宅基地退出对家庭福利水平的影响——基于家庭风险承载力视角

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.07.16

Abstract

Abstract:

The right to use homestead is a kind of usufruct privilege unique to China, with a strong welfare nature. Homestead withdrawal has an important impact on the overall welfare level of peasant families. From the perspective of household risk carrying capacity, the threshold effect of homestead withdrawal on household welfare level was discussed. Based on the sample data of 3450 households in China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) from 2014 to 2016, a threshold panel regression model was constructed to take household risk carrying capacity as the threshold variable for empirical test. The results show that: (1) A significant nonlinear relationship exists between homestead withdrawal and household welfare level, and the degree and direction of the impact of homestead withdrawal on household welfare level depend on the risk taking capacity of households. (2) Family risk taking capacity has a double threshold effect. The stronger the risk taking capacity of the family, the more the homestead withdrawal can promote the improvement of the household welfare level; when the risk taking capacity of the family is weak, the welfare level of the family decreases after the homestead is withdrawn. (3) Risk taking capacity of households, per capita GDP, the area of homestead, and the amount of compensation for the withdrawal of homestead all have a significant positive impact on the improvement of the household welfare level. Family risk bearing capacity is an important threshold variable that affects family welfare level in the process of homestead withdrawal. The government should take family risk bearing capacity as an important decision-making factor to promote the orderly withdrawal of rural homestead in China. The policy making should fully consider the differences of risk bearing capacity of different households and treat them differently.

Key words: withdrawal of homestead, family risk taking capacity, level of family welfare, threshold effect, threshold value

WU Lijun, WU Zebin. Effect of homestead withdrawal on family welfare:From the perspective of family risk taking capacity[J].Resources Science, 2021, 43(7): 1479-1491.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1

Figure 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Figure 2

Table 8

References 35

[1]	龙花楼, 李秀彬. 长江沿线样带农村宅基地转型[J]. 地理学报, 2005, 60(2):179-188.
	[ Long H L, Li X B. Rural housing land transition in transect of the Yangtze River[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2005, 60(2):179-188.]
[2]	陈利根, 王琴, 龙开胜. 农民宅基地福利水平影响因素的理论分析[J]. 农村经济, 2011, (12):13-16.
	[ Chen L G, Wang Q, Long K S. Theoretical analysis of factors influencing farmers’homestead welfare level[J]. Rural Economy, 2011, (12):13-16.]
[3]	张梦琳, 舒帮荣. 农民分化、福利认同与宅基地流转意愿[J]. 经济体制改革, 2017, (3):95-100.
	[ Zhang M L, Shu B R. Farmer differentiation, welfare identify and the willingness of residential land circulation[J]. Reform of Economic System, 2017, (3):95-100.]
[4]	王丹秋, 廖成泉, 胡银根, 等. 微观福利视角下农户宅基地置换意愿及其驱动因素研究: 基于湖北省4个典型村的实证分析[J]. 中国土地科学, 2015, 29(11):40-47.
	[ Wang D Q, Liao C Q, Hu Y G, et al. The affecting factors of farmers’ willingness for rural residential land replacement from the perspective of microscopic welfare: An empirical analysis on four typical rural areas in Hubei Province[J]. China Land Science, 2015, 29(11):40-47.]
[5]	姚树荣, 熊雪锋. 宅基地权利分置的制度结构与农户福利[J]. 中国土地科学, 2018, 32(4):16-23.
	[ Yao S R, Xiong X F. Institutional structure of rural residential land rights separation farmers’ welfare[J]. China Land Science, 2018, 32(4):16-23.]
[6]	张梦琳. 农村宅基地流转前后农户福利差异及其影响因素分析: 以河南四市为例[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2017, 17(2):92-101.
	[ Zhang M L. Analysis on farmers’ welfare differences and their influential factors after rural residential land transfer: With four cities of Henan Province as case study[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2017, 17(2):92-101.]
[7]	上官彩霞, 冯淑怡, 陆华良, 等. 不同模式下宅基地置换对农民福利的影响研究: 以江苏省“万顷良田建设”为例[J]. 中国软科学, 2017, (12):87-99.
	[ Shangguan C X, Feng S Y, Lu H L, et al. Impact of rural residential land replacement on farmers’ welfare under different modes: Taking “Ten Thousand Hectare Fertile Farmland Construction” in Jiangsu Province as an example[J]. China Soft Science, 2017, (12):87-99.]
[8]	薛珂. 农村宅基地流转模式比较分析与路径选择研究: 基于农民福利视角的实证分析[J]. 世界农业, 2016, (8):197-203.
	[ Xue K. Comparative analysis of rural homestead transfer model and path selection research: An empirical analysis based on the perspective of farmers’ welfare[J]. World Agriculture, 2016, (8):197-203.]
[9]	杨国永, 江强, 田甜, 等. 农民工回乡建房的家庭福利效应: 基于福建省农民工流出地的调查[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(7):1213-1226.
	[ Yang G Y, Jiang Q, Tian T, et al. Household welfare change of migrant workers returning home to build houses: Based on a survey of migrant worker source areas in Fujian Province[J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(7):1213-1226.]
[10]	田传浩, 彭信添. 福利分配、市场发育与宅基地面积扩张[J]. 农业经济问题, 2021, (4):33-45.
	[ Tian C H, Peng X T. Welfare distribution, market development and expansion of homestead area[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2021, (4):33-45.]
[11]	张雨榴, 杨雨濛, 严金明. 福利多元主义视角下宅基地资格权的性质与实现路径: 以北京市魏善庄镇试点为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2020, 34(1):17-24.
	[ Zhang Y L, Yang Y M, Yan J M. Attribute and realization of qualification right of rural residential land from the perspective of welfare pluralism: A case study on Weishanzhuang Town, Beijing City[J]. China Land Science, 2020, 34(1):17-24.]
[12]	刘成铭, 王坤鹏, 欧名豪. 户分化视角下农民退出宅基地集中居住后的福利水平研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2020, 29(3):748-757.
	[ Liu C M, Wang K P, Ou M H. Study on the welfare level of farmers’ exiting from Homestead and living in concentration from the perspective of farmers’ differentiation[J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2020, 29(3):748-757.]
[13]	周翼虎, 方婷婷, 李丽. 基于TAM-TPB框架的农户宅基地退出决策机理研究[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(1):148-160.
	[ Zhou Y H, Fang T T, Li L. Decision-making mechanism of farmers’ homestead exit based on the TAM-TPB framework[J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(1):148-160.]
[14]	胡银根, 杨春梅, 董文静, 等. 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 Y G, Yang C M, Dong W J, et al. 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.]
[15]	朱新华, 陆思璇. 风险认知、抗险能力与农户宅基地退出[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(4):698-706.
	[ Zhu X H, Lu S X. Risk perception,ability of resisting risk and farmer willingness to exit rural housing land[J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(4):698-706.]
[16]	乌尔里希·贝克. 风险社会[M]. 何博闻, 译. 南京: 译林出版社, 2004.
	[ Ulrich Baker. Risk society [M]. He W B, Trans. Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2004.]
[17]	苏芳, 田欣, 郑亚萍. 生计风险对农户应对策略的影响分析[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2018, 23(10):226-240.
	[ Su F, Tian X, Zheng Y P. Analysis on the Impact of livelihood risks on farmers’ coping strategies[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2018, 23(10):226-240.]
[18]	关江华, 黄朝禧, 胡银根. 不同生计资产配置的农户宅基地流转家庭福利变化研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2014, 24(10):135-142.
	[ Guang J H, Huang C X, Hu Y G. Research on welfare changes of farmer’s family with different allocation of livelihood assets in the rural residential land conversion[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014, 24(10):135-142.]
[19]	杨丽霞, 李胜男, 苑韶峰, 等. 宅基地多功能识别及其空间分异研究: 基于嘉兴、义乌、泰顺的典型村域分析[J]. 中国土地科学, 2019, 33(2):49-56.
	[ Yang L X, Li S N, Yuan S F, et al. Multi-functional recognition and spatial differentiation of rural residential land: A case of typical rural area analysis in Jiaxing, Yiwu and Taishun[J]. China Land Science, 2019, 33(2):49-56.]
[20]	杨慧琳, 袁凯华, 陈银蓉, 等. 农户分化、代际差异对宅基地退出意愿的影响: 基于宅基地价值认知的中介效应分析[J]. 资源科学, 2020, 42(9):1680-1691.
	[ Yang H L, Yuan K H, Chen Y R, et al. 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.]
[21]	吴泽斌, 陈婉菁, 吴立珺. 农户对现行宅基地政策认知水平测度及其影响因素分析[J]. 江西理工大学学报, 2020, 41(4):53-61.
	[ Wu Z B, Chen W J, Wu L J. Measurement of farmers’ cognition level on current homestead policy and analysis of influencing factors[J]. Journal of Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, 2020, 41(4):53-61.]
[22]	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.]
[23]	邝佛缘, 陈美球. 风险预期、生计资本对农户宅基地退出意愿的影响及其代际差异: 基于江西省456份农户调查数据[J]. 农林经济管理学报, 2021, 20(1):92-101.
	[ Kuang F Y, Chen M Q. Influence of risk expectation and livelihood capital on farmers’ willingness to withdraw Homestead and its intergenerational differences: Based on survey data of 456 households in Jiangxi Province[J]. Journal of Agro-Forestry Economics and Management, 2021, 20(1):92-101.]
[24]	邹秀清, 武婷燕, 徐国良, 等. 乡村社会资本与农户宅基地退出: 基于江西省余江区522户农户样本[J]. 中国土地科学, 2020, 34(4):26-34.
	[ Zou X Q, Wu T Y, Xu G L, et al. Rural social capital and rural residential land exit: Based on 522 rural households’ samples in Yujiang District, Jiangxi Province[J]. China Land Science, 2020, 34(4):26-34.]
[25]	高博发, 李聪, 李树茁, 等. 生态脆弱地区易地扶贫搬迁农户福利状况及影响因素研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2020, 34(8):88-95.
	[ Gao B F, Li C, Li S Z, et al. Welfare status and the influencing factors for anti-poverty relocated households in ecologically fragile area[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2020, 34(8):88-95.]
[26]	王志敏, 曲玮. 贫困地区农户家庭风险抵御能力实证分析: 以甘肃省陇南市、定西市为例[J]. 西北人口, 2016, 37(1):123-128.
	[ Wang Z M, Qu W. An empirical analysis of the risk resilience of farmers in poor areas: With Longnan and Dingxi City as examples[J]. Northwest Population Journal, 2016, 37(1):123-128.]
[27]	王静, 朱琳. 基于可持续生计分析框架的农户宅基地流转意愿研究[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2018, 39(6):165-170.
	[ Wang J, Zhu L. Study on the circulation willingness of rural residential land on farmer sustainable livelihoods[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2018, 39(6):165-170.]
[28]	李欢, 张安录. 农村宅基地退出前后农户福利测度及其动态变化: 以浙江省德清县201户农户为例[J]. 农业技术经济, 2019, (7):79-90.
	[ Li H, Zhang A L. The measurement and dynamic changes of farmers’ welfare before and after rural homestead withdrawal: An empirical analysis of 201 farmers in the Homestead reform pilot, Deqing County, Zhejiang Province[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2019, (7):79-90.]
[29]	梁发超, 林彩云. 不同模式下农村宅基地退出的农户福利效应研究: 以福建省晋江市为例[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2021, 42(3):240-248.
	[ Liang F C, Lin C Y. Research on the welfare effect of rural households withdrawing from rural residential land under different patters: A case study of Jinjiang City, Fujian Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2021, 42(3):240-248.]
[30]	张元朋, 赵鹏, 刘华. 宅基地有偿使用制度实施效果差异及原因诊断研究: 基于利益相关者视角[J]. 农业经济问题, 2021, (2):14-25.
	[ Zhang Y P, Zhao P, Liu H. Study on effect difference and reason diagnosis of paid use system of Homesteads: From the perspective of stakeholders[J]. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2021, (2):14-25.]
[31]	谢金华, 杨钢桥, 许玉光, 等. 农地整治对农户收入和福祉的影响机理与实证分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2020, (12):38-54.
	[ Xie J H, Yang G Q, Xu Y G, et al. Influence mechanism and empirical analysis of rural land consolidation on the income and welfare of rural households[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2020, (12):38-54.]
[32]	李成友, 孙涛, 李庆海. 需求和供给型信贷配给交互作用下农户福利水平研究: 基于广义倾向得分匹配法的分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2019, (1):111-120.
	[ Li C Y, Sun T, Li Q H. Research on farmers’ welfare level under the interaction between demand and supply credit rationing: An analysis based on generalized propensity score matching method[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2019, (1):111-120.]
[33]	张晶渝, 杨庆媛. 不同生计资产配置的休耕农户福利变化研究: 云南省休耕试点区实证[J]. 中国土地科学, 2019, 33(2):25-32.
	[ Zhang J Y, Yang Q Y. Study on the changes of fallow farmers’ welfare in different livelihood assets allocation: empirical analysis of Yunnan Fallow Pilot Area[J]. China Land Science, 2019, 33(2):25-32.]
[34]	陈志鸿, 李扬. 中国分区域城镇居民福利水平测度[J]. 财经研究, 2018, 44(10):111-124.
	[ Chen Z H, Li Y. A measurement of Chinese urban residents’ welfare by region[J]. Journal of Finance and Economics, 2018, 44(10):111-124.]
[35]	Jones C I, Klenow P J. Beyond GDP? Welfare across countries and time[J]. The American Economic Review, 2016, 106(9):2426-2457. doi: 10.1257/aer.20110236

承载风险类型	测度指标	指标说明	权重
承载农业生产发生变化所带来的风险（0.5181）	家庭农业收入情况	农业收入占总收入百分比/%	0.1111
	家庭劳动力数量	家庭中16~59周岁劳动年龄人口的数量	0.0586
	家庭从事非农人员	从事非农行业的人数	0.2200
	家庭农业机械数量	是否拥有拖拉机、收割机等（是=1,否=0）	0.1262
	家庭住房使用情况	是否出租或闲置（是=1,否=0）	0.4842
承载权属发生改变所带来的风险(0.2565)	户主学历	户主的文化程度（文盲=0,小学=1,初中=2,高中=3,高中以上=4）	0.7671
	宅基地上房屋权属情况	是否权属人（是=1,否=0）	0.0116
	拥有城镇住宅情况	是否拥有城镇住房（是=1,否=0）	0.2214
承载居住环境发生变化所带来的风险（0.0644）	享受公共服务水平	是否满意外部提供的公共服务（是=1,否=0）	0.0373
	基础设施条件	住所周边配套设施是否齐全（是=1,否=0）	0.8040
	家庭成员人均居住面积	房屋面积与家庭总人数之比/（m²/人）	0.1587
承载社会保障发生变化所带来的风险（0.1610）	新农合参与情况	是否参与新农合（是=1,否=0）	0.3301
	新农保参与情况	是否参与新农保（是=1,否=0）	0.1101
	家庭恩格尔系数	家庭食物支出与家庭总支出之比/%	0.5598

变量类型	变量名称	变量符号	变量说明
因变量	家庭福利水平	Benefit	具体测算值
自变量	宅基地退出	Hw	实际调研
门限变量	家庭风险承载力	Rtc	具体测算值
控制变量	人均GDP	Gdppc	农户所在地的人均GDP/元
	宅基地面积	Ha	农户家庭宅基地面积实际值/m²
	宅基地补偿金额	Hca	农户退出宅基地补偿金额实际值/（元/m²）

变量	家庭福利水平	家庭风险承载力	宅基地退出	宅基地补偿金额	宅基地面积	人均GDP
家庭福利水平	1
家庭风险承载力	0.153***	1
宅基地退出	0.021*	0.045**	1
宅基地补偿金额	-0.027*	0.018	-0.057***	1
宅基地面积	0.150***	0.028	0.004	-0.135***	1
人均GDP	0.025**	0.025	0.036*	-0.082***	0.036*	1

省份	退出前福利水平	退出后福利水平	福利水平变化差值
北京市	8.732	13.808	5.076
河北省	5.416	6.185	0.770
山西省	4.467	7.268	2.801
内蒙古自治区	2.981	7.637	4.656
辽宁省	4.560	5.565	1.005
吉林省	4.086	9.493	5.408
黑龙江省	4.682	5.102	0.420
江苏省	5.616	13.124	7.508
浙江省	6.524	10.663	4.140
安徽省	4.460	5.923	1.463
福建省	5.019	9.767	4.748
江西省	4.527	10.274	5.747
山东省	4.662	8.714	4.052
河南省	5.292	9.144	3.852
湖北省	5.098	5.983	0.884
湖南省	5.465	11.422	5.956
广西壮族自治区	3.765	5.880	2.115
重庆市	4.794	9.462	4.668
四川省	4.918	13.000	8.082
贵州省	4.487	4.146	-0.342
云南省	5.469	4.933	-0.535
陕西省	4.275	8.005	3.730
青海省	2.758	6.507	3.749
甘肃省	4.430	7.745	3.315
宁夏回族自治区	3.262	6.118	2.856

	小	较小	一般	较大	大
分值区间	[-0.535, -0.342]	[0.420, 1.463]	[2.115, 3.749]	[3.852, 5.956]	[7.508, 8.082]
省份	云南省、贵州省	黑龙江省、河北省、湖北省、辽宁省、安徽省	广西壮族自治区、山西省、宁夏回族自治区、甘肃省、陕西省、青海省	河南省、山东省、浙江省、内蒙古自治区、重庆市、福建省、北京市、吉林省、江西省、湖南省	江苏省、四川省

Effect of homestead withdrawal on family welfare:From the perspective of family risk taking capacity

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 35

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

地区福利水平变化等级	门限模型	F值	P值	临界值
地区福利水平变化等级	门限模型	F值	P值	1%	5%	10%
大	单一门槛	15.726**	0.020	17.610	10.492	7.605
	双重门槛	9.826**	0.037	16.278	8.783	6.671
	三重门槛	-31.186	0.660	1.093	-0.5150	-7.442
较大	单一门槛	14.099***	0.000	16.416	10.613	8.463
	双重门槛	12.345***	0.000	21.626	13.117	8.553
	三重门槛	0.000	0.390	0.000	0.000	0.000
一般	单一门槛	6.126***	0.000	13.714	7.858	5.157
	双重门槛	4.092***	0.000	14.509	9.117	5.972
	三重门槛	0.000	0.120	0.000	0.000	0.000
较小	单一门槛	13.640***	0.000	15.403	9.192	7.087
	双重门槛	3.463***	0.000	14.982	8.793	6.424
	三重门槛	0.000	0.087	11.329	5.619	3.084
小	单一门槛	15.761***	0.000	24.740	16.743	13.258
	双重门槛	10.369	0.333	32.898	21.126	14.330
	三重门槛	0.000	0.247	0.000	0.000	0.000

地区福利水平变化等级	第一个门限估计值		第二个门限估计值
地区福利水平变化等级	门限估计值	95%置信区间	门限估计值	95%置信区间
大	1.112	[1.028, 1.778]	1.256	[1.167, 1.264]
较大	1.078	[1.078, 1.344]	1.715	[1.343, 1.777]
一般	1.236	[1.229, 1.340]	1.749	[1.044, 1.823]
较小	1.227	[0.703, 2.312]	2.161	[0.703, 2.312]
小	1.083	[0.650, 2.153]	1.201	[1.200, 2.360]

变量	大	较大	一般	较小	小
Hw	0.5533	-0.3875	-0.3864	0.1165	0.9446
Hca	0.0072	0.0001	0.0538	0.0583	0.0271
Ha	1.5951	0.7298	1.6032**	1.6672**	1.2411**
Rtc	3.4273***	2.0627*	2.6822***	1.2262***	1.0887**
Gdppc	0.3022*	6.5916**	1.4213	2.7405	1.7030*
Rtc₁	-2.3173**	-1.2433	-3.5436**	-5.6664 **	-5.5511***
Rtc₂	-1.4668	-0.0291	-2.6939	-3.9612 ***	-2.9941**
Rtc₃	0.3654**	2.5320**	0.0109**	1.2509 ***	1.3864**
Cons	3.9080*	10.1700**	2.0378	3.1536	3.1450
Rtc₁	Rtc<1.112	Rtc<1.078	Rtc<1.236	Rtc<1.227	Rtc<1.083
Rtc₂	1.112≤Rtc<1.256	1.078≤Rtc<1.715	1.236≤Rtc<1.749	1.227≤Rtc<2.161	1.083≤Rtc<1.201
Rtc₃	Rtc≥1.256	Rtc≥1.715	Rtc≥1.749	Rtc≥2.161	Rtc≥1.201

[1]	ZHOU Di, LUO Dongquan. Green taxation, industrial structure transformation, and carbon emissions reduction [J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(4): 693-709.
[2]	CHEN Lin, XIAO Qianbing, LAN Shujing. Pollution control effects of environmental policies based on threshold effect model of industrial structure: Taking the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan as an example [J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(2): 341-356.
[3]	LI Zihao, YUAN Bingbing. Environmental policy mechanism of local governments in the treatment of haze pollution：Policy tools, spatial correlations and threshold effects [J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(1): 40-56.
[4]	SHE Qunzhi, WU Xiaoli, PAN An. Effects of climate finance on carbon emissions in recipient countries [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(6): 1015-1026.
[5]	SHAO Hanhua, XIA Haibo. The impact of urban sprawl on green total factor productivity in China [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(4): 790-800.
[6]	GUO Yue, HUANG Youxing, YANG Yu, LIU Shuguang, WANG Chang, HUANG Xinrong. Impact of foreign direct investment on Small Island States’ economic growth: An analysis based on the threshold effect of tourism [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(11): 2132-2144.
[7]	XIONG Aihua, DING Youqiang, HU Yufeng. Impact of low-carbon subsidies and green innovation on total factor productivity in view of the threshold effect of carbon emission reduction [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(11): 2184-2195.
[8]	Yang LI. Impact of government policy and market competition on renewable energy innovation in EU countries [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(7): 1306-1316.
[9]	YU Weizhen, LUO Xiaofeng, TANG Lin, HUANG Yanzhong. Impact of grain growing objectives on the application of bio-pesticides of rice farmers from the perspective of land fragmentation [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(12): 2193-2204.
[10]	Guilan SHAO, Yao CHANG, Chen LI. Threshold effect of merchandise export structure on carbon productivity [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(1): 142-151.
[11]	Min ZHOU, Yingying XIE, Yefei SUN, Wen GAO. Study on the influence path of China’s urbanization development on energy consumption based on direct and indirect effect perspective [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(9): 1693-1705.
[12]	Wei JIN, Hengquan ZHANG, Hongbo ZHANG, Wei KONG, Guangxiong MAO, Chenjun ZHANG, Xiang YAN. The influence of population structural change on water consumption in urbanization [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(4): 784-796.
[13]	Jinhua CHENG, Yongguang ZHU, Deyi XU, Anjian WANG, Zhe YOU, Jun SHEN. Impact of industrial structural change on mineral resource demand [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(3): 558-566.
[14]	Hailin YAO, Ruokang JIA. Government subsidies and productivity of resource recycling enterprises —— an empirical study on panel threshold effect of listed enterprises in China [J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(11): 2280-2296.
[15]	Bo WANG, Limin HAN. Impacts of marine industrial structure changes on marine economic growth for 11 coastal provinces in China [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(6): 1182-1193.