Asset Specificity on the Intention of Farmers to Continue Land Recuperation: Based on the Perspective of Farmer Differentiation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Sources
2.2. Research Methods
2.2.1. Entropy Method
2.2.2. Double-Hurdle Model
2.3. Variable Measure and Selection
2.3.1. Measurement of Asset Specificity
2.3.2. Variable Selection
3. Results
3.1. Willingness of Farmers with Different Types of Land to Participate in Subsequent Land Recuperation
3.2. Reliability Test and Validity Test of the Asset Specificity Measure
3.3. Subsequent Land Recuperation Degree of Land Recuperation Farmers
3.4. Influence of Asset Specificity on the Willingness and Degree of Land Recuperation Farmers to Continue Land Recuperation
4. Conclusions
4.1. Study Conclusions and Implications
4.2. Study Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Liuyang, Y. Social Welfare Evaluation of Land Recuperation; Northwest A & F University: Yangling, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Jiaxin, L.; Qingyuan, Y.; Tao, H. Analysis on farmer satisfaction of land recuperation policy and its influencing factors—A case study of Huanxian County, Gansu Province. Areal Res. Dev. 2019, 38, 158–162. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Z.; Minjuan, Z.; Liuyang, Y.; Yan, Y. Research on the difference of willingness to pay for land recuperation scheme between urban and rural residents. J. Northwest. A&F Univ. 2017, 17, 90–97. [Google Scholar]
- Tingting, L.; Xuerong, Z. Mechanism of abandonment, abandonment, conversion of farmland to forest and land recuperation conversion. West. Forum 2015, 25, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
- Xianxiong, X.; Minjuan, Z.; Yu, C.; Yue, D. How does farmland land recuperation affect rural households’ income? An empirical analysis based on the panel data collected from 1240 households in the northwest land recuperation pilot areas. Chin. Rural Econ. 2020, 11, 62–78. [Google Scholar]
- Yuqin, L.; Cheng, W.; Chun, D.; Zhongshu, W.; Suhua, L.; Si, C. Land recuperation willingness of farmers of different types in groundwater funnel area and its influencing factors: Based on a survey of 598 farmers in Xingtai City. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 1834–1843. [Google Scholar]
- Williamson, O.E. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36, 269–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dowall, D.E.; Monkkonen, P. Urban development, and land markets in Chennai, India. Int. Real Estate Rev. 2008, 11, 142–165. [Google Scholar]
- Xiaolong, F.; Mingyue, L.; Huanguang, Q.; Xuexi, H. Asset specificity and adaptation behavior of specialized farmers to climate change: Based on micro evidence of apple growers. China Rural Obs. 2018, 04, 74–85. [Google Scholar]
- Zhaolin, W.; Qingyuan, Y. Analysis on the impact of farmers’ concurrent business behavior on their cultivated land transfer mode: Based on the survey of 1096 farmers in Chongqing. China Land Sci. 2013, 27, 67–74. [Google Scholar]
- Xianbao, L.; Qiang, G. Behavior logic, differentiation result, and development prospects—An investigation on the differentiation behavior of rural farmers in China since 1978. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 34, 56–65. [Google Scholar]
- Tongshan, L.; Liteng, N. Farmers’ differentiation, willing to quit land and farmers’ choice preference. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2014, 24, 114–120. [Google Scholar]
- Lambert, D.M.; Sullivan, P.; Claassen, R.; Foreman, L. Profiles of farm households adopting conservation-compatible practices. Land Use Policy 2007, 24, 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhenning, Y.; Yongzhong, T.; Cifang, W.; Xiaobin, Z. Analysis of farmers’ compensation willingness for crop rotation and land recuperation from the perspective of concurrent industry differentiation: A case study of Jiashan County, Zhejiang Province. China Land Sci. 2017, 31, 43–51. [Google Scholar]
- Xi, W.; Liao, L.; Changyou, C. Analysis on the difference of different types of farmers’ willingness to participate in farmland protection: A case study of Zhoukou City, a traditional agricultural area in Henan Province. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2015, 29, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
- Xianxiong, X.; Minjuan, Z.; Cai, Y. Analysis on the impact of livelihood capital on herdsmen’s willingness to reduce livestock -- Based on the micro-empirical study of 372 herdsmen families in Inner Mongolia. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2019, 33, 55–62. [Google Scholar]
- Tao, L.; Jixia, L.; Jingjuan, H. Spatio-temporal pattern and influencing factors of high-quality agricultural development in China. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2020, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Cragg, J.G. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 1971, 39, 829–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiang, C. Advanced Econometrics and Application of Stata; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Williamson, O.E. The Mechanisms of Governance; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Dawkins, C.J. Transaction costs and the land use planning process. J. Plan. Lit. 2000, 14, 507–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guie, X.; Axing, C. Asset specificity and agricultural structural adjustment risk aspect. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 3, 49–52. [Google Scholar]
- Williamson, O.E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Kongyue, L. The impact of agricultural land specific assets and transaction uncertainty on transaction costs of agricultural land transfer. Manag. World 2009, 3, 92–98. [Google Scholar]
- Biliang, L.; Chengxiang, L.; Xiaoli, W. Asset specialization, specialized production, and farmers’ market risks. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 7, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
- Wensheng, L.; Ming, Q.; Shi, Z.; Zhigang, W. The influence of asset speciality on agricultural land circulation after confirmation of right. J. S. China Agric. Univ. 2016, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Gottlieb, P.D.; Schilling, B.J.; Sullivan, K.; Esseks, J.D.; Lynch, L.; Duke, J.M. Are preserved farms actively engaged in agriculture and conservation? Land Use Policy 2015, 45, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, R.B.W.; Shogren, J.F. Voluntary incentive design for endangered species protection. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 43, 169–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.; Jayne, T.S. Land rental markets in Kenya: Implications for efficiency, equity, household income, and poverty. Land Econ. 2013, 89, 246–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wentao, X. Transaction closure, asset specificity, and rural land transfer. Acad. Mon. 2004, 4, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Z.; Chao, P.; Xiangzhi, K. Evolutionary logic, historical evolution and future prospect of farmer’s differentiation. Reform 2019, 2, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
- Xiaojian, L.; Huina, S. A study on the development of rural areas from the perspective of farmers. Hum. Geogr. 2008, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Qun, S.; Feifei, W.; Jie, C. Rural farmer differentiation and land transfer behavior. Resour. Sci. 2016, 38, 377–386. [Google Scholar]
- Xin, S.; Qinghai, G. Analysis on the behaviors of China’s part-time farmers from the perspective of rational economic. J. Jilin Agric. Univ. 2010, 32, 597–602. [Google Scholar]
- Juutinen, A.; Mäntymaa, E.; Mönkkönen, M.; Svento, R. Voluntary agreements in protecting privately owned forests in Finland—To buy or to lease? For. Policy Econ. 2008, 10, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, L.; Jun, Y. Study on farmers’ willingness to land recuperation and its influencing factors in Poyang Lake grain-producing area. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2015, 42, 162–167. [Google Scholar]
- Hualin, X.; Lingjuan, C. Study on influencing factors and ecological compensation standard of farmers’ willingness to land recuperation winter wheat in groundwater funnel area: A case study of Hengshui, Hebei Province. J. Nat. Resour. 2017, 32, 839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dan, L.; Wenjie, Y.; Qianwen, G. Analysis on the influencing factors and differences of farmers’ willingness to land recuperation in heavy metal polluted areas: Based on a questionnaire survey of 243 farmers in Hunan Province. J. China Agric. Univ. 2019, 24, 215–227. [Google Scholar]
- Wanfei, X.; Qi, Y.; Haijun, B. Analysis on the status quo and influencing factors of cultivated land protection in Pengzhou based on farmer’s behavior. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2012, 33, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
- Xiaoping, Z.; Yanlong, X.; Ling, Z. Research on influencing factors of farmer’s willingness to protect farmland. Areal Res. Dev. 2017, 36, 164–169. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Measuring Item | Code |
---|---|---|
Geographical location specificity | The ecological environment of their farmland | GL1 |
The distance between the village and the town seat | GL2 | |
The traffic conditions of the village | GL3 | |
The convenience of village mailing/receiving express parcels | GL4 | |
Physical asset specificity | Tractors owned by farmers | PA1 |
A rotary tiller owned by a farmer | PA2 | |
Farmer-owned irrigation pumps | PA3 | |
A farm tricycle owned by a farmer | PA4 | |
Human capital specificity | Years of education | HC1 |
The number of times a family member attends agricultural technical training each year | HC2 | |
Number of times a family member attends off-farm employment skills training per year | HC3 | |
Days of farming in a year | HC4 |
Variable Categories | Variable Name | Variable Meaning and Assignment | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | Land recuperation intent | After the land recuperation pilot, whether they are willing to participate in long-term land recuperation. No = 0, yes = 1. | 0.838 | 0.369 |
Degree of land recuperation | If willing to continue land recuperation, the number of acres of arable land available for land recuperation. | 16.733 | 16.596 | |
Independent variable | Geographical location specificity | The location value formed by the different quality of cultivated land and traffic conditions. It is obtained by the entropy method. | 0.313 | 0.107 |
Physical asset specificity | Sustained investments by specialist farmers are valuable only if they are linked to a specific use. It is obtained by the entropy method. | 0.541 | 0.160 | |
Human capital specificity | Agricultural production and management capacity of specialized farmers. It is obtained by the entropy method. | 0.059 | 0.062 | |
Control variable | Arable land cognition | Whether they familiar the quality of their farmland. Not very familiar with = 1, not familiar with = 2, moderately familiar with = 3, quite familiar with = 4, very familiar with = 5. | 3.344 | 0.984 |
Land recuperation compensation satisfaction | Satisfaction with the land recuperation compensation standard (amount of compensation). Very dissatisfied = 1, not very satisfied = 2, neutral = 3, relatively satisfied = 4, very satisfied = 5. | 4.036 | 0.866 | |
Land recuperation policy satisfaction | Satisfaction with the overall land recuperation policies (farmers’ participation, management, protection policies, ecological effects, etc.). Very dissatisfied = 1, not very satisfied = 2, generally = 3, relatively satisfied = 4, very satisfied = 5. | 3.810 | 0.918 | |
Land recuperation policy trust | The current land recuperation policy as a whole is in the collective interest of long-term existence. Strongly disagree = 1, somewhat disagree = 2, neutral = 3, somewhat agree = 4, strongly agree = 5. | 3.906 | 0.971 | |
Agricultural acreage | Acreage of farmland actually owned by the family. | 28.882 | 18.221 | |
Degree of reliance on the land | Whether they can continue to live without farming. Not at all = 1, no = 2, neutral = 3, yes = 4, ideally at all = 5. | 2.413 | 1.209 | |
Household labor force size | The number of people in their household who can work. | 4.643 | 1.868 | |
Family living standard | The living standard of the family. Poor = 1, below = 2, average = 3, high = 4, very high = 5. | 2.899 | 0.845 | |
Social connection | Relationship between migrant/employed members and their friends/colleagues in the migrant/off-farm employment area. Never contact = 1, occasionally contact = 2, generally = 3, contact more = 4, often contact = 5. | 3.365 | 1.013 | |
Social opportunities | Satisfaction with local job opportunities. Very dissatisfied = 1, not very satisfied = 2, neutral = 3, relatively satisfied = 4, very satisfied = 5. | 2.474 | 1.027 | |
Non-farm employment willingness | After the land recovery is over, whether the main household labor force intends to be outside for a long time (more than 5 years) for off-farm employment. Never = 1, unlikely = 2, maybe = 3, mostly = 4, definitely = 5. | 3.104 | 1.361 | |
Land recuperation attitude | To protect and enhance land productivity and achieve sustainable farmland use. I feel it is my responsibility to participate in land recuperation. Strongly disagree = 1, roughly disagree = 2, neutral = 3, roughly agree = 4, strongly agree = 5. | 2.904 | 1.326 | |
Gender | Interviewee gender. Female = 0, male = 1. | 0.716 | 0.451 | |
Age | Age of interviewees. | 54.106 | 11.497 | |
Village cadres’ satisfaction | Interviewees’ satisfaction with the work of village cadres. Very dissatisfied = 1, relatively dissatisfied = 2, neutral = 3, relatively satisfied = 4, very satisfied = 5. | 3.403 | 0.913 |
Whether to Participate in the Subsequent Land Recuperation | Pure Farmers | I Part-Time Farmers | II Part-Time Farmers | Non-Farmers | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of Farmers | Proportion % | Number of Farmers | Proportion % | Number of Farmers | Proportion % | Number of Farmers | Proportion % | Number of Farmers | Proportion % | |
Yes | 91 | 73.39 | 117 | 82.39 | 257 | 87.41 | 42 | 93.33 | 507 | 83.80 |
No | 33 | 26.61 | 25 | 17.61 | 37 | 12.59 | 3 | 6.67 | 98 | 16.20 |
Total | 124 | 100.00 | 142 | 100.00 | 294 | 100.00 | 45 | 100.00 | 605 | 100.00 |
Latent Variable | Observational Variable | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s α | KMO | Bartlett’s Test for Sphericity | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Geographical location specificity | GL1 | 0.873 | 0.816 | 0.795 | 949.538 | 0.000 |
GL2 | 0.799 | |||||
GL3 | 0.860 | |||||
GL4 | 0.687 | |||||
Physical asset specificity | PA1 | 0.769 | 0.720 | 0.698 | 545.071 | 0.000 |
PA2 | 0.742 | |||||
PA3 | 0.755 | |||||
PA4 | 0.803 | |||||
Human capital specificity | HC1 | 0.680 | 0.654 | 0.669 | 498.112 | 0.000 |
HC2 | 0.728 | |||||
HC3 | 0.781 | |||||
HC4 | 0.661 | |||||
Total | 0.737 | 0.696 | 854.823 | 0.000 |
Land Recuperation Degree (level)/mu | Absolute Frequency/person | Relative Frequency % | Adjustment Frequency % | Cumulative Frequency % |
---|---|---|---|---|
level < 10 | 107 | 17.69 | 21.10 | 21.10 |
10 ≤ level < 20 | 186 | 30.74 | 36.69 | 57.79 |
20 ≤ level < 30 | 119 | 19.67 | 23.47 | 81.26 |
30 ≤ level < 40 | 45 | 7.44 | 8.88 | 90.24 |
40 ≤ level < 50 | 22 | 3.64 | 4.34 | 94.48 |
50 ≤ level < 60 | 12 | 1.98 | 2.37 | 96.84 |
60 ≤ level < 70 | 8 | 1.32 | 1.58 | 98.42 |
Level ≥ 70 | 8 | 1.32 | 1.58 | 100.00 |
Pure Farmers | I Part-Time Farmers | II Part-Time Farmers | Non-Farmers | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean VIF | 1.64 | 2.16 | 1.92 | 1.75 |
Variable | Pure Farmers | I Part-Time Farmers | II Part-Time Farmers | Non-Farmers | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land Recuperation Intention | Land Recuperation Degree | Land Recuperation Intention | Land Recuperation Degree | Land Recuperation Intention | Land Recuperation Degree | Land Recuperation Intention | Land Recuperation Degree | ||
Asset specificity | Geographical location specificity | −1.029 *** (0.328) | −2.829 *** (0.820) | −2.676 * (1.449) | −3.517 * (1.864) | −0.310 ** (0.149) | −0.448 * (0.262) | −0.644 ** (0.272) | −0.713 *** (0.071) |
Physical asset specificity | −0.162 (0.264) | −1.436 * (0.863) | −0.094 ** (0.047) | −0.233 ** (0.101) | −0.135 (0.115) | −0.505 (0.502) | −0.264 * (0.137) | −0.123 * (0.064) | |
Human capital specificity | −1.160 *** (0.392) | −3.542 ** (1.701) | −0.617 * (0.339) | −1.894 ** (0.942) | −0.109 * (0.064) | −0.381 * (0.222) | −1.419 ** (0.621) | −2.472 * (1.410) | |
Control variable | Arable land cognition | −0.337 (0.231) | 0.390 (0.967) | −1.193 ** (0.471) | −3.333 ** (1.544) | 0.151 (0.129) | −0.455 (0.884) | −0.234 (0.263) | −1.568 (1.047) |
Land recuperation compensation satisfaction | 0.089 (0.296) | 0.292 *** (0.102) | 0.155 (0.308) | 1.712 (1.483) | 0.452 *** (0.145) | 2.285 ** (1.141) | 0.920 ** (0.411) | 0.120 (1.464) | |
Land recuperation policy satisfaction | 0.637 ** (0.307) | 3.088 *** (1.039) | 0.152 (0.347) | 2.352 (1.890) | 0.315 ** (0.143) | 0.511 (1.130) | 0.047 (0.378) | 0.691 (1.483) | |
Land recuperation policy trust | 0.409 * (0.245) | 1.734 (1.414) | 0.408 (0.349) | 0.692 *** (0.078) | 0.274 * (0.160) | 0.909 *** (0.048) | 0.011 (0.030) | 0.421 (0.878) | |
Agricultural acreage | 0.004 (0.011) | −0.292 *** (0.102) | −0.015 (0.029) | −0.284 ** (0.144) | 0.026 (0.020) | −0.423 *** (0.102) | 0.063 (0.057) | −0.292 ** (0.115) | |
Degree of reliance on the land | −0.277 (0.353) | 1.112 (0.680) | −0.071 (0.304) | −4.783 ** (2.083) | 0.077 (0.112) | −1.639 ** (0.688) | −0.902 *** (0.325) | −1.284 (0.848) | |
Household labor force size | 0.007 (0.147) | 1.693 (1.425) | 1.005 ** (0.453) | 2.664 * (1.456) | 0.112 (0.108) | 0.067 (0.739) | 0.519 ** (0.259) | 0.714 (0.828) | |
Family living standard | 0.509 (0.352) | 0.823 (1.440) | 1.107 * (0.577) | 3.666 * (1.988) | 0.101 (0.190) | 1.416 (1.322) | 1.062 ** (0.513) | −0.426 (1.474) | |
Social connection | 0.247 (0.214) | 1.737 ** (0.722) | 0.146 (0.320) | 2.297 * (1.376) | 0.294 ** (0.124) | 1.382 * (0.820) | 0.230 (0.326) | 0.765 (1.003) | |
Social opportunities | 0.107 (0.170) | 0.991 (1.442) | −0.245 (0.391) | −0.553 (1.427) | −0.015 (0.097) | −1.162 * (0.693) | −0.013 (0.257) | −0.641 (0.881) | |
Non−farm employment willingness | 1.169 *** (0.449) | 1.004 (1.513) | 0.664 ** (0.317) | 0.499 (1.489) | 0.335 ** (0.165) | 1.310 (0.920) | 0.328 *** (0.078) | 0.131 (0.934) | |
Land recuperation attitude | 0.885 ** (0.432) | 0.965 (1.395) | 1.286 *** (0.463) | 1.453 (1.465) | 0.176 (0.163) | 0.639 (0.906) | 0.117 (0.290) | 0.999 (0.966) | |
Gender | 0.663 (0.631) | −0.706 (2.741) | 1.619 * (0.973) | 3.176 (2.994) | 0.034 (0.263) | 0.577 (2.025) | −0.346 (0.679) | 0.827 (2.253) | |
Age | −0.049 ** (0.023) | −0.203 ** (0.087) | −0.040 (0.046) | 0.165 (0.158) | −0.012 (0.011) | −0.047 (0.074) | 0.024 (0.027) | −0.242 *** (0.090) | |
Village cadres’ satisfaction | 0.352 (0.273) | 0.681 (1.114) | 0.891 (0.565) | 3.977 *** (1.547) | −0.119 (0.126) | 1.071 (0.856) | 0.258 (0.311) | 0.775 (1.094) |
Variable | Pure Farmers | I Part-Time Farmers | II Part-Time Farmers | Non-Farmers | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land Recuperation Intention | Land Recuperation Degree | Land Recuperation Intention | Land Recuperation Degree | Land Recuperation Intention | Land Recuperation Degree | Land Recuperation Intention | Land Recuperation Degree | ||
Asset specificity | Geographical location specificity | −0.316 *** (0.118) | −2.857 ** (1.311) | −1.631 *** (0.573) | −2.311 ** (0.934) | −0.347 *** (0.086) | −0.741 *** (0.044) | −0.502 *** (0.181) | −0.662 ** *(0.073) |
Physical asset specificity | −0.026 (0.147) | −0.235 * (0.130) | −0.126 ** (0.058) | −0.317 ** (0.130) | −0.047 (0.071) | −0.137 (0.776) | −0.185 * (0.102) | −0.266 ** (0.120) | |
Human capital specificity | −0.225 *** (0.053) | −2.549 * (1.352) | −0.157 *** (0.051) | −0.620 *** (0.053) | −0.185 * (0.097) | −0.280 *** (0.097) | −0.548 *** (0.168) | −0.212 ** (0.087) | |
Control variable | Arable land cognition | −0.126 (0.169) | 0.844 (1.624) | −0.101 * (0.057) | −0.329 * (0.189) | 0.005 (0.004) | −0.725 (0.947) | −0.054 (0.127) | −1.546 (1.333) |
Land recuperation compensation satisfaction | 0.013 (0.100) | 0.455 *** (0.070) | 0.057 (0.041) | 0.885 (1.130) | 0.218 *** (0.082) | 1.538 (1.055) | 0.346 *** (0.129) | 0.103 (0.894) | |
Land recuperation policy satisfaction | 0.115 ** (0.055) | 2.604 *** (0.867) | 0.017 (0.063) | 2.183 (1.739) | 0.147 ** (0.076) | 0.747 (0.912) | 0.045 (0.171) | 0.697 (1.417) | |
Land recuperation policy trust | 0.221 * (0.175) | 1.296 (1.106) | 0.019 (0.061) | 0.194 * (0.102) | 0.111 (0.103) | 1.854 *** (0.707) | 0.005 (0.009) | 0.340 (0.803) | |
Agricultural acreage | 0.008 (0.084) | −0.321 ** (0.146) | −0.022 (0.039) | −0.748 (1.686) | 0.030 (0.109) | −0.217 *** (0.080) | 0.034 (0.184) | −0.201 (1.473) | |
Degree of reliance on the land | −0.138 (0.201) | 1.183 (0.829) | −0.001 (0.005) | −1.701 (1.556) | 0.063 (0.058) | −1.506 * (0.870) | −0.442 *** (0.122) | −1.762 (1.438) | |
Household labor force size | 0.068 (0.122) | 1.237 (1.724) | 0.145 *** (0.048) | 1.218 (1.014) | 0.092 (0.066) | 0.097 (0.716) | 0.271 ** (0.126) | 0.885 (0.881) | |
Family living standard | 0.287 (0.205) | 0.858 (1.304) | 0.134 ** (0.061) | 1.138 (3.061) | 0.104 (0.065) | 1.565 (1.132) | 0.362 * (0.201) | −0.246 (0.984) | |
Social connection | 0.247 (0.214) | 1.726 * (0.932) | 0.095 * (0.056) | 1.528 (1.316) | 0.107 * (0.056) | 1.594 (1.727) | 0.061 (0.098) | 0.623 (0.780) | |
Social opportunities | 0.016 (0.186) | 1.006 (2.972) | −0.029 (0.037) | −0.426 (0.982) | −0.014 (0.055) | −1.185 (0.737) | −0.026 (0.080) | −0.545 (0.533) | |
Non−farm employment willingness | 0.262 ** (0.118) | 1.020 (2.925) | 0.086 ** (0.036) | 0.156 (0.899) | 0.013 ** (0.006) | 1.680 (1.414) | 0.225 ** (0.109) | 0.075 (0.857) | |
Land recuperation attitude | 0.307 ** (0.119) | 0.663 (0.961) | 0.092 *** (0.033) | 0.403 (0.296) | 0.064 (0.053) | 0.802 (0.614) | 0.139 ** (0.068) | 1.469 (1.058) | |
Gender | 0.233 (0.269) | −0.250 (1.415) | 0.086 * (0.047) | 1.353 (3.003) | 0.033 (0.158) | 0.602 (0.442) | −0.060 ** (0.027) | 0.110 (0.248) | |
Age | −0.030 ** (0.014) | −1.725 * (0.932) | −0.138 (0.109) | 0.020 (0.382) | −0.015 (0.046) | −0.053 (0.626) | 0.023 (0.015) | −0.192 *(0.103) | |
Village cadres’ satisfaction | 0.231 (0.265) | 0.024 (0.140) | 0.049 (0.111) | 2.934 * (1.685) | −0.054 (0.040) | 0.124 (0.192) | 0.086 (0.176) | 0.107 (0.117) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, S.; Xie, X.; Zhao, M. Asset Specificity on the Intention of Farmers to Continue Land Recuperation: Based on the Perspective of Farmer Differentiation. Land 2021, 10, 603. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060603
Zhang S, Xie X, Zhao M. Asset Specificity on the Intention of Farmers to Continue Land Recuperation: Based on the Perspective of Farmer Differentiation. Land. 2021; 10(6):603. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060603
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Siyang, Xianxiong Xie, and Minjuan Zhao. 2021. "Asset Specificity on the Intention of Farmers to Continue Land Recuperation: Based on the Perspective of Farmer Differentiation" Land 10, no. 6: 603. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060603
APA StyleZhang, S., Xie, X., & Zhao, M. (2021). Asset Specificity on the Intention of Farmers to Continue Land Recuperation: Based on the Perspective of Farmer Differentiation. Land, 10(6), 603. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060603