):2-15.]
[13]	刘莉君 . 农村土地流转模式的绩效比较研究[M]. 北京: 中国经济出版社, 2011.
	[ Liu L J. A Comparative Study on Performance of Different Rural Land Transfer Modes[M]. Beijing: China Economic Publishing House, 2011.]
[14]	程飞, 信桂新, 魏朝富 , 等. 农地流转综合绩效评价体系构建及应用[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2015,37(1):110-117.
	[ Cheng F, Xin G X, Wei C F , et al. An evaluation system for comprehensive performance of farmland circulation and its application[J]. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2015,37(1):110-117.]
[15]	郝丽丽, 吴箐, 王昭 , 等. 基于产权视角的快速城镇化地区农村土地流转模式及其效益研究: 以湖北省熊口镇为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2015,34(1):55-63. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2015.01.007
	[ Hao L L, Wu Q, Wang Z , et al. Rural land circulation models and benefits based on property rights in rapid urbanization areas: A case of Xiongkou Town in Hubei Province[J]. Progress in Geography, 2015,34(1):55-63.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2015.01.007
[16]	甘臣林, 陈璐, 陈银蓉 , 等. 基于农户满意度的农地转出绩效评估研究: 以武汉、鄂州两地典型调查样本为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018,32(10):28-35.
	[ Gan C L, Chen L, Chen Y R , et al. Performance evaluation of farmland transfer based on farmers’ satisfaction: A case study in Wuhan and Ezhou[J]. China Land Science, 2018,32(10):28-35.]
[17]	苏芳 . 农户生计风险对其生计资本的影响分析: 以石羊河流域为例[J]. 农业技术经济, 2017, ( 12):87-97.
	[ Su F . Analysis of the impact of farmers’ livelihood risks on their livelihood capital: A case study of Shiyang River Basin[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2017, ( 12):87-97.]
[18]	赵雪雁 . 生计资本对农牧民生活满意度的影响: 以甘南高原为例[J]. 地理研究, 2011,30(4):687-698.
	[ Zhao X Y . The impact of livelihood capital on the life satisfaction of peasants and herdsmen: A case of Gannan Plateau[J]. Geographical Research, 2011,30(4):687-698.]
[19]	贾玉荣 . 农村土地流转研究: 以湖北省为例[J]. 行政事业资产与财务, 2017, ( 11):1-3.
	[ Ja Y R . Study on rural land transfer: A case of Hubei Province[J]. Assets and Finances in Administration and Institution, 2017, ( 11):1-3.]
[20]	De S A, Vanwey L, Mcsweeney K , et al. Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2008,18(1):38-53.
[21]	朱兰兰, 蔡银莺 . 农户家庭生计禀赋对农地流转的影响: 以湖北省不同类型功能区为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016,31(9):1526-1539.
	[ Zhu L L, Cai Y Y . The impacts of farmer households’ livelihood endowment on farmland transfer: Cases in different types of functional areas of Hubei Province[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2016,31(9):1526-1539.]
[22]	Deininger K, Jin S, Nagarajan H K . Efficiency and equity impacts of rural land rental restrictions: Evidence from India[J]. European Economic Review, 2008,52(5):892-918.
[23]	李广东, 邱道持, 王利平 , 等. 生计资产差异对农户耕地保护补偿模式选择的影响: 渝西方山丘陵不同地带样点村的实证分析[J]. 地理学报, 2012,67(4):504-515.
	[ Li G D, Qiu D C, Wang L P , et al. Impacts of difference among livelihood assets on the choice of economic compensation pattern for farmer households farmland protection in Chongqing City[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2012,67(4):504-515.]
[24]	韦俊敏, 胡宝清 . 基于改进TOPSIS法的土地整治合理度评价: 以广西农垦国有金光等4个农场为例[J]. 资源科学, 2013,35(7):1407-1414.
	[ Wei J M, Hu B Q . Reasonability degree evaluation of land consolidation based on Improved TOPSIS method: A case study of Guangxi Jinguang etc four farms[J]. Resources Science, 2013,35(7):1407-1414.]
[25]	余亮亮, 蔡银莺 . 基于农户满意度的耕地保护经济补偿政策绩效评价及障碍因子诊断[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015,30(7):1092-1103. doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2015.07.003
	[ Yu L L, Cai Y Y . Performance evaluation and obstacle indicator diagnoses of economic compensation for farmland protection policy based on farmers’ satisfaction[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015,30(7):1092-1103.] doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2015.07.003
[26]	鲁春阳, 文枫, 杨庆媛 , 等. 基于改进TOPSIS法的城市土地利用绩效评价及障碍因子诊断: 以重庆市为例[J]. 资源科学, 2011,33(3):535-541.
	[ Lu C Y, Wen F, Yang Q Y , et al. An evaluation of urban land use performance based on the improved TOPSIS method and diagnosis of its obstacle indicators: A case study of Chongqing[J]. Resources Science, 2011,33(3):535-541.]

市	区	镇	被调查村组个数	有效样本数/户	样本比例/%
武汉市	江夏区	五里界	2	43	8.90
孝感市	孝南区	三汊镇	3	83	17.18
天门市	—	皂市镇	2	38	7.87
潜江市	—	龙湾镇	1	51	10.56
仙桃市	—	杨林尾镇	1	52	10.77
咸宁市	咸安区	大幕乡、高桥镇	2	43	8.90
黄石市	大冶市	茗山乡	2	50	10.35
鄂州市	鄂城区	燕叽镇	2	69	14.29
黄冈市	黄州区	路口镇	1	54	11.18

特征	类别	总			出租			入股
特征	类别	频数	比例/%		频数	比例/%		频数	比例/%
性别	男	285	59.01		138	59.48		147	58.57
性别	女	198	40.99		94	40.52		104	41.43
社会身份	普通群众	467	96.69		230	99.14		237	94.42
	党员	11	2.28		1			0.43	10	3.98
	村干部	5	1.04		1			0.43	4	1.59
年龄/岁	<35	19	3.93		4	1.72		15	5.98
	[35, 45]	60	12.42	22		9.48	38		15.14
	[46, 55]	148	30.64	75		32.33	73		29.08
	[56, 65]	141	29.19	77		33.19	64		25.50
	>65	115	23.81	54		23.28	61		24.30
文化程度	未上过学	110	22.77	65	28.02	45	17.93
	小学	162	33.54	90		38.79	72		28.69
	初中	158	32.71	58		25.00	100		39.84
	高中（中专）	48	9.94	16		6.90	32		12.75
	大学（高专）及以上	5	1.04	3		1.29	2		0.80
近3年家庭平均年总收入/万元	<4	94	19.46	52	22.41	42	16.73
	[4, 9）	276	57.14	143		61.64	133		52.99
	[9, 13）	59	12.22	21		9.05	38		15.14
	[13, 16）	24	4.97	10		4.31	14		5.58
	≥16	30	6.21	6		2.59	24		9.56

目标层	准则层	指标层	取值	权重
农户生计满意度绩效	自然资本N	对流转后农地质量变化的满意度N₁	1~5	0.0841
		对流转期限的满意度N₂	1~5	0.0597
		对流转土地面积占家庭土地总面积比重的满意度N₃	1~5	0.0465
	人力资本H	对流转后家庭生活水平的满意度H₁	1~5	0.0513
		对流转后家庭权益保障的满意度H₂	1~5	0.0541
		对流转后家庭劳动力就业状况的满意度H₃	1~5	0.0451
	物质资本P	对流转后农业发展的满意度P₁	1~5	0.0316
	物质资本P	对流转后村庄环境、基础设施的满意度P₂	1~5	0.0356
	金融资本F	对流转收益的满意度F₁	1~5	0.0638
	金融资本F	对流转后家庭经济收入水平的满意度F₂	1~5	0.0502
	社会资本S	对流转后家庭社会活动与社会地位的满意度S₁	1~5	0.0210
	社会资本S	对流转后亲朋邻里关系的满意度S₂	1~5	0.0231
	心理资本PS	对尊重个人流转意愿的满意度PS₁	1~5	0.1002
		对流转后家庭生活幸福感的满意度PS₂	1~5	0.0446
		对完成此次农地流转难易程度的满意度PS₃	1~5	0.0245
	政策资本PO	对政府的农地流转政策宣传、咨询指导的满意度PO₁	1~5	0.0714
		对流转合同条款规定及签订方式的满意度PO₂	1~5	0.0716
		对流转相关扶持政策的满意度PO₃	1~5	0.0534
		对政府农地流转政策监管服务工作的满意度PO₄	1~5	0.0680

指标	总		出租				入股
指标	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值	均值	标准差
N₁	2.801	1.100	1.000	5.000	2.772	1.048	1.000	5.000	2.829	1.146
N₂	2.923	0.989	1.000	5.000	2.711	1.008	1.000	5.000	3.120	0.929
N₃	3.104	0.966	1.000	5.000	2.892	0.877	1.000	5.000	3.299	1.003
H₁	3.095	1.023	1.000	5.000	2.853	0.963	1.000	5.000	3.319	1.027
H₂	3.228	1.078	1.000	5.000	2.974	1.094	1.000	5.000	3.462	1.007
H₃	3.124	0.985	1.000	5.000	2.927	0.923	1.000	5.000	3.307	1.005
P₁	3.524	0.966	1.000	5.000	3.129	1.005	2.000	5.000	3.888	0.765
P₂	3.381	0.965	1.000	5.000	3.030	0.93	1.000	5.000	3.705	0.880
F₁	2.882	1.040	1.000	5.000	2.672	0.976	1.000	5.000	3.076	1.059
F₂	3.002	0.966	1.000	5.000	2.763	0.895	1.000	5.000	3.223	0.977
S₁	3.139	0.678	1.000	5.000	3.069	0.666	1.000	5.000	3.203	0.682
S₂	3.242	0.757	1.000	5.000	3.194	0.720	1.000	5.000	3.287	0.787
PS₁	2.683	1.143	1.000	5.000	2.414	1.095	1.000	5.000	2.932	1.129
PS₂	3.104	0.958	1.000	5.000	2.983	0.910	1.000	5.000	3.215	0.987
PS₃	3.304	0.796	1.000	5.000	3.134	0.757	1.000	5.000	3.462	0.799
PO₁	2.896	1.093	1.000	5.000	2.556	0.962	1.000	5.000	3.211	1.111
PO₂	2.975	1.105	1.000	5.000	2.668	1.033	1.000	5.000	3.259	1.094
PO₃	2.990	0.987	1.000	5.000	2.629	0.905	1.000	5.000	3.323	0.942
PO₄	2.687	0.978	1.000	5.000	2.362	0.875	1.000	5.000	2.988	0.972
均值	3.057	0.977	1.000	5.000	2.828	0.929	1.053	5.000	3.269	0.964

模式	综合绩效	贴近度	绩效水平
总	0.597	0.487	一般
出租	0.550	0.434	一般
入股	0.641	0.536	一般

Farmland transfer performance and obstacles from the perspective of farmers’ livelihood:Based on rural household survey of greater Wuhan Metropolitan Area

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 26

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

模式	自然资本	人力资本	物质资本	金融资本	社会资本	心理资本	政策资本
总	19.79	13.57	5.14	12.37	4.42	17.53	27.19
出租	18.76	13.60	5.78	11.64	3.90	17.45	28.87
入股	20.74	13.54	4.54	13.05	4.90	17.60	25.63

模式	类别	指标排序
模式	类别	1	2	3	4	5
总	障碍因素	PS₁	N₁	PO₄	F₁	PO₁
总	障碍度	11.21	9.17	7.74	7.27	7.19
出租	障碍因素	PS₁	N₁	PO₄	PO₁	PO₂
出租	障碍度	11.32	8.31	8.11	7.74	7.34
入股	障碍因素	PS₁	N₁	F₁	PO₄	PO₁
入股	障碍度	11.10	9.96	7.88	7.40	6.69

[1]	Abudureheman· Abudikeranmu, SHI Xiaoping, RAO Fangping, ZHOU Yuepeng, MA Xianlei. Tenure integrity, security, and farmland transfer under the background of “three rights separation”: Based on farmers’ perception of land tenure [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(9): 1643-1656.
[2]	YANG Huilin, YUAN Kaihua, CHEN Yinrong, MEI Yun, WANG Zhenwei. Effect of farmer differentiation and generational differences on their willingness to exit rural residential land: Analysis of intermediary effect based on the cognition of the homestead value [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(9): 1680-1691.
[3]	GENG Pei, CHEN Wen, YANG Jin, YANG Liuqing. Obstacles and paths for local implantation of rural ecological innovation technologies： A case of implementing natural agricultural technology in Chenzhuang Village [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(7): 1298-1310.
[4]	REN Li, WU Meng, GAN Chenlin, CHEN Yinrong. 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.
[5]	WANG Zhenhua, LI Mengmeng, WANG Canglin. Impact of contract stability on farming households’ inter-temporal technology adoption:An analysis based on the data of 2271 plots [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(11): 2237-2250.
[6]	Yongqing WANG,Laifeng WANG,Hongxing DENG,Kai DONG. Influencing factors and performance evaluation of green mining in Hubei Province [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(8): 1513-1525.
[7]	Peiling LIAO, Jian ZHAO, Xianli XIA. Welfare changes and disparities among farmers before and after renting out farmland with government-dominated farmland transfer in the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Zone [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(7): 1354-1364.
[8]	Fangfang JIN, Liangjie XIN. Spatial distribution and impact factors of farmland abandonment [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(4): 719-728.
[9]	Xueqi WANG, Wei ZOU, Gaoli ZHU, Tieyi CAO. The impact of local government-dominated farmland transfer on farmer’s transfer scale and grain yield in five cities in Jiangsu [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(2): 326-334.
[10]	Zhigang HUANG, Xiaonan CHEN, Jianyu LI. 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.
[11]	Chenlin GAN, Lu CHEN, Yinrong CHEN, Miao ZHANG. Analysis on the factors that affect the farmland transfer performance based on farmers′ satisfaction—— a typical survey in Wuhan and Ezhou [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(11): 2225-2235.
[12]	Xu ZHAO, Jiaqi XIAO, Yuefang DUAN. Relocation, farmland transfer and livelihood transformation of reservoir resettlement [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(10): 1954-1965.
[13]	Zhen CHEN, Jie GUO, Minghao OU. Characterization of the differences between farmers' intentionfor farmland transfer and their circulation behavior [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(10): 2039-2047.
[14]	Qing PENG, Cheng WANG, Chun DENG. Potential land transfer-out contracted households,the spatial organization of agricultural management and livelihood capital [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(8): 1477-1487.
[15]	Yanbo QU, Yong ZHANG, Huiyan LI, Yu GAO. Evaluation of construction land intensive use and obstacle control based on Five-Variables Collaboration Model [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(6): 1013-1025.