Effect of Farmers’ Perceptions of Sustainable Development Value on Their Willingness for Agricultural Land Secured Financing

Abstract

Farmers’ perceptions of land value determine how land is used, which, in turn, can affect the ecological protection and sustainable development of land resources. This study constructed an index system of farmers’ perceptions of the sustainable development value of agricultural land in four aspects: economic value, security value, ecological value, and emotional value. Using data from 1652 farm households in Shaanxi Province, China, we empirically analyzed the influence of farmers’ perceptions of sustainable development value on their intention to obtain financing secured by agricultural land. Farmers’ perceptions of sustainable development value were found to have a significant negative effect on their willingness for agricultural land secured financing, and social capital played a negative moderating role in the relationship between the two. Further, we found differences between ordinary farmers and new management entities in their value perceptions of agricultural land; thus, there was heterogeneity in the effect on intention to obtain financing secured by agricultural land. Based on the findings, we suggested ways to promote the market development of agricultural land financing, including guiding farmers to form sustainable perceptions of agricultural land value, and innovating mortgages secured by agricultural land with new management entities as the main demanders.

1. Introduction

As a new development paradigm, sustainable development has become increasingly popular in many countries and has penetrated every corner of economic development. The concept of sustainable development was formally introduced in 1987 in Our Common Future, published by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Taking environmental protection as the core of sustainable development, the concept of “green economy” emerged as a paradigm aiming to strike a balance between economic development and the environment (Barbier et al., 2004) [1]. Agricultural land, which is the natural resource humans are most dependent on, has the most direct effect on the sustainability of ecosystems, and it is key to green economic development. For thousands of years, humans have been altering land resource allocation patterns by converting natural areas into agricultural production areas and settlements (Delcourt et al., 1988) [2]. The resulting degradation of land has led to not only serious ecological problems but also social development problems (Dyson-Hudson, 1983) [3]. How to improve agricultural land resource allocation under the premise of conservation and thus achieve sustainable agricultural development has become a hot research topic (Liu et al., 2017) [4] in addition to a strategic issue in the evolution of global ecosystems.

During the mid-to-late twentieth century, developing countries began to reform their agricultural land titling systems, issuing legally valid land title certificates and granting land mortgages on that basis. Evidence from Brazil shows that implementing agricultural land credit reform policies increased agricultural investment and led to an 88% increase in agricultural productivity (Fitz, 2018) [5]. When land assets act as collateral, they can mitigate farmers’ financing dilemmas, thus increasing their income (Cliffe, 2011) [6] and alleviating poverty (De Soto, 2000) [7]. This has become an important factor for sustainable rural development in developing countries (Chen et al., 2021) [8]. In China, three-year pilot agricultural land mortgage loans have similarly demonstrated the positive effects of property rights reform on sustainable agricultural development (Wu and Liu, 2021) [9]. Thus, as an important natural resource, agricultural land can give full play to its capital attributes when it realizes its secured financing function. This is a way to not only utilize agricultural land efficiently, but also promote sustainable agricultural development.

Farmers’ intention to participate in property rights reform and agricultural land financing affects the efficiency of land use. Such intention is influenced by various factors. In this regard, researchers have explored several aspects. First, studies have examined the effects of internal factors, such as farmer and household characteristics, on the demand for agricultural land financing. Tian et al. (2019) found that the factors affecting the financing demand of agricultural business entities were farmers’ literacy, the type of family farm operation, land area [10], farmers’ perceptions of agricultural land financing policies, financing effects, and financing difficulties (Ma and Luo, 2018) [11]. Second, researchers analyzed the influence of external factors, such as social capital, financing mode, and financial environment, on the intention to finance agricultural land. Liu et al. (2020) found that the relationship between farmers and the friends, relatives, or acquaintances of financial institution staff positively influenced farmers’ intention to participate [12]. Market-led agricultural land financing was shown to be more attractive to farmers than top-down government-driven models (Cao and Luo, 2020) [13]. Further, agricultural insurance participation and post-loan bank supervision were found to have positive effects on mortgage financing for agricultural land management rights (Chen et al., 2019) [14]. Few studies, however, have focused on the effect of farmers’ agricultural land value perceptions on their agricultural land financing needs. This presents an opportunity to explore farmers’ intention to participate in agricultural land financing in terms of their perceptions of sustainable development value.

Gladwin et al. (1989) introduced the concept of value perceptions in research on farm household behavior. The agricultural land value perceptions of farm households play a key role in their land use behavior and realization of the capital value of land [15]. In the field of environmental behavior, Stern et al. (1998) classified values as egoistic, altruistic, or ecological [16]. Differences in countries’ natural environments and production methods have led to different perceptions of land value among farmers. Chinese farmers’ attachment to land is deeply influenced by traditional culture. Changes in agricultural land systems have enhanced farmers’ perceptions of the short-term economic value of land, and egoistic values may lead farmers to adopt production behaviors that undermine the sustainability of arable land resources (Zheng et al., 2020) [17]. Awasthi et al. (2014) noted that in recent decades, although developing countries have achieved economic diversification and significant growth, agricultural land remains the main pillar of the livelihood system of the poor, who have strong perceptions of the economic value of agricultural land [18]. In China, however, with accelerated urbanization, farmers’ concepts of land value have changed from egoistic values—which include social security, economic security, and emotional attachment—to ecological values, which include pro-environmental behaviors (Kollmuss et al., 2002) [19]. Perceptions of the sustainable development value of agricultural land refers to farmers’ awareness of the importance of various aspects of land based on resources and the overall ecosystem, with an emphasis on long-term, stable, sustainable development formed during agricultural production and operation processes (Issahaku and Abdulai, 2020) [20]. Specifically, perceptions of the sustainable development value of agricultural land include farmers’ evaluations of four aspects of agricultural land: economic value, social security value, ecological value, and emotional value. It is necessary, therefore, to consider how to guide farmers to form perceptions of agricultural land value that are compatible with the concept of sustainable development and to clarify the influence mechanism of perceptions of sustainable development value on farmers’ participation in land financing. This can help improve agricultural land use efficiency, support governance needs with regard to the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature, and promote the sustainable development of agriculture.

To close this gap, this study constructed a theoretical framework for the effects of farmers’ perceptions of sustainable development value on their intention to pursue agricultural land financing. We used data from 1652 farming households in Shaanxi Province, China, to examine the influence of farmers’ perceptions of the sustainability value of agricultural land on their willingness for agricultural land secured financing. The following questions were addressed in this study:

(i)

Whether farmers’ perceptions of the economic value, security value, emotional value, and ecological value of agricultural land influenced their intention to seek out land financing from the demand side;

(ii)

Whether farmers’ social capital had a moderating effect on the relationship between the farmers’ perceptions of the sustainability value of agricultural land and their intention to pursue agricultural land financing.

The implication of this study contributes toward promoting agricultural land secured financing to increase the efficient use of land resources, which is an essential component for the sustainable development of agriculture. The findings can enrich theories of farmers’ motivation, provide a reference for developing financial policies related to agricultural land, and support the innovation of rural financial products based on perceptions of the sustainability value of agricultural land.

2. Theoretical Analysis

2.1. Effect of Value Perception on Willingness for Agricultural Land Secured Financing

Perception of the value of agricultural land is a prerequisite for farmers’ intention to participate in land financing. The theory of planned behavior (TPB), which explains individual decision-making behavior from the perspective of information processing, has been widely used to study people’s complex behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991) [21]. TPB takes an individual’s perception of objective factors as a logical starting point, and measures the influence of factors such as individual conditions and the external environment on behavioral intentions by introducing perceptual behavioral variables (Meijer et al., 2015 [22]; Sarma, 2022 [23]). Agricultural land value perception and land financing decisions involve four main components: information source, information acquisition, farmer perception (information processing), and behavioral response (Feng et al., 2020) [24]. Information sources reach farmers through village cadres, credit officers, and media such as TV and cell phones. After farmers receive information about land value and agricultural land financing, they process the information. Under the combined effect of the external environment (land market, capital market, labor market, and social security) and internal factors (personal conditions, family characteristics, resource endowment, existing perceptions, and experiences), farmers’ value perceptions influence their judgment of the value composition and importance of agricultural land, which, in turn, affect land financing intentions and land use behavior.

2.1.1. Perceptions of Economic Value and Willingness for Agricultural Land Secured Financing

Farmers’ perceptions of the economic value of land refers specifically to their perceptions of the capital value of land. Capital value refers to the value of contracted management rights to agricultural land transferred to other agricultural business entities (through leasing, shareholding cooperation, or equity participation) to obtain rent, shareholding income, or dividends; it also refers to the value of agricultural land used as collateral to apply for loans from financial institutions. With the increasing marketization of agricultural land in China and the diversification of farmers’ income sources, farmers’ perceptions of agricultural land value have gradually shifted from a “means of making a living” to a “way to get rich.” They have also gradually formed positive expectations of the property value of agricultural land (Hu, 2020) [25]. Therefore, the higher the perceived economic value of agricultural land and the greater the recognition of the capital attributes of land, the stronger the intention to pursue agricultural land financing. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Farmers’ perceptions of the economic value of agricultural land are positively correlated with their intention to obtain secured financing.

2.1.2. Perceptions of Social Security Value and Willingness for Agricultural Land Secured Financing

The social security function of agricultural land is expressed, first, as the income obtained from agricultural production activities using land as a factor of production and, second, as retirement and employment security. Farmers’ perceptions of the value of agricultural land security include their awareness of the importance of the functions of agricultural land for obtaining production income and providing retirement and employment security. With the widespread implementation of a new type of pension insurance for rural residents and the increase in non-agricultural employment channels, agricultural land owned by farm households has largely lost its original security function (Xu et al., 2018) [26]. However, the instability of non-agricultural employment, urban–rural differences in minimum subsistence security, and imperfect medical and pension security systems make it difficult for farmers to completely sever ties with their land. Thus, agricultural land remains a basic means of maintaining minimum subsistence security. Accordingly, the higher the perceived social security value of agricultural land, the lower the intention to place agricultural land into secured financing. The following is, therefore, proposed:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Farmers’ perceptions of the security value of agricultural land are negatively correlated with their intention to obtain secured financing.

2.1.3. Perceptions of Ecological Value and Willingness for Agricultural Land Secured Financing

With China’s ongoing rural revitalization strategy, farmers now pay more attention to the ecological conservation and cultural functions of agricultural landscapes, which have become salient. Ecological value perception refers to farmers’ perceptions of the ecological service value of agricultural land, which can include air purification, water conservation, environment beautification, and biodiversity maintenance. Farmers’ recognition of the multifunctional value of agricultural land translates into decision-making about land use behavior. Shi et al. (2017) suggested that the higher the perceived ecological value, the stronger the intention to participate in ecological governance and cooperation in agricultural land conservation [27]. In other words, the more farmers value the natural attributes of agricultural land, the less they use and develop its capital value attributes, and the weaker their intention to use it as collateral for financing. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Farmers’ perceptions of the ecological value of agricultural land are negatively correlated with their intention to obtain secured financing.

2.1.4. Perceptions of Emotional Value and Willingness for Agricultural Land Secured Financing

The complicated relationship between people and land in China has caused farmers to develop a sense of loving, cherishing, and possessing the land, thus creating a special emotional attachment to agricultural land. The identity attributes arising from this relationship result in farmers having a strong emotional value perception of agricultural land. The emotional value of agricultural land, such as social and ecological values, mainly reflects farmers’ satisfaction with their spiritual life—a value that cannot be measured in material terms and reflects a higher level of security needs beyond physiological needs (Shi et al., 2019) [28]. Therefore, the stronger the sense of identity, and the more emotion invested in agricultural land, the more conservative and cautious farmers are in their use of agricultural land, and the weaker their intention to participate in agricultural land financing. Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Farmers’ perceptions of the emotional value of agricultural land are negatively correlated with their intention to obtain secured financing.

2.2. Effect of Social Capital on Willingness for Agricultural Land Secured Financing

Rural societies consist of relational networks characterized by the order of stratified closeness. Social capital has positive externalities in rural productive activities and influences individual perceptions, intentions, and behavioral decisions (Michelini, 2013) [29]. Social capital does not refer to a single social relationship but to a network of social relationships defined by three dimensions: social trust, social network, and social participation. These not only directly affect farmers’ intention to participate in the secured financing of agricultural land but can also reinforce or buffer this influence. Social capital improves the efficiency of farmers’ information acquisition and feedback through social networks, which, in turn, improves the knowledge accumulation and knowledge structure of perception subjects. It reduces information asymmetry in the process of agricultural land financing through social trust and facilitates the guarantee mechanism of key subjects, such as village cadres and credit officers. Moreover, it enables farmers to obtain a certain identity through social participation, which influences their values, emotions, and behaviors. It also enhances their attention to and understanding of national events, social news, and agricultural policies, which helps improve their expectations of modern agricultural development prospects and thus show higher motivation for the financial reform of agricultural land. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Social capital has a positive effect on farmers’ intention to secure agricultural land financing and moderates value perception’s effect on intention to participate.

To summarize, Figure 1 shows the path of the effect of farmers’ perceptions of the sustainable development value of agricultural land on their intention to obtain secured financing.

3. Method

3.1. Data Source

Data were obtained from a field study on farmers’ value perceptions and agricultural land financing guarantees conducted by the research team from January to March 2021 in three regions of Shaanxi Province: Guanzhong area, southern Shaanxi, and northern Shaanxi. Stratified random sampling and one-to-one semi-structured interview methods were used. First, 10 districts (counties) in Xi’an and Baoji in Guanzhong area, Ankang and Hanzhong in southern Shaanxi, and Yan’an and Yulin in northern Shaanxi were randomly selected. Two to three townships in each district (county) were randomly selected, four to five villages in each township were randomly selected, and a sample of 10–20 households was randomly selected according to village population and the size of agricultural land. The survey analyzed a total of 90 administrative villages and interviewed 1700 business entities, with a valid sample of 1652 households and an effective rate of 97.2%, indicating good representation. Figure 2 intuitively shows the research area of this study. The questionnaire covered basic information about individual farmers and their families, farmers’ perceptions of agricultural land value, farmers’ social capital, and their intention to secure agricultural land financing.

Table 1. Basic characteristics of the sample.

Item	Category	Percent (%)	Item	Category	Percent (%)
Household Gender	Male	58.1	Household member count	1–2	1.9
	Female	41.9		3–4	49.8
Age	20–30	13.1		5–6	38.4
	30–40	16.4		7 and above	9.9
	40–50	41.2	Proportion of nonagricultural income	20% and below	32.3
	50–60	22.2		20–40%	14.6
	60 and above	7.1		40–60%	19.2
Education	Elementary and below	14.6		60–80%	15.1
	Middle school	37.2		80% and above	18.8
	High school	28.8	Agricultural land area	0–5 mu	64.4
	College and above	19.4		5–10 mu	17.5
Business type	Ordinary farmers	82.6		10–20 mu	8.1
	New forms of business entities	17.4		20 mu and above	10.0

shows the basic characteristics of the sample.

3.2. Model Selection

Based on theoretical analysis and previous literature, this study constructed a model of the relevant influencing factors, including farmers’ perceptions of sustainable development value, social capital, and willingness for agricultural land secured financing. The explained variable was intention to obtain secured financing, which is a discrete binary variable. Thus, the probit model was used for empirical analysis in the following form:

Pr (Yi = 1│Xi) = Φ (α + βVCi + γXi),

(1)

where Y = 1 indicates that farmers intend to participate in agricultural land financing, and Y = 0 indicates that farmers do not intend to participate. VCi indicates the level of the perception of agricultural land sustainability value of the ith farmer; Xi is the control variable that influences the intention of the ith farmer to pursue agricultural land financing.

We used Stata 13.1 to test the effect of farmers’ value perceptions of agricultural land on their intention to obtain agricultural land secured financing. The models were regressed for the impact of economic, social security, ecological, emotional, and sustainability value perception on willingness for secured financing.

3.3. Variable Selection and Measurement

3.3.1. Dependent Variable: Intention to Obtain Agricultural Land Secured Financing

Due to the particular arrangement of China’s agricultural land system, scholars have carried out much research on farmers’ willingness and influencing factors to participate in agricultural land financings, such as Xiao Y et al. (2012), Cao Y et al. (2014) and Niu et al. (2015) [30,31,32]. Farmers’ willingness to obtain mortgage financing is divided into willing and unwilling, regarded as a typical binary choice problem. Our study is also a binary selection problem, so it also follows the setting method of this dependent variable. The dependent variable was farmers’ intention to participate in secured financing for agricultural land—that is, whether farmers intended to use secured agricultural land financing in the case of capital shortage after the end of the pilot mortgage loan for agricultural land management rights; 1 indicated intention, and 0 indicated no intention. The results showed that 56.6% of farmers were willing to participate in agricultural land financing. This indicated that agricultural land guarantee financing has become a feasible way for farmers to solve the problem of capital shortage after the end of the pilot project, although overall market demand is not high.

3.3.2. Core Independent Variable: Perception of the Sustainable Development Value of Agricultural Land

The core independent variable was farmers’ perceptions of the sustainable development value of agricultural land, including economic value, social security value, ecological value, and emotional value. Drawing on the literature, all questions related to agricultural land value perception were designed in the form of five-point Likert scales, where values of 1–5 corresponded to “strongly disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” “neutral,” “somewhat agree,” and “strongly agree” (

Table 2. Description of agricultural land value perception variables of farm households.

Dimension	Measured Item	Measurement
Perception of economic value	Agree that agricultural land has economic income value, such as obtaining rent and dividends	Assigned value 1–5
	Agree that agricultural land has capital value, such as guaranteeing financing from financial institutions	Assigned value 1–5
Perception of social security value	Agree that agricultural land has value for growing crops to ensure basic subsistence	Assigned value 1–5
	Agree that agricultural land has value for securing farmers’ retirement	Assigned value 1–5
	Agree that agricultural land has value for securing employment for farmers	Assigned value 1–5
Perception of ecological value	Agree that agricultural land has value for purifying air and conserving water	Assigned value 1–5
	Agree that agricultural land has value for beautifying the environment and preserving biodiversity	Assigned value 1–5
Perception of emotional value	Agree that agricultural land has value for identity and cultural heritage	Assigned value 1–5
	Agree that agricultural land has value for emotional support and nostalgic comfort	Assigned value 1–5

). Based on the entropy method, a comprehensive index of farmers’ perceptions of the sustainable development value of agricultural land was calculated.

Reliability and validity analyses were conducted using SPSS to assess the correlation between the core independent variables and the variables. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The reliability of the four dimensions of agricultural land value perception was 0.782, indicating that the questions selected as the core independent variables of the questionnaire had good reliability. KMO and Bartlett’s sphericity tests were performed using SPSS. Bartlett’s sphericity test corresponded to a p-value of 0.000, indicating that the questionnaire data were suitable for factor analysis. The KMO value was 0.759, also indicating good validity. Then, the correspondence between questions and factors was analyzed. The extracted common factors were greater than 0.8, and the percentage explaining the questionnaire data was 65.3%, indicating that the extracted common factors could explain the data, and the validity of the questionnaire was good.

3.3.3. Moderating Variable: Social Capital

Based on our theoretical analysis, the three dimensions of social network, social trust, and social participation were selected to measure farmers’ social capital. Among them, social network was measured by the number of village cadres among relatives and friends, the number of people employed in government departments or financial institutions, the number of people who could lend money in times of difficulty, and the total amount of gift spending in 2020. Social trust was measured by the degree of farmers’ trust in relatives and friends, village cadres, and rural credit officers. Social participation was measured by the degree of participation in village collective activities, degree of attention to national events and social news, and degree of communication and discussion with village people. All variables were scored on a five-point Likert scale based on interval values or farmers’ evaluations. The social capital index was calculated for each sample household using the same entropy weighting method.

Table 3. Description of social capital variables.

Dimension	Measured Item	Measurement
Social network	Number of friends and relatives who are village officials or work in government departments or financial institutions 0–5 people = 1; 5–10 people = 2; 10–15 people = 3; 15–20 people = 4; 20 or more people = 5	Assigned value 1–5 according to the interval
	Number of people who can lend money in case of difficulty 0–5 people = 1; 5–10 people = 2; 10–15 people = 3; 15–20 people = 4; 20 or more people = 5	Assigned value 1–5 according to the interval
	Total gift expenditure in one year 0–1000 RMB = 1; 1000–2000 RMB = 2; 2000–3000 RMB = 3; 3000–4000 RMB = 4; more than 4000 RMB = 5	Assigned value 1–5 according to the interval
Social trust	Level of trust in relatives and friends	Assigned value 1–5
	Trust in village officials	Assigned value 1–5
	Trust in credit officers	Assigned value 1–5
Social participation	Frequency of participation in village collective activities	Assigned value 1–5
	How much attention you pay to regional events and social news	Assigned value 1–5
	How often you communicate and have discussions with people in your village	Assigned value 1–5

shows the variable descriptions.

3.3.4. Group Variable: Business Entity Types

We divided the sample into two categories: ordinary farmers and new forms of business entities. Farmers who only cultivated their own land were considered ordinary farmers, and new business entities included large farms that had certified and registered family farms, agricultural cooperatives, and agricultural enterprises.

3.3.5. Control Variable

Previous studies have indicated that the individual and household characteristics, agricultural production characteristics, social security characteristics, and credit constraint characteristics of farm households all influence agricultural land financing intentions. We divided the control variables into two categories: internal factors and external factors. The former included the four aspects of personal conditions, family characteristics, resource endowment, and financing experience. The latter included the four aspects of land market, labor market, capital market, and social security.

Table 4. Variable definition, assignment, and descriptive statistics.

Variable Type		Variable	Value Assignment	Mean	Standard Deviation
Dependent variable		Intend to finance agricultural land (Y)	Yes = 1; no = 0	0.516	0.500
Core independent variable		Perception of agricultural land (VC)	Entropy method obtained	0.613	0.149
Group variable		Business type (BT)	Ordinary farmers = 1; new forms of business entities = 2	1.170	0.378
Control variable	Individual conditions	Age (X1)	20–30 years old = 1; 30–40 years old = 2; 40–50 years old = 3; 50–60 years old = 4; 60 years old and older = 5	2.340	1.015
		Education (X2)	Elementary and below = 1; middle school = 2; high school = 3; college and above = 4	2.990	0.990
	Family characteristics	Household member count (X3)	Total household members (persons)	4.710	1.934
		Percent of non-agricultural income (X4)	Annual non-agricultural income/family total income	0.472	0.434
	Resource endowment	Agricultural land area (X5)	Sum of area of owned land and transferred land (mu)	14.130	70.932
		Logarithmic value of fixed assets (X6)	Total value of owned agricultural production facilities, machinery and equipment and other fixed assets (yuan)	2.146	1.789
	Financing experience	Knowledge of farmland financing guarantee policies (X7)	Very little = 1; relatively little = 2; average = 3; relatively much = 4; very much = 5	2.264	0.917
		Have formal credit experience (X8)	Yes = 1; no = 0	1.786	0.410
	Land market	Agricultural land transfer market construction (X9)	Very imperfect = 1; imperfect = 2; average = 3; relatively perfect = 4; very perfect = 5	2.850	0.690
	Capital market	Ease of access to microfinancing (X10)	Very difficult = 1; more difficult = 2; fair = 3; easier = 4; very easy = 5	2.839	0.772
	Job market	Difficulty working outside the home for employment (X11)	Very difficult = 1; more difficult = 2; fair = 3; easier = 4; very easy = 5	2.758	0.811
	Social security	Participate in social pension insurance (X12)	Yes = 1; no = 0	1.420	0.494

shows the definitions and descriptive statistics of all variables.

4. Results

4.1. Effect of Farmers’ Value Perceptions on Intention to Obtain Secured Financing

Table 5. Effects of farmers’ value perceptions on intention to finance agricultural land.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Economic value perception (VC1)	3.243 *** (0.272)
Social security value perception (VC2)		−11.736 *** (0.511)
Ecological value perception (VC3)			−9.710 *** (0.442)
Emotional value perception (VC4)				−8.574 *** (0.375)
Sustainability value perception (VC total)					−11.170 *** (0.477)
Controlled variables (X)	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled
Log likelihood	−961.4	−346.9	−496.1	−526.3	−556.1
Prob > chi2	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
PseudoR2	0.150	0.693	0.561	0.535	0.508

Note: *** p < 0.01, robust standard errors in parentheses.

shows the results of the effects of economic value perception (VC1), social security value perception (VC2), ecological value perception (VC3), emotional value perception (VC4), and sustainability value perception (VC total) on willingness for secured financing. The fitting results are promising.

The results of models 1–4 showed that farmers’ perceptions of economic value had a significant positive effect on willingness for agricultural land secured financing (coefficient of 3.243; significant at the 1% level). Perception of social security value had a significant negative effect on willingness for agricultural land secured financing (coefficient of −11.736; significant at the 1% level). Perception of ecological value had a significant negative effect (coefficient of −9.710; significant at the 1% level), and emotional value perception had a significant negative effect on willingness for agricultural land secured financing (coefficient of −8.574; significant at the 1% level). These results indicated that the higher the perceived economic value of agricultural land, the more importance farmers attached to the asset value attribute of agricultural land, and the more willing they were to use agricultural land for secured financing. Meanwhile, the higher the perceived social security, ecological, and emotional value of agricultural land, the less willing farmers were to make marketable use of agricultural land and to obtain secured financing. Therefore, hypotheses 1–4 have been verified.

The perceived sustainable development value of agricultural land is essentially an ecological civilization value and wealth concept, reflecting different levels of human needs as a development subject (e.g., material needs, security needs, psycho-emotional needs, ecological needs). Model 5 showed that farmers’ perceptions of sustainable development value had a significant negative effect on willingness for agricultural land secured financing (coefficient of −11.170; significant at the 1% level). That is, the higher the perceived sustainable development value of agricultural land, the less willing farmers were to obtain secured financing. Farm households can satisfy their capital value claims on land through market-based transfer and mortgage guarantee, and they can also satisfy their security value claims by holding land as an emotional attachment, obtaining high-quality agricultural products, and protecting the ecological environment. With rural socioeconomic transformation and urban–rural integration, farmers’ demand for the non-economic functions of land has been increasing. It is difficult to match the new development concept with a single material-oriented view of land value perception. Farmers’ perceptions of the spiritual and ecological aspects of land will gradually exceed their capital value perceptions, which, in turn, will decrease the intention to capitalize on the use of agricultural land.

4.2. Effect of Social Capital on Intention to Finance Agricultural Land

Social capital was introduced as a moderating variable to test whether it made the effect of farmers’ value perceptions on intention to finance more significant. In

Table 6. Effects of social capital on intention to finance agricultural land.

Variable	Model 6
Social capital multiplied by sustainability value perception (SC × VC total)	−5.410 * (2.629)
Social capital (SC)	5.227 ** (1.769)
Sustainability value perception (VC total)	−8.164 ** (1.280)
Controlled variables (X)	Controlled
Log likelihood	−378.1
Prob > chi2	0.000
PseudoR2	0.481

Note: ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1, robust standard errors in parentheses.

, the regression results for Model 6 show that the coefficient of social capital was 5.227 and significant at the 5% level, indicating that the effect of social capital on willingness for agricultural land secured financing was positively significant. The coefficient of the cross-term of social capital and the sustainable development value perception index was −5.410 and significant at the 10% level. Thus, Hypothesis 5 has been confirmed. This indicates that social capital played a negative moderating role in the effect of farmers’ land value perceptions on intention to finance—that is, social capital weakened the effect of farmers’ agricultural land value perceptions on intention to participate in secured agricultural land financing. Further, the effect diminished as social capital increased. This also suggests that there may be some degree of substitutability between farmers’ social capital and land value perceptions in relation to secured financing for agricultural land. Social capital, as an intangible resource owned by farmers, can generate certain economic effects and emotional support if used by farmers rationally, which can play an important role in farmers’ value perceptions and financing intentions. Usually, the more social capital farmers have, the stronger their ability to mobilize funds and share risks, and the effect on decision-making behavior will exceed subjective perceptions.

4.3. Endogeneity Test

Considering the interaction between the willingness for agricultural land secured financing and farmers’ perceptions of sustainable development value, there may be endogeneity problems caused by sample selectivity bias and mutual causation. On the one hand, a higher perceived economic value of agricultural land may make farmers more inclined to use their land as capital. On the other hand, different levels of intention to finance can produce differences in farmers’ original levels of perceived sustainable development value. Such endogeneity issues might have led to biased estimation results. Thus, the Heckman two-step method was used to address sample selection bias. After the Heckman two-step estimation, the inverse Mills ratio was found to be insignificant, indicating there was no significant selection bias in the sample, and the original regression results were robust.

Table 7. Heckman two-step regression results.

Variable	Model 7
Perception of value of sustainable development (VCtotal)	0.133 ***
	(0.010)
Other variables	Controlled
Constant	0.654 ***
	(0.177)
N	1652

Note: *** p < 0.01, robust standard errors in parentheses.

shows the regression results.

5. Discussion

With the advancement of agricultural modernization, China will see the coexistence of family operations, mainly by traditional farmers, and large-scale operations, mainly by new forms of business entities, for a long period of time. Different agricultural business entities have different perceptions of the functions and substitutability of agricultural land elements, leading to different perceptions of agricultural land value, which affects their land use behavior.

Table 8. Heterogeneity test of the effect of value perception on intention to finance.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Economic value perception multiplied by business type (VC1 × BT)	0.884 *** (0.137)
Social security value perception multiplied by business type (VC2 × BT)		−3.805 *** (1.091)
Ecological value perception multiplied by business type (VC3 × BT)			−4.996 (0.982)
Emotional value perception multiplied by business type (VC4 × BT)				−6.135 *** (0.898)
Sustainability value perception multiplied by business type (VC total × BT)					−3.891 *** (0.981)
Controlled variables (X)	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled	Controlled
Log likelihood	−470.0	−523.2	−312.5	−402.1	−417.7
Prob > chi2	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
PseudoR2	0.584	0.537	0.724	0.644	0.631

Note: *** p < 0.01, robust standard errors in parentheses.

shows the estimation results obtained by re-estimating Models 1–5 after adding the variable of business type.

In Table 8, Model 5 shows that the interaction term coefficient between the two variables of sustainable development value perception and the business entity was −3.891 and significant at the 1% level. The results indicated substantial differences between the two types of business entities in the effect of sustainable development value perception on willingness for agricultural land secured financing. This finding complemented the relevant results of Peng (2018) and Lin (2017) on the influencing factors of different agricultural business entities’ demand for agricultural land secured financing [33,34]. Specifically, there were significant differences between the two types of entities regarding the effects of economic, social security, and emotional value perceptions on the intention to finance. The differences between the two types of entities were more significant concerning perceptions of the economic and emotional value. This suggests that the economic value of agricultural land and the realization of its capital attributes are critical to the financing decision-making of new business entities.

Meanwhile, traditional farmers think more about the risk of land loss caused by agricultural land financing and various social security and collective membership issues. They prefer to realize the security and emotional attributes of agricultural land. New business entities regard the agricultural land management rights obtained through transfer as ordinary production factors. The social security function is weakened, and the perceived agricultural land value is mainly economic. However, for traditional farmers, agricultural land is the last social security. Unless the social security function of agricultural land is effectively replaced, farmers’ willingness for agricultural land secured financing will increase, which is consistent with Cheng J et al. (2014) [35]. Because of their “monopoly of property rights and identity”, the traditional farmers’ value evaluation of agricultural land contract management rights is multidimensional in terms of economic, social, and identity. They are more cautious in their land use behavior, which is consistent with the research results of Liu and Niu (2014) [36]. The property rights structure of agricultural land with separation of rights can increase the resource endowment effect of farmers and enhance the sustainable development values of various types of agricultural business entities (Yan et al., 2021) [37]. The stable land ownership structure has also had a significant positive effect on farmers’ adoption of sustainable land resource use (Yang et al., 2022) [38].

Although there are differences between small-scale farmers and large-scale farmers in agricultural production behavior for ecological protection (Chen X et al., 2021) [39], the difference between the two types of entities was not significant regarding the effect of ecological value perceptions on financing intentions. Both were generally aware of the importance of ecological protection and sustainable land use. Accordingly, financial institutions should consider the range of farmers’ land management scale and the type of business entities in selecting loan objects. Agricultural land financing will not become a financial product for long-term use by ordinary farmers. Still, it can be carried out for new business entities, which is consistent with the research results of Yu et al. (2015) [40].

As a natural resource, rural land has an ecological value that affects the function and efficiency of the ecological structure, the economic value that promotes personal income growth and socio-economic development, and the social value that meets human spiritual and cultural needs. Farmers’ perceptions and preferences regarding the value of agricultural land influence their land use behavior (Kassie et al., 2013 [41]; Kotu et al., 2022 [42]) and then affect the efficiency of land use. We are exploring the impact of farmers’ perceptions of various types of agricultural land value on their participation in agricultural land financing to improve agricultural land resource allocation efficiency, and hope to find a path to promote the sustainable development of agriculture.

Wu (2020) pointed out that the top-level value of agricultural land in China should be the social security value, including the economic value directly obtained by farmers from cultivated land resource assets [43]. With the increase in the government’s efforts to protect natural resources and the improvement of farmers’ demand level, farmers have a new evaluation of the value function of natural resources. The diversified value provided by rural land has become an important driving force for farmers to protect natural resources. In addition, China’s particular agricultural land system causes agricultural land to have a unique identity and emotional sustenance value at the same time. The sustainable development of agricultural land resources has become key to promoting economic growth (Nguyen and Drakou, 2021) [44]. Driven by their respective interests, farmers, as rational actors, have different degrees of cognition of the diversified value of agricultural land resources and other decisions on whether to participate in agricultural land financing. According to this study, farmers’ awareness of land economic value enhances the willingness for agricultural land secured financing. The comprehension of social security, ecological, and identity emotional value weakens the desire for agricultural land secured financing. Xu (2020) also reached a similar conclusion [45].

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on achieving the sustainable development of natural resources, this study attempts to theoretically find the influence mechanism and possible heterogeneity of farmers’ land value perceptions on their willingness for agricultural land secured financing. Using the probit model with regulatory effect and data from 1652 farm households in Shaanxi Province, the results revealed that farmers’ perceptions of the sustainable development value of agricultural land had a significant impact on their intention to finance. Farmers’ social capital played a vital role in the relationship between their land value perceptions and the willingness for agricultural land secured financing. There was significant heterogeneity in the effect of the perceived sustainable development value of agricultural land on intention to finance between ordinary farmers and new business entities.

Several principles that should be considered by policymakers working in this field can be gleaned from the results. When implementing policies relating to agricultural land, the government needs to recognize that the internal values held by Chinese farmers on agricultural land are intertwined with social security, ecological environment, cultural tradition, and other elements. Multiple values can guide farmers’ land use behaviors. At the same time, with the deepening of farmers’ differentiation, farmers’ livelihood and income structure have significantly changed. The value of agricultural land to farmers’ economic output has gradually weakened. Agricultural land’s internal demand for ecological and social value has steadily become the fundamental driving force for farmers to participate in agricultural land financing. Therefore, based on fully respecting the wishes of farmers, the government can guide farmers to form a scientific and comprehensive value concept of sustainable land development, improve farmers’ overall awareness of the ecological and social value of agricultural land resources, and foster an environment for sustainable land use. For example, the government could promote the market-oriented flow of agricultural land by increasing income from agricultural land, improving the public social security system in rural areas, and providing vocational training. Moreover, perceptions of the ecological value of agricultural land can be improved through the government’s policy propaganda and public welfare activities. Financial institutions can also classify their policies accordingly when offering secured financing for agricultural land. For ordinary farmers, credit products should be the main supply, and secured agricultural land financing should be used as a supplementary financial business. For new forms of business entities, the mortgage guarantee business of agricultural land management rights can continuously be carried out, and farmers’ intention to participate can be improved through policy propaganda, simplified procedures, and business innovation. Such an approach can help achieve the sustainable development of financial policy for agricultural land. Last, but not least, due to the critical role of agricultural land in farmers’ livelihood, the government still needs to establish a specific supervision mechanism to prevent farmers’ land loss risk caused by the transfer of land management rights. In addition, the government can also solve such problems by using local financial funds to establish a risk compensation fund.

This research may have the following limitations and possible research developments:

(i).

Due to China’s vast territory, there are significant differences in regional economic levels and sustainable development of agricultural land. Farmers’ cognition level of agricultural land value also has specific heterogeneity. This study only took Shaanxi Province as the study sample, which has certain limitations in the research scope;

(ii).

As a financial product, the key to the sustainable development of agricultural land secured financing lies in the dual role of supply and demand. The supply willingness of financial institutions is also the main factor affecting the agricultural land secured financing. This study only explored the development of agricultural land secured financing from the demand side, and the impact mechanism was not fully considered.

For these problems, the samples need to be expanded to other provinces (cities) for testing, in the follow-up study, to better understand the formation process of farmers’ land value cognition and explore other factors affecting rural land financing willingness. From the supply perspective, future studies need to analyze the impact of financial institutions’ value perceptions of agricultural land sustainable development on their desire to supply agricultural land financing. Moreover, different importance rankings also affect farmers’ land use behavior, which needs to be studied in follow-up research.