Resources Science ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (1): 161-170.doi: 10.18402/resci.2021.01.13
Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Yuge1(), MENG Quanxing1(
), CHEN Bingpu2
Received:
2019-12-17
Revised:
2020-12-17
Online:
2021-01-25
Published:
2021-03-25
Contact:
MENG Quanxing
WANG Yuge, MENG Quanxing, CHEN Bingpu. Impact of forest land tenure security on the circulation of ecological forest land:From the perspective of endowment effect and security perception[J].Resources Science, 2021, 43(1): 161-170.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Table 1
Sample distribution in the study area"
监测县 | 样本乡镇 | 样本数/户 | 监测县 | 样本乡镇 | 样本数/户 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
灵台 | 百里 | 30 | 泾川 | 党原 | 30 |
朝那 | 30 | 飞云 | 30 | ||
独店 | 30 | 丰台 | 30 | ||
什字 | 30 | 高坪 | 30 | ||
中台 | 30 | 玉都 | 30 | ||
康县 | 城关 | 30 | 合水 | 板桥 | 30 |
碾坝 | 30 | 店子 | 30 | ||
太石 | 30 | 段家集 | 30 | ||
铜钱 | 30 | 固城 | 30 | ||
阳坝 | 30 | 吉砚 | 30 | ||
通渭 | 第三铺 | 30 | 宕昌 | 阿坞 | 30 |
新景 | 27 | 官亭 | 30 | ||
鸡川 | 30 | 哈达铺 | 30 | ||
什川 | 30 | 何家堡 | 30 | ||
李家店 | 30 | 南河 | 30 | ||
徽县 | 永宁 | 30 | 会宁 | 汉家岔 | 30 |
榆树 | 30 | 侯家川 | 30 | ||
银杏 | 30 | 会师镇 | 30 | ||
嘉陵 | 30 | 平头川 | 30 | ||
高桥 | 30 | 头寨子 | 30 | ||
清水 | 白沙 | 30 | 永靖 | 关山 | 30 |
草川铺 | 30 | 岘塬 | 30 | ||
陇东 | 30 | 小岭 | 30 | ||
永清 | 30 | 徐顶 | 30 | ||
新城 | 30 | 杨塔 | 30 | ||
合计 | 1497 |
Table 2
Variable selection, definition, and descriptive statistics"
类型 | 变量 | 定义 | 均值 | 标准差 |
---|---|---|---|---|
主要被解释变量 | 林地是否流转 | 1=流转,0=不流转 | 0.091 | 0.007 |
处理变量 | 禀赋效应 | 1=存在禀赋效应,0=不存在禀赋效应 | 0.590 | 0.013 |
安全感知 | 1=存在安全感知,0=不存在安全感知 | 0.657 | 0.012 | |
综合效应 | 1=存在禀赋效应或安全感知,0=不存在禀赋效应和安全感知 | 0.809 | 0.010 | |
主要解释变量 | 产权强度社会认同维度 | 1=林权证在农户手中,0=林权证未在农户手中 | 0.832 | 0.012 |
产权强度产权主体行使能力1(交易处置能力) | 流转信息获取情况(1=很难获取,2=难获取,3=一般,4=容易获取,5=非常容易获取) | 1.737 | 0.028 | |
产权强度产权主体行使能力2(排他能力) | 林权纠纷状况(1=未发生过林地纠纷,0=发生过林地纠纷) | 0.982 | 0.004 | |
其他解释变量 | 户主年龄 | 岁 | 53.815 | 0.270 |
户主性别 | 1=男,0=女 | 0.952 | 0.006 | |
户主受教育程度 | 1=小学及以下,2=初中,3=高中及以上 | 1.689 | 0.020 | |
家庭人口数量 | 人 | 4.600 | 0.044 | |
家庭劳动力数量 | 人 | 2.548 | 0.032 | |
劳动力占家庭人口比 | % | 0.571 | 0.007 | |
家中是否有人担任村干部 | 1=是,0=否 | 0.170 | 0.010 | |
林地面积 | 亩 | 35.187 | 1.714 |
Table 3
Impact of tenure security on endowment effect and security perception"
禀赋效应 | 安全感知 | |
---|---|---|
产权强度社会认同维度 | 1.063(0.092)*** | 1.655(0.100)*** |
产权强度产权主体行使能力1(交易处置能力) | -0.109(0..038)*** | 0.007(0.040) |
产权强度产权主体行使能力2(排他能力) | 0.513(0.265)* | -0.301(0.275) |
户主年龄 | 0.008(0.003)** | 0.000(0.004) |
户主性别 | 0.053(0.164) | 0.124(0.173) |
户主受教育程度 | 0.022(0.046) | -0.032(0.048) |
林地面积 | -0.001(0.001) | -0.000(0.001) |
家庭人口数量 | 0.002(0.025) | 0.004(0.037) |
家庭劳动力数量 | -0.008(0.035) | 0.075(0.036)** |
年份 | -0.130(0.050)*** | 0.010(0.053) |
_cons | 260.361(100.891) | -22.060(106.308) |
Prob >chi2 | 0.000 |
Table 4
Effects of endowment effect and security perception on forest land circulation and property right security on comprehensive effect"
林地流转 | 综合效应 | |
---|---|---|
综合效应 | 0.135(0.040)*** | – |
禀赋效应×产权强度 | -0.142(0.013)*** | – |
安全感知×产权强度 | 0.082(0.014)*** | – |
产权强度社会认同维度 | – | 1.702(0.100)*** |
产权强度产权主体行使能力1(交易处置能力) | – | 0.009(0.048) |
产权强度产权主体行使能力2(排他能力) | – | -0.054(0.297) |
户主性别 | -0.014(0.033) | 0.024(0.057) |
户主年龄 | -0.002(0.001)** | 0.009(0.004)** |
户主受教育程度 | -0.008(0.009) | 0.024(0.057) |
林地面积 | 0.001(0.000)*** | -0.000(0.001) |
家庭人口数量 | -0.001(0.005) | 0.019(0.026) |
家中是否有人担任村干部 | 0.028(0.019) | – |
家庭劳动力数量 | 0.013(0.007)* | – |
劳动力占家庭人口比 | – | 0.033(0.062) |
年份 | – | -0.162(0.062) |
Cons | – | 326.636(125.301) |
[1] | 胡新艳, 陈小知, 米运生, 等. 农地整合确权政策对农业规模经营发展的影响评估: 来自准自然实验的证据[J]. 中国农村经济, 2018, (12):83-102. |
[ Hu X Y, Chen X Z, Mi Y S, et al. The impact of agricultural land consolidation and titling policies on the development of agricultural scale management: Evidence from quasi-natural experiments[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2018, (12):83-102.] | |
[2] |
Liu Y, Yan B J, Wang Y, et al. Will land transfer always increase technical efficiency in China? A land cost perspective[J]. Land Use Policy, 2019,82:414-421.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.002 |
[3] | 罗必良. 科斯定理反思与拓展: 兼论中国农地流转制度改革与选择[J]. 经济研究, 2017,52(11):178-193. |
[ Luo B L. Rethinking and extension of the Coase Theorem: Reform and choice of land circulation Institutions in rural China[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2017,52(11):178-193.] | |
[4] | 杨宗耀, 仇焕广, 纪月清. 土地流转背景下农户经营规模与土地生产率关系再审视: 来自固定粮农和地块的证据[J]. 农业经济问题, 2020, (4):37-48. |
[ Yang Z Y, Qiu H G, Ji Y Q. Re-exploration of the inverse productivity: Size relationship using the fixed farmers’ fixed plots data in the context of land transfer[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2020, (4):37-48.] | |
[5] | 刘汉成, 关江华. 适度规模经营背景下农村土地流转研究[J]. 农业经济问题, 2019, (8):59-64. |
[ Liu H C, Guan J H. Study on the problem of farmland transfer on the background of moderate scale management[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2019, (8):59-64.] | |
[6] |
张亚丽, 白云丽, 辛良杰. 耕地质量与土地流转行为关系研究[J]. 资源科学, 2019,41(6):1102-1110.
doi: 10.18402/resci.2019.06.09 |
[ Zhang Y L, Bai Y L, Xin L J. Relationships between cultivated land quality and land transfer behaviors at the plot scale[J]. Resources Science, 2019,41(6):1102-1110.]
doi: 10.18402/resci.2019.06.09 |
|
[7] |
Kemper N, Ha L V, Klump R. Property rights and consumption volatility: Evidence from a land reform in Vietnam[J]. World Development, 2015,71:107-130.
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.11.004 |
[8] | 王士海, 王秀丽. 农村土地承包经营权确权强化了农户的禀赋效应吗: 基于山东省117个县 (市, 区) 农户的实证研究[J]. 农业经济问题, 2018, (5):92-102. |
[ Wang S H, Wang X L. Does the confirmation of rural land contract management right strengthen the endowment effect of farmers: An empirical study based on questionnaire survey of rural households in 117 counties in Shandong Province[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2018, (5):92-102.] | |
[9] | 黄培锋, 卢素兰, 黄和亮. 产权安全感知对林地流转的影响研究[J]. 林业经济问题, 2020,40(4):366-373. |
[ Huang P F, Lu S L, Huang H L. A study on the influence of property right security perception on forest land circulation[J]. Issues of Forestry Economics, 2020,40(4):366-373.] | |
[10] | 钟文晶, 罗必良. 禀赋效应, 产权强度与农地流转抑制: 基于广东省的实证分析[J]. 农业经济问题, 2013, (3):6-16. |
[ Zhong W J, Luo B L. Endowment effect, property strength and restraint of agricultural land transfer: Farmer household’s survey data from Guangdong Province[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2013, (3):6-16.] | |
[11] | 仇童伟, 罗必良. 农地产权强度对农业生产要素配置的影响[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2018,28(1):63-70. |
[ Qiu T W, Luo B L. The impacts of land tenure intensity on distribution of agricultural factors[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2018,28(1):63-70.] | |
[12] | 罗必良. 从产权界定到产权实施: 中国农地经营制度变革的过去与未来[J]. 农业经济问题, 2019, (1):17-31. |
[ Luo B L. The property rights: From delimitation to implementation: The logical clue of Chinese farmland management system transformation[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2019, (1):17-31.] | |
[13] |
Place F, Migot-Adholla S E. The economic effects of land registration on smallholder farms in Kenya: Evidence from Nyeri and Kakamega districts[J]. Land Economics, 1998,74(3):360-373.
doi: 10.2307/3147118 |
[14] | Jacoby H, Minten B. Land titles, investment, and agricultural Productivity in Madagascar: A poverty and social impact analysis[J]. World Bank Other Operational Studies, 2006, (4):1-54. |
[15] |
Wang G Y, Innes J L, Lei J F, et al. China’s forestry reforms[J]. Science, 2007,318(5856):1556-1557.
doi: 10.1126/science.1147247 pmid: 18063773 |
[16] |
Liu C, Liu H, Wang S. Has China’s new round of collective forest reforms caused an increase in the use of productive forest inputs?[J]. Land Use Policy, 2017,64:492-510.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.011 |
[17] |
Lipscomb M, Prabakaran N. Property rights and deforestation: Evidence from the terra legal land reform in the Brazilian Amazon[J]. World Development, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104854.
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105214 pmid: 32994663 |
[18] |
Yi Y Y, Köhlin G, Xu J T. Property rights, tenure security and forest investment incentives: Evidence from China’s Collective Forest Tenure Reform[J]. Environment and Development Economics, 2014,19(1):48-73.
doi: 10.1017/S1355770X13000272 |
[19] |
Qin P, Xu J T. Forest land rights, tenure types, and farmers’ investment incentives in China: An empirical study of Fujian Province[J]. China Agricultural Economic Review, 2013,5(1):154-170.
doi: 10.1108/17561371311294829 |
[20] | 孔凡斌, 廖文梅. 基于收入结构差异化的农户林地流转行为分析: 以江西省为例[J]. 中国农村经济, 2011, (8):89-96. |
[ Kong F B, Liao W M. An analysis of farmer households’ woodland transferring behavior based on their differential income structure: Taking Jiangxi Province as example[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2011, (8):89-96.] | |
[21] | 肖慧婷, 谢芳婷, 杜鹃, 等. 农户资源禀赋差异性对林地流转行为影响实证研究: 基于江西集体林区10县503农户的调查[J]. 林业经济, 2018,40(11):44-51. |
[ Xiao H T, Xie F T, Du J, et al. An empirical research on the impact of the difference in householder resource endowments on forestland circulation behavior: Survey of 503 householders from 10 counties in collective forest regions in Jiangxi[J]. Forestry Economics, 2018,40(11):44-51.] | |
[22] |
Xie H L, Lu H. Impact of land fragmentation and non-agricultural labor supply on circulation of agricultural land management rights[J]. Land Use Policy, 2017,68:355-364.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.053 |
[23] | 张寒, 程娟娟, 刘璨. 基于内生性视角的非农就业对林地流转的效应评价: 来自9省1497户林农的连续监测数据[J]. 农业技术经济, 2018, (1):122-131. |
[ Zhang H, Cheng J J, Liu C. The effect of off-farm employment on forestland transfer: An analysis based on endogenous perspective with 1497 households dataset from 9 provinces[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2018, (1):122-131.] | |
[24] | 史若昀, 刘伟平. 基于产权强度理论的林地流转行为研究: 以福建省10县(市)50村农户调查为例[J]. 东南学术, 2017, (4):86-93. |
[ Shi R Y, Liu W P. Research on forest land circulation behavior based on the theory of property right intensity: A case study of 50 villages in 10 counties (cities) of Fujian Province[J]. Southeast Academic Research, 2017, (4):86-93.] | |
[25] |
朱文清, 张莉琴. 集体林地确权到户对林地流转的政策效果分析[J]. 资源科学, 2018,40(7):1407-1417.
doi: 10.18402/resci.2018.07.09 |
[ Zhu W Q, Zhang L Q. The impact of confirming collective forest land property rights to households on the forest land circulation behavior of farmers[J]. Resources Science, 2018,40(7):1407-1417.]
doi: 10.18402/resci.2018.07.09 |
|
[26] | 罗必良. 农地确权, 交易含义与农业经营方式转型: 科斯定理拓展与案例研究[J]. 中国农村经济, 2016, (11):2-16. |
[ Luo B L. Farmland tenure confirm, transaction and transformation of agricultural management mode: Expansion of Coase Theorem and case study[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2016, (11):2-16.] | |
[27] | 马贤磊, 仇童伟, 钱忠好. 土地产权经历, 产权情景对农民产权安全感知的影响: 基于土地法律执行视角[J]. 公共管理学报, 2015,12(4):111-121. |
[ Ma X L, Qiu T W, Qian Z H. Study about the impact of land tenure experience and tenure environment on farmers’ tenure security perception: From the perspective of land laws’ implementation[J]. Journal of Public Management, 2015,12(4):111-121.] | |
[28] |
Thaler R H. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1980,1(1):39-60.
doi: 10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7 |
[29] | 朱文珏, 罗必良. 农地流转、禀赋效应及对象歧视性: 基于确权背景下的IV-Tobit模型的实证分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2019, (5):4-15. |
[ Zhu W J, Luo B L. The formation of farmland endowment effect and its object discrimination: An empirical analysis based on IV-Tobit model[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2019, (5):4-15.] | |
[30] |
Broegaard R. Land tenure insecurity and inequality in Nicaragua[J]. Development and Change, 2005,36(5):845-864.
doi: 10.1111/dech.2005.36.issue-5 |
[31] |
Van Gelder J L. Feeling and thinking: quantifying the relationship between perceived tenure security and housing improvement in an informal neighborhood in Buenos Aires[J]. Habitat International, 2007,31(2):219-231.
doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.02.002 |
[32] | 丰雷, 蒋妍, 叶剑平, 等. 中国农村土地调整制度变迁中的农户态度: 基于1999-2010年17省份调查的实证分析[J]. 管理世界, 2013, (7):44-58. |
[ Feng L, Jiang Y, Ye J P, et al. The attitude of farmers in the institutional change of rural land adjustment in China: An empirical analysis based on the survey of 17 provinces from 1999 to 2010[J]. Management World, 2013, (7):44-58.] | |
[33] | Maddala G S. Limited-dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. |
[34] |
Pierce J L, Kostova T, Dirks K, et al. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research[J]. Review of General Psychology, 2003,7(1):84-107.
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84 |
|