How Does Spatial Injustice Affect Residents’ Policy Acceptance of the Economic–Social–Ecological Objectives of Construction Land Reduction?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Influence of Spatial Injustice on Residents’ Policy Acceptance of the Economic–Social–Ecological Objectives of CLR
2.2. Influence of Spatial Injustice on Cadres’ Policy Acceptance of the Economic–Social–Ecological Objectives of CLR
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Research Area
3.2. Survey Implementation
3.3. Model Selection
3.4. Variable Selection and Index Measurement
3.4.1. Dependent Variables
3.4.2. Core Explanatory Variable
- (a)
- Per Capita Spatial Injustice
- (b) Per Land Spatial Injustice
3.4.3. Other Explanatory Variables
4. Results
4.1. Baseline Regression Results
4.2. Heterogeneity Analysis
4.3. Robustness Test
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Implications
6.1. Conclusions
- Spatial injustice in CLR will significantly decrease residents’ policy acceptance of the social and ecological objectives of CLR, but will not weaken their acceptance of the economic objectives of CLR.
- From the macro perspective, the more reasonable the compensation standard is, the higher the residents’ policy acceptance of the economic objectives of CLR is, and the lower the acceptance of the ecological objectives of CLR is; the location disadvantage of the village has significantly reduced the residents’ policy acceptance of the ecological objectives of CLR.
- From the micro level, residents with higher household income and higher proportion of family labor population have higher acceptance of the economic objectives of CLR; the older the residents are, the higher their education level is, and the higher the proportion of family labor population is, the higher their acceptance of the social objectives of CLR is; the more educated residents are, the higher their acceptance of the ecological objectives of CLR is.
- The heterogeneity analysis shows that cadres are more receptive to the economic objectives of CLR than ordinary residents, while their receptiveness to the ecological and social objectives of CLR is similar to that of ordinary residents.
- The research conclusion of this study is still robust after changing the measurement method of spatial injustice.
6.2. Implications
- CLR is currently an effective way to achieve high-quality sustainable development when the total amount and intensity of construction land is strictly constrained. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize the structure of construction land and improve the efficiency of land use to meet the needs of new construction land for sustainable development.
- It is important to pay attention to the impact of the realization of spatial justice in order to improve residents’ policy acceptance of the economic–social–ecological objectives of CLR. Firstly, increasing the retention proportion of construction land quota in the net reduction regions, and improving land use efficiency through regional industrial structure optimization, are both required to enhance regional economic competitiveness. Secondly, if the construction land quota in the remote suburbs is to be used in peri-urban regions, the peri-urban regions should encourage residents from remote suburbs to work and live in their region, so as to reduce the per capita negative impact of CLR, and protect the interests of the net reduction regions. Thirdly, in the process of transferring construction land quota, it is necessary to increase the compensation for the net reduction regions. This can improve the support of local residents for the transfer out of construction land quota, and enhance their acceptance and satisfaction with the economic–social–ecological objectives of CLR.
- CLR has significant ecological and social benefits, and is conducive to optimizing the regional industrial structure and improving overall economic efficiency for the whole society. Therefore, in the process of CLR, the following are necessary: full attention should be given to the contribution of the net reduction regions; economic compensation standards for such regions should be increased; the scope of economic and cross-regional economic compensation should be expanded.
- In addition to compensating for economic losses in regions with net reduction of construction land, the following are required: improvements in living conditions in densely populated regions, greater employment opportunities, and diversified compensation methods.
- Great importance must be attached to the ecological benefits brought by CLR through improving the compensation standard and expanding the scope of compensation for ecological benefits.
- Greater publicity and the provision of information to residents are necessary to enhance both their policy acceptance of the economic–social–ecological objectives of CLR and their overall satisfaction with government planning policies.
- It is necessary to optimize the cadre assessment mechanism. Compared with the social and ecological objectives of CLR, the cadres of local government departments pay more attention to the economic objectives of CLR. The economic objective is an important one of CLR’s multiple objectives, but not the most important. Under the background of ecological civilization and high-quality development, residents’ employment and ecological environmental protection are more important. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize local government performance assessment, weaken the assessment of GDP of CLR, and strengthen the assessment of the completion of social and ecological objectives of CLR.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, Z.; Han, Q.; De Vries, B. Land use spatial optimization using accessibility maps to integrate land use and transport in urban areas. Appl. Spat. Anal. 2022, 15, 1193–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.; Li, G.; Liu, H. Location choice of industrial land reduction in metropolitan area: Evidence from Shanghai in China. Growth Change 2020, 51, 1837–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.; Lu, J.; Liu, H.; Ye, F.; Dong, F.; Zhu, X. Spatial justice and residents’ policy acceptance: Evidence from construction land reduction in Shanghai, China. Land 2023, 12, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Liu, J.; Gu, X. Reduction of industrial land beyond urban development boundary in Shanghai: Differences in policy responses and impact on towns and villages. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 620–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J.; Wang, K.; Liu, H. Residents’ selection behavior of compensation schemes for construction land reduction: Empirical evidence from questionnaires in Shanghai, China. Land 2023, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Wang, K.; Liu, H. Construction land reduction, rural financial development, and industrial structure optimization. Growth Change 2021, 52, 1783–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.; Li, G.; Liu, H. Porter effect test for construction land reduction. Land Use Policy 2021, 103, 105310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Q.; Wang, L.; Zhu, Y.; Mu, B.; Ahmad, N. Fostering land use sustainability through construction land reduction in China: An analysis of key success factors using Fuzzy-AHP and DEMATEL. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 2022, 29, 18757–18779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, B.; Gu, X.; Xie, B. Policy framework and mechanism of life cycle management of industrial land (LCMIL) in China. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, B.; Wang, Z.; Yao, X.; Chai, J. Assessing the performance of land consolidation projects in different modes: A case study in Jianghan Plain of Hubei province, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 17, 1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Soja, E.W. Seeking Spatial Justice; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Nordberg, K. Spatial justice and local capability in rural areas. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 78, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlosberg, D. Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a discourse. Environ. Polit. 2013, 22, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busscher, N.; Parra, C.; Vanclay, F. Environmental justice implications of land grabbing for industrial agriculture and forestry in Argentina. J. Environ. Plann. Man. 2020, 63, 500–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlosberg, D.; Carruthers, D. Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, and community capabilities. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2010, 10, 12–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullard, R.D. Environmental justice: It’s more than waste facility siting. Soc. Sci. Quart. 1996, 77, 493–499. [Google Scholar]
- Schlosberg, D. Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environ. Polit. 2004, 13, 517–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constanza, P.; Frank, M. The governance of the nature-culture nexus: Lessons learned from the San Pedro de Atacama case study. Nat. Cult. 2016, 11, 239–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosisio, A.; Moreno-Jiménez, A. Spatially disaggregated assessment of environmental inequalities among vulnerable groups due to urban rainstorm flooding. Appl. Spat. Anal. 2022, 15, 1263–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anders, G.; Zenker, O. Transition and justice: An introduction. Dev. Change 2014, 45, 395–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavroudakis, D.; Ballas, D.; Birkin, M. Using spatial microsimulation to model social and spatial inequalities in educational attainment. Appl. Spat. Anal. 2013, 6, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, L. Land preservation under the transfer of development rights program—A study of Montgomery county (MD). J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2021, 87, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, W.A. Economic development with unlimited supplies of labor. Manch. Sch. 1954, 22, 139–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Y.; LeGates, R.; Qin, B. Coordinated urban-rural development planning in China—The Chengdu model. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2013, 79, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Horn, C.E.; Van Meter, D.S. The implementation of intergovernmental policy. Policy Stud. Rev. Annu. 1977, 1, 97–120. [Google Scholar]
- Ramos, I.L.; Bernardo, F.; Ribeiro, S.C.; Van Eetvelde, V. Landscape identity: Implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 2016, 53, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Cloutier, S.; Li, H. Farmers’ economic status and satisfaction with homestead withdrawal policy: Expectation and perceived value. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020, 17, 7110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, L.; Liu, Y.; Brown, G.; Searle, G. Factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction with contemporary China’s land allocation policy—The link policy: Based on the empirical research of Ezhou. Habitat Int. 2018, 75, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, T.; Du, S.; Wang, R. Social factors and residential satisfaction under urban renewal background: A comparative case study in Chongqing, China. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2022, 148, 05022030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folmer, E.; Risselada, A. Planning the neighbourhood economy: Land-use plans and the economic potential of urban residential neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2013, 21, 1873–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, K.; Huang, B.; Wang, S.; Lin, H. Sustainable land use optimization using boundary-based fast genetic algorithm. Comput. Environ. Urban 2012, 36, 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burby, R.J.; Dalton, L.C. Plans can matter! The role of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting the development of hazardous areas. Public Admin. Rev. 1994, 54, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.; Agrawal, A.W.; Dill, J. Are land use planning and congestion pricing mutually supportive? J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2011, 77, 232–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forkink, A. Benefits and challenges of using an assessment of ecosystem services Approach in land-use planning. J. Environ. Plann. Man. 2017, 60, 2071–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, K.; Zhang, W.; Wang, T. Spatio-temporal land use multi-objective optimization: A case study in central China. Trans. GIS 2019, 23, 726–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaslioglu, E.; Akkaya Aslan, S.T.; Kirmikil, M.; Gundogdu, K.S.; Arici, I. Changes in farm management and agricultural activities and their effect on farmers’ satisfaction from land consolidation: The case of Bursa–Karacabey, Turkey. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2009, 17, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, I.M. Justice and the Politics of Difference; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Bjerkli, C.L.; Fold, N.; Sofer, M. Land injustices: Tracing the impact of land development projects on farmers land justice in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. 2017, 71, 124–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passera, A.; Vacchini, V.; Cocetta, G.; Shahzad, G.I.R.; Arpanahi, A.A.; Casati, P.; Ferrante, A.; Piazza, L. Towards nutrition-sensitive agriculture: An evaluation of biocontrol effects, nutritional value, and ecological impact of bacterial inoculants. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 724, 138127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s eco-system services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, X.; Li, Q.; Chand, S. Factors influencing residents’ access to and use of country parks in Shanghai, China. Cities 2020, 97, 102501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kupidura, A.; Łuczewski, M.; Home, R.; Kupidura, P. Public perceptions of rural landscapes in land consolidation procedures in Poland. Land Use Policy 2014, 39, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, W.; Timothy, D.J. An assessment of farmers’ satisfaction with land consolidation performance in China. Land Use Policy 2017, 61, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisec, A.; Primožič, T.; Ferlan, M.; Šumrada, R.; Drobne, S. Land owners’ perception of land consolidation and their satisfaction with the results—Slovenian experiences. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 550–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, G.; Chen, F.; Guo, C. Calculation and evaluation of construction land reduction potential based on correction model. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1087, 052012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Li, H.; Zhou, L. Relative performance evaluation and the turnover of provincial leaders in China. Econ. Lett. 2005, 88, 421–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Zhou, L. Political turnover and economic performance: The incentive role of personnel control in China. J. Public Econ. 2005, 89, 1743–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Zhou, L.; Zhu, G. Strategic interaction in political competition: Evidence from spatial effects across Chinese cities. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2016, 57, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, S.; Mehar, M. Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of modern information and communication technology by farmers in India: Analysis using multivariate Probit model. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2016, 22, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis; Prentice Hall International, New York University: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Cappellari, L.; Jenkins, S.P. Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. Stata J. 2003, 3, 278–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lotfi, S.; Koohsari, M.J. Measuring objective accessibility to neighborhood facilities in the city (A case study: Zone 6 in Tehran, Iran). Cities 2009, 26, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omer, I. Evaluating accessibility using house-level data: A spatial equity perspective. Comput. Environ. Urban 2006, 30, 254–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taleai, M.; Sliuzas, R.; Flacke, J. An integrated framework to evaluate the equity of urban public facilities using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Cities 2014, 40, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, E.J.; Godschalk, D.R.; Chapin, F.S. Urban Land Use Planning, 4th ed.; University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL, USA; Chicago, IL, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Su, Z.; Zhang, Y. The impact of income inequality on the health of rural residents—Based on the micro perspective of relative deprivation. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2021, 3, 132–144. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Y. Leaving the countryside: Rural-to-urban migration decisions in China. Am. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahab, S.; Clinch, J.P.; O’Neill, E. Estimates of transaction costs in transfer of development rights programs. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2018, 84, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodbury, S.R. Transfer of development rights: A new tool for planners. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1975, 41, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, X.; Shi, P.; Liu, Y. Society: Realizing China’s urban dream. Nature 2014, 509, 158–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y. Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable Type | Variable Name | Variable Code | Index Measurement |
---|---|---|---|
Dependent variables | Residents’ policy acceptance of the economic objectives of CLR | Y1 | Whether it is an effective means to realize the upgrading of domain industries (industrial land). Yes = 1; No = 0. |
Resident’s policy acceptance of the social objectives of CLR | Y2 | Whether is an important means to optimize the structure of residential land (residential land). Yes = 1; No = 0. | |
Resident’s policy acceptance of the ecological objectives of CLR | Y3 | Whether is an important means to achieve environmental improvement within the domain (increasing ecological land, improving ecological land structure). Yes = 1; No = 0. | |
Core explanatory variable | Per capita spatial injustice | SIRJ | Quartile value of CLPNIi,2013–2018: The first quartile = 4; the second quartile = 3; the third quartile = 2; the fourth quartile = 1. |
Per land spatial injustice | SIDJ | Quartile value of CLLNIi,2013–2018: The first quartile = 4; the second quartile = 3; the third quartile = 2; the fourth quartile = 1. | |
Other explanatory variables | Compensation standard | CS | Residents’ comment on the rationality of the compensation standard for CLR in this town: very reasonable = 5; relatively reasonable = 4; generally reasonable = 3; relatively unreasonable = 2; very unreasonable = 1. |
Village location disadvantage | VLD | The distance from the village to the government station of JJ town (km). | |
Personal characteristic | Gender | GEN | Dummy variable. Male = 1; female = 0. |
Age | AGE | 30 and below = 1; 31–45 = 2; 45–60 = 3; 60 and above = 4 | |
Level of education | EDU | Primary school and below = 1; Lower secondary school = 2; Upper secondary school = 3; college and above = 4 | |
Household characteristic | Household income | HI | 50,000 CNY and below = 1; 50,000 CNY–100,000 CNY = 2; 100,000 CNY–200,000 CNY = 3; 200,000 CNY and above = 4. |
Contracting land scale | CLS | 0 mu = 0; 0–0.5 mu = 1; 0.5–1 mu = 2; 1–1.5 mu = 3; 1.5–2 mu = 4; 2 mu and above = 5. | |
Household population structure | HPS | The proportion of the population aged 18 to 60 years in the total household size. | |
Heterogeneous variable | Resident status | GB | Yes = 1; No = 0 |
Variable | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Y1 | 306 | 0.4020 | 0.4911 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
Y2 | 306 | 0.5229 | 0.5003 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
Y3 | 306 | 0.3268 | 0.4698 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
SIRJ | 306 | 2.4118 | 1.1708 | 1.0000 | 4.0000 |
SIDJ | 306 | 2.4967 | 1.0992 | 1.0000 | 4.0000 |
GB | 306 | 0.1993 | 0.4002 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
CS | 306 | 3.5261 | 1.0625 | 1.0000 | 5.0000 |
VLD | 306 | 3.2669 | 1.3916 | 0.0000 | 5.9553 |
GEN | 306 | 0.5392 | 0.4993 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
AGE | 306 | 2.5065 | 0.9726 | 1.0000 | 4.0000 |
EDU | 306 | 2.6895 | 1.0613 | 1.0000 | 4.0000 |
HI | 306 | 2.6307 | 0.9603 | 1.0000 | 4.0000 |
CLS | 306 | 2.5556 | 2.1876 | 0.0000 | 5.0000 |
HPS | 306 | 0.6380 | 0.2407 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 |
Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | |
SIRJ | −0.0245 | −0.1761 *** | −0.1613 ** | −0.0287 | −0.1782 *** | −0.1639 ** |
(0.0688) | (0.0668) | (0.0728) | (0.0692) | (0.0666) | (0.0729) | |
GB | 0.6622 *** | 0.0397 | 0.3340 | |||
(0.2171) | (0.2163) | (0.2247) | ||||
CS | 0.1359 * | −0.0367 | −0.2518 *** | 0.1181 * | −0.0377 | −0.2677 *** |
(0.0704) | (0.0748) | (0.0748) | (0.0716) | (0.0746) | (0.0739) | |
VLD | −0.0169 | −0.0570 | −0.1576 ** | 0.0149 | −0.0558 | −0.1440 ** |
(0.0542) | (0.0553) | (0.0618) | (0.0558) | (0.0569) | (0.0624) | |
GEN | −0.1679 | −0.1095 | −0.0491 | −0.1811 | −0.1135 | −0.0538 |
(0.1557) | (0.1549) | (0.1656) | (0.1573) | (0.1547) | (0.1670) | |
AGE | 0.0598 | 0.3379 *** | 0.1583 | 0.0204 | 0.3346 *** | 0.1336 |
(0.1031) | (0.1069) | (0.1046) | (0.1030) | (0.1066) | (0.1047) | |
EDU | 0.0615 | 0.3618 *** | 0.3349 *** | −0.0578 | 0.3536 *** | 0.2748 *** |
(0.0926) | (0.0918) | (0.0938) | (0.0990) | (0.0957) | (0.1020) | |
HI | 0.1684 * | −0.0207 | 0.1269 | 0.1503 * | −0.0225 | 0.1135 |
(0.0871) | (0.0820) | (0.0970) | (0.0894) | (0.0826) | (0.0964) | |
CLS | −0.0411 | −0.0148 | 0.0651 * | −0.0387 | −0.0150 | 0.0694 * |
(0.0371) | (0.0366) | (0.0391) | (0.0379) | (0.0365) | (0.0390) | |
HPS | 0.9863 *** | 0.9004 *** | 0.5966 | 0.9551 *** | 0.8985 *** | 0.5519 |
(0.3454) | (0.3368) | (0.3802) | (0.3533) | (0.3375) | (0.3810) | |
Constant | −1.8246 *** | −1.4432 ** | −0.9057 | −1.5018 ** | −1.4073 ** | −0.6793 |
(0.6448) | (0.6464) | (0.6927) | (0.6432) | (0.6498) | (0.6944) | |
atrho21 | 0.4177 *** | 0.4323 *** | ||||
(0.1043) | (0.1066) | |||||
atrho31 | 0.1530 | 0.1233 | ||||
(0.1031) | (0.1039) | |||||
atrho32 | 0.4634 *** | 0.4663 *** | ||||
(0.1050) | (0.1053) | |||||
Obs | 306 | 306 | ||||
Draws | 18 | 18 | ||||
Wald Value | 107.21 *** | 117.81 *** |
Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | |
SIDJ | 0.0272 | −0.1616 ** | −0.1737 ** | 0.0252 | −0.1644 ** | −0.1763 ** |
(0.0713) | (0.0693) | (0.0751) | (0.0716) | (0.0691) | (0.0755) | |
GB | 0.6602 *** | 0.0376 | 0.3365 | |||
(0.2176) | (0.2154) | (0.2248) | ||||
CS | 0.1245 * | −0.0388 | −0.2497 *** | 0.1060 | −0.0397 | −0.2654 *** |
(0.0708) | (0.0748) | (0.0747) | (0.0719) | (0.0745) | (0.0739) | |
VLD | −0.0202 | −0.0734 | −0.1731 *** | 0.0109 | −0.0723 | −0.1597 ** |
(0.0537) | (0.0554) | (0.0617) | (0.0554) | (0.0570) | (0.0624) | |
GEN | −0.1585 | −0.1037 | −0.0498 | −0.1702 | −0.1081 | −0.0545 |
(0.1558) | (0.1546) | (0.1655) | (0.1575) | (0.1544) | (0.1669) | |
AGE | 0.0671 | 0.3340 *** | 0.1498 | 0.0281 | 0.3306 *** | 0.1255 |
(0.1036) | (0.1070) | (0.1043) | (0.1034) | (0.1067) | (0.1049) | |
EDU | 0.0715 | 0.3549 *** | 0.3235 *** | −0.0466 | 0.3469 *** | 0.2630 ** |
(0.0927) | (0.0924) | (0.0949) | (0.0991) | (0.0961) | (0.1035) | |
HI | 0.1775 ** | 0.0133 | 0.1576 * | 0.1600 * | 0.0117 | 0.1447 |
(0.0845) | (0.0811) | (0.0946) | (0.0867) | (0.0818) | (0.0943) | |
CLS | −0.0428 | −0.0168 | 0.0635 | −0.0410 | −0.0172 | 0.0678 * |
(0.0370) | (0.0365) | (0.0391) | (0.0380) | (0.0364) | (0.0391) | |
HPS | 0.9827 *** | 0.8535 ** | 0.5545 | 0.9501 *** | 0.8510 ** | 0.5104 |
(0.3466) | (0.3358) | (0.3796) | (0.3541) | (0.3365) | (0.3803) | |
Constant | −1.9671 *** | −1.4331 ** | −0.8162 | −1.6487 ** | −1.3950 ** | −0.5911 |
(0.6512) | (0.6488) | (0.6980) | (0.6470) | (0.6522) | (0.7065) | |
atrho21 | 0.4261 *** | 0.4416 *** | ||||
(0.1049) | (0.1073) | |||||
atrho31 | 0.1658 | 0.1374 | ||||
(0.1035) | (0.1042) | |||||
atrho32 | 0.4651 *** | 0.4682 *** | ||||
(0.1049) | (0.1054) | |||||
Obs | 306 | 306 | ||||
Draws | 18 | 18 | ||||
Wald Value | 106.01 *** | 116.61 *** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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
Wang, K.; Lu, J.; Liu, H. How Does Spatial Injustice Affect Residents’ Policy Acceptance of the Economic–Social–Ecological Objectives of Construction Land Reduction? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2847. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042847
Wang K, Lu J, Liu H. How Does Spatial Injustice Affect Residents’ Policy Acceptance of the Economic–Social–Ecological Objectives of Construction Land Reduction? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):2847. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042847
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Keqiang, Jianglin Lu, and Hongmei Liu. 2023. "How Does Spatial Injustice Affect Residents’ Policy Acceptance of the Economic–Social–Ecological Objectives of Construction Land Reduction?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 2847. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042847