Resources Science ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (7): 1467-1478.doi: 10.18402/resci.2021.07.15
Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2021-03-12
Revised:
2021-07-31
Online:
2021-07-25
Published:
2021-08-27
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks
Table 1
Compensation attributes and compensation types in the experimental design
属性特征 | 定义 | 属性特征的水平 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Table 3
Variable description and descriptive statistics
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 |
Table 4
Estimation results of the mixed logit model
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 |
Table 5
Estimation results of the mixed logit model with interaction terms
变量 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Table 6
Robustness test results of heterogeneity sources
变量 | 男性 | 女性 | 长沙地区 | 非长沙地区 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
系数估计 | 标准误 | 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 | 1.193*** | 0.617 | 1.583*** | 0.748 | 2.111** | 0.446 | 1.879*** | 0.450 | |||
标准差 | -0.361*** | 0.219 | -0.479*** | 0.265 | -0.638*** | 0.243 | -0.568*** | 0.248 | |||
配套服务 均值 | -1.701* | 0.492 | -2.257* | 0.597 | -3.011** | 0.852 | -2.680* | 0.687 | |||
标准差 | 1.776*** | 0.222 | 2.357** | 0.269 | 3.143*** | 1.425 | 2.798*** | 1.617 | |||
资金来源 均值 | -0.744** | 0.273 | -0.987** | 0.332 | -1.317** | 0.300 | -1.172** | 0.475 | |||
标准差 | -0.430*** | 0.606 | -0.570* | 0.736 | -0.761*** | 1.357 | -0.677*** | 1.391 | |||
固定参数变量 | |||||||||||
补偿速度 | 3.035*** | 0.305 | 4.027*** | 0.369 | 5.371*** | 0.426 | 4.780*** | 0.435 | |||
补偿比例 | 0.596*** | 0.428 | 0.790*** | 0.519 | 1.054*** | 0.264 | 0.938*** | 0.436 | |||
补偿模式 | 1.327*** | 0.503 | 1.761*** | 0.610 | 2.349*** | 0.368 | 2.090*** | 0.343 | |||
异质性来源 | |||||||||||
补偿方式×年龄 | -0.145** | 0.074 | -0.192** | 0.090 | -0.257*** | -0.156 | -0.228*** | -0.279 | |||
补偿方式×受教育程度 | 0.206*** | 0.098 | 0.273*** | 0.119 | 0.364*** | 0.221 | 0.324*** | 0.397 | |||
补偿方式×距离县城远近 | 0.160** | 0.281 | 0.212** | 0.341 | 0.283** | 0.172 | 0.252** | 0.308 | |||
补偿方式×家庭年纯收入 | 0.079* | 0.125 | 0.105* | 0.152 | 0.140* | 0.085 | 0.125* | 0.153 | |||
补偿方式×宅基地资产占比 | -0.606*** | 0.238 | -0.804*** | 0.288 | -1.072*** | -0.652 | -0.954*** | -1.167 | |||
Log likelihood | -268 | -356 | -474 | -422 | |||||||
McFaddenLRI | 0.212 | 0.282 | 0.376 | 0.335 |
[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 |
|