Ensuring Housing Security Through Farmer Apartments: A Social–Ecological System Framework Analysis of Operational Mechanisms in L Village

Abstract

This study employs the social–ecological system (SES) framework to investigate the operational mechanisms of farmer apartment housing in Village L, demonstrating how such mechanisms ensure housing security for villagers in land-constrained contexts. Through a case analysis of Village L, we reveal that the effective implementation of farmer apartments relies on four interconnected elements: socio-political and economic conditions, homestead resource allocation within the resource system, institutional governance rules, and collaborative interactions among the government, village collectives, villagers, and enterprises. By integrating fragmented resources, optimizing participatory governance, and fostering multi-stakeholder cooperation, Village L has established a closed-loop operational model of “resource intensification–democratic decision-making–synergistic co-construction”. This model preserves villagers’ homestead entitlements and addresses housing demands through centralized construction, striking a balance between equity and efficiency in land-scarce areas. The findings underscore that farmer apartment housing represents a viable pathway for achieving “housing-for-all” in resource-limited areas, contingent upon institutionalizing village collectives’ self-governance capabilities and incentivizing broader societal participation (e.g., NGOs and enterprises) to form a diversified investment framework. Policy refinements should prioritize scaling context-specific governance innovations while safeguarding farmers’ land rights during urbanization transitions, offering replicable insights for regions facing similar land use challenges.

1. Introduction

Ensuring rural residents’ access to adequate housing remains critical for safeguarding farmers’ fundamental housing rights, optimizing land resource allocation, and sustaining rural community development. Historically, the realization of rural housing rights has predominantly depended on the traditional “one house per household” residential land allocation system [1]. While this equity-oriented model served past demographic conditions, its efficacy has diminished under mounting land resource pressures. Contemporary challenges are manifested through institutional guarantee deficiencies, land scarcity amplification, and diversifying housing demands. As China’s urbanization and industrialization continue to accelerate, a significant number of rural residents are migrating to urban areas. This shift has resulted in a serious issue of idle homesteads. Moreover, many villages no longer have new homesteads available, and some eligible households are unable to secure individual homesteads for housing construction. This situation has created a contradiction between the traditional distribution of homesteads and the growing demand among farmers for stable housing. Consequently, the challenge of ensuring adequate housing for farmers has become an urgent issue that requires immediate attention. The construction of farmers’ apartments to ensure households have access to housing has been explored in regions where residential land resources are scarce. Pilot projects in provinces like Jiangxi, Guangdong, Fujian, and Hebei have successfully implemented this model, yielding positive results. This approach has addressed the limitations of the traditional system of allocating residential land, which was insufficient to guarantee adequate housing for rural households. The development of farmers’ apartments is the outcome of integrating multiple resources, coordinating diverse stakeholders, and applying various regulations within the constraints of limited land availability. This process has facilitated broader public recognition of the complex relationship between using collective land for housing construction and ultimately ensuring that participating farmers can obtain housing and secure a stable home for their families. Therefore, what operational mechanisms underpin this success? What are the key elements involved, and how are they interrelated? What is the underlying operational framework? These questions require systematic exploration to clarify how farmers’ apartments guarantee homeownership and to enhance our understanding of the different models that ensure housing security.

The inadequacy of the conventional “one house per household” policy framework in addressing contemporary resource allocation and institutional restructuring challenges has been widely documented [2,3]. This recognition has precipitated the emergence of diversified housing security mechanisms as a critical strategy for safeguarding rural housing entitlements amidst evolving socioeconomic dynamics. Based on this foundation, extant scholarship has systematically deconstructed three core dimensions of habitation security provision: the dynamics of implementation, the operational mechanisms, and the institutional rationalities within diverse institutional configurations. Scholarly inquiries have crystallized three principal operational modalities—non-compensatory allocation schemes, trans-regional resettlement programs, and collective housing arrangements—while establishing four strategic implementation pillars: integrated urban–rural development planning, multi-stakeholder collaboration mechanisms, regulatory standardization protocols, and institutional safeguard systems [4,5]. These conceptual advancements are further substantiated through granular case analyses examining innovative tenure acquisition strategies, such as selective bidding mechanisms [6,7] and cross-village housing initiatives [8], emphasizing their operational efficacy and reform implications. Within this evolving discourse, collective housing modalities—particularly farmers’ apartment complexes—have emerged as a focal research domain. The literature converges on five analytical dimensions: (1) typological configurations of built environments, (2) contextual implementation prerequisites, (3) operational practice constraints, (4) adaptive policy remediation strategies, and (5) multilayered regulatory safeguards governing tenure arrangements. Empirical investigations delineate three prototypical configurations, multi-household co-production frameworks [5], autonomous vernacular construction systems [9], and state-coordinated standardized development models [10], with demonstrable efficacy observed in pilot zones spanning Zhejiang’s Zhuji Municipality, Jiangxi’s Wufeng County, and Beijing’s Daxing District. Theoretical syntheses employing embeddedness theory and human–land relations–industrial development frameworks [11,12] reveal these modalities’ particular suitability for regions grappling with acute land scarcity, persistent housing demand, intensified human–land conflicts, and constrained industrial growth, contexts necessitating urgent resource optimization. However, critical analyses expose systemic constraints, including municipal fiscal limitations, rural collective financing capacities, and localized market demand fluctuations [13], underscoring the imperative for robust financial oversight mechanisms and diversified capital mobilization strategies. Institutionalization efforts necessitate integrated legal frameworks encompassing village spatial planning systems, collective property right delineation protocols, capital flow supervision mechanisms, homestead transfer compensation schemes, and standardized rental management regulations [14,15,16]. Despite these advancements, the literature exhibits two persistent gaps: (1) insufficient theorization of systematic housing stabilization mechanisms and (2) fragmented case analyses inadequately addressing the complex element interactions and operational logics inherent in farmers’ apartment ecosystems.

This study focuses on the innovative practice of rural apartments in L Village as a case study. It analyzes the complex interaction mechanisms of resource integration, institutional innovation, and subject synergy in rural housing security, framed through the social–ecological system (SES) lens. By constructing a framework for analyzing the social ecosystem of farmers’ apartments, this study identifies key elements within the ecosystem, examines their interactions, and reveals the operational mechanisms of farmers’ apartments in a typical case. The research addresses the challenges of implementing the traditional “one household, one house” system within the constraints of land resources. The study further explores pathways to balance housing security with the intensive use of land in urban–rural development, providing theoretically robust and practically valuable solutions.

This research offers theoretical insights into the reform of the homestead system, but it also provides significant policy implications for the sustainable development of rural revitalization and new urbanization. Building on the existing literature, this study is expected to make notable contributions in terms of theory and practice.

• Expansion of Theoretical Perspectives: Moving beyond the traditional linear “system-behavior” model in homestead research, this study introduces the social–ecological system (SES) framework for analyzing farmers’ apartments for the first time. By integrating multidimensional analytical units, such as “resource system, governance rules, action subjects, and external environment”, the study constructs a theoretical model that systematically explains the operational mechanisms of farmers’ apartments. This provides a new paradigm for addressing the complexity of housing security under land resource constraints.
• Innovation in Practice: This research offers innovative solutions to the challenge of secure housing for farmers in areas with limited land resources. By analyzing the systematic operation mechanisms of farmers’ apartments, the study aims to optimize relevant policies and practices. Furthermore, it encourages cooperation among all social forces to promote the sustainable development of rural society.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Research on Chinese Farmers’ Housing: Current Status

China’s rural housing system has undergone significant changes in recent years, attracting extensive scholarly attention. Under the collective ownership system, the homestead system, while ensuring the fundamental housing right of “one household, one house” [17], has led to a rigid allocation of usage rights, resulting in a misallocation of land resources. This has contributed to a paradoxical situation where the per capita housing area increases alongside a rising vacancy rate [18,19,20]. Research on the current state of rural housing primarily focuses on the following three aspects.

Housing quality and living conditions: To address the issue of substandard housing for low-income families in rural areas, the government has implemented the Dangerous Housing Rehabilitation Program, significantly enhancing housing quality and, in turn, improving villagers’ life satisfaction and overall well-being [21]. However, despite improvements in housing conditions, some studies highlight persistent gaps in infrastructure and facilities, particularly in remote areas [22].Overall, the literature indicates that although state intervention has led to better housing quality in rural China, there remains a need for further upgrades in infrastructure and public services to create truly livable communities [23,24].

Homestead land rights and housing security: Another stream of research focuses on rural land tenure and its implications for housing. The traditional homestead system primarily emphasizes its social security function while restricting its transferability, thereby preventing the full realization of the homestead’s property value [25,26]. To address this issue, the three-rights separation reform seeks to resolve the dilemma surrounding property rights by activating the asset value through the transfer of development rights (RHDR pilot) [27]. However, the strengthening of property rights carries potential risks; if mismanaged, the commodification of homesteads could undermine the long-term security of farmers [2]. In addition, some studies have found that homesteads have a profound social value [28].Consequently, this paper underscores the importance of maintaining a delicate balance between unlocking the economic potential of rural housing land and safeguarding farmers’ housing rights.

Impacts of urbanization and migration: The process of urbanization, coupled with population migration, has led to the spatial alienation of rural housing, exacerbating the issue of “hollow villages” [29]. Despite living in cities for extended periods, migrant families often construct new houses in their hometowns, viewing them as cultural heritage or as a reserve for old age. This practice further contributes to housing vacancies and resource wastage. This phenomenon has dual effects. On the one hand, remittances from migrants facilitate the modernization and improvement of rural housing design [30]. On the other hand, housing vacancies coexist with the housing challenges faced by marginalized groups. Li et al. (2021) highlighted the significant polarization in housing conditions across migrant-sending regions, where affluent families construct luxurious homes while poorer families struggle to afford basic repairs for their aging houses [31]. In response to these issues, policies have increasingly supported the integration of rural settlements and the development of centralized farmers’ housing, which lays the groundwork for the exploration of the “farmers’ apartment” model. Recent research indicates that rural residents’ housing choices within the context of urban–rural integration exhibit both intergenerational and spatial variations. Younger populations tend to favor urban housing and embrace an urban–rural hybrid lifestyle [32]. Simultaneously, rural housing reforms focus on inclusivity and sustainability, aiming to activate property rights and promote cross-village distribution [33]. Moreover, improved housing conditions significantly influence the social class identity of rural residents, particularly benefiting higher-income groups [34].

In summary, current research on Chinese farmers’ housing underscores significant improvements in physical conditions and space per household alongside persistent challenges in efficient land use and equitable quality. The homestead land system, while providing a baseline of housing security, is being reformed to address inefficiencies and unlock value. These reforms, coupled with public housing programs, aim to bolster housing security without eroding farmers’ rights. However, gaps remain in fully meeting the housing needs of all rural residents, especially amidst urbanization and demographic shifts. This sets the stage for examining an innovative housing model, “farmer apartments”, which comprise centralized, multi-party developed rural housing, as a potential solution for ensuring housing security while optimizing land use.

2.2. Research on Chinese “Farmer Apartments”

In response to the challenges above, some regions in China have experimented with centralized farmer apartments—multi-story residential buildings constructed for rural villager through collective initiatives and government support to ensure housing security and economize land. These projects, often built on rural collective construction land, represent a new model distinct from traditional scattered farmsteads. Although the term “farmer apartment” is relatively new, it aligns with policies like Rural Centralized Residence (RCR) and the “Increasing vs. Decreasing Balance” land consolidation scheme. Over the past decade, a growing body of literature has analyzed these experiments from various perspectives, including land use efficiency, socioeconomic outcomes, and governance mechanisms.

Land consolidation and housing model: Many studies have examined peasant apartments within the context of China’s policy aimed at reducing rural building land (homesteads) to conserve arable land. This strategy encourages the migration of rural residents to centralized communities. For instance, in Chongqing’s “land voucher program”, farmers who vacate their homesteads and return the land to agricultural use are granted subsidized apartments in newly constructed village collective housing areas, which are funded through land quota auctions [35]. Forrester views this as a potential solution to land conflicts by balancing the land and housing needs of both urban and rural areas. Li et al. (2021) demonstrated that the “small parcels to large parcels” model in Henan province successfully consolidated scattered farmhouses into multi-family dwellings, restored a significant amount of arable land, and enhanced land use efficiency, all while providing farmers with modern housing options [31].

Social–economic outcomes of centralized housing: The primary research focus has been on how the relocation of farmers’ apartments impacts the lives, communities, and overall satisfaction of rural residents. On the positive side, studies consistently report improvements in living standards. Residents gain access to new amenities, as condominium projects are often equipped with paved roads, running water, sewage systems, and, sometimes, schools or clinics [36]. These findings align with research indicating that rural community relocation (RCR) policies enhance villagers’ satisfaction with local infrastructure [26] and health outcomes [28]. Additionally, centralized communities can stimulate local non-agricultural employment. By concentrating populations, these communities attract small businesses and facilitate the development of township enterprises or service centers. A study conducted in Zhejiang observed that multi-story rural communities enable collective management of retail stores and rental spaces, generating income for both villagers and local collectives [5]. Such findings suggest that farmers’ apartments contribute to rural economic diversification and community development, aligning with the goals of China’s rural revitalization strategy. However, other studies reveal that farmers’ apartment programs face numerous challenges, yielding mixed outcomes. Relocated farmers often face difficulties in livelihood maintenance and social adaptation. For instance, Wang et al. (2020) found that in Chongqing’s land voucher resettlement program, some farmers’ livelihoods were disrupted due to the loss of farmland or space for sideline businesses [36]. Similarly, Chen et al. (2020) [37] pointed out that the success of Chongqing’s “land voucher” program relied heavily on a robust urban job market. Without sufficient economic support, less developed areas are prone to experiencing the phenomenon of “empty shell houses” [37]. In terms of social adaptation, the relocation of villagers from various villages may weaken traditional rural social networks, complicating the adaptation process [38]. However, Guizhou has successfully mitigated these challenges by incorporating cultural features and public spaces into the design of farmers’ apartments [19]. Moreover, while much of the current research focuses on structural and institutional aspects related to housing safety, the resilience of rural housing and its supporting infrastructure in the face of natural disasters deserves further attention. Although these research domains differ, the methodologies used in studies on the seismic performance of shield tunnels could serve as valuable references for enhancing the safety of rural housing [39].

Governance and implementation: Successful cases like L Village (the subject of our study) and others are often characterized by strong village leadership and inclusive decision making. In a study of a Zhejiang “flat-for-flat” scheme, James et al. (1995) noted that clear property rights arrangements (e.g., farmers receiving a title to new units and shares in collective income) and transparent deliberation in the village assembly built trust in the project [40]. Furthermore, under rural revitalization strategies, housing security reforms emphasizing farmer-centric approaches and flexible localized practices are proposed, integrating housing security, rural industrial revitalization, and farmland protection [14]. The internal logic linking rural homestead circulation and housing security has also been analyzed, highlighting the need for precise policy interventions addressing differentiated housing demands emerging from farmer stratification processes [41].

In summary, the emerging body of literature on “farmer apartments” in China indicates that centralized rural housing can significantly enhance housing security, living conditions, and land use efficiency for farmers, aligning with sustainable development goals [22,28]. Empirical evidence from various regions (Chongqing, Sichuan, Zhejiang, etc.) shows improvements in infrastructure, public service access, and even human capital outcomes like health. At the same time, these studies caution that housing security must be coupled with livelihood security, necessitating supportive measures, such as job creation, skill training, or transportation for relocated villagers [37]. They also underscore that procedural justice and local governance (participation, fair compensation, and community building) are vital for the long-term success of farmer apartment projects. These insights set the foundation for identifying gaps in the literature and how our research will contribute.

2.3. Literature Gaps and Research Contribution

Existing research has significantly advanced our understanding of rural housing and farmers’ apartments; however, three key gaps remain. First, most studies focus on individual policies or outcomes (e.g., economic effects of land reform, relocation satisfaction) but fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of the complete operating mechanism of the “context-input-governance-housing security outcomes” framework. This limits insights into the dynamic interaction logic of social–ecological systems at the community level. This study addresses this gap by applying the social–ecological system (SES) framework, integrating “resources, actors, institutions, and interactions” into a unified analysis to examine the complex connections between land policy, community governance, and social outcomes [42]. Second, research on farmers’ apartments tends to be geographically limited, often focusing on well-known pilot areas like Chongqing and Chengdu or using aggregated data without in-depth field studies in regions with high economic development and strong autonomy. This study contributes to filling this gap by conducting a detailed analysis of the entire project planning and construction process in L Village, a case from eastern China. This enriches the empirical sample and enhances the generalizability of the findings. Third, existing studies have yet to explore the interaction mechanisms between multiple stakeholders (government, village collectives, farmers, enterprises, etc.) in housing projects, nor have they clarified how village collectives can coordinate policies and public opinion or how external actors can contribute to the sustainable operation of these projects. This study, using L Village as a case study, focuses on practical paths, such as democratic decision making (villagers’ assembly, participatory planning) and multi-party cooperation (collaboration with financing institutions). It responds to calls for innovation in the village housing security system and bridges the gap between theory and practice [23]. In summary, this study fills theoretical gaps by employing the SES framework, broadens empirical boundaries with differentiated case studies, and deepens governance research through mechanism analysis, offering a fresh perspective on the theoretical development and practical optimization of rural housing security.

3. Theoretical Analytical Framework

Farmers’ apartments are a systematic initiative to ensure that rural households have secure housing. The construction of these apartments not only involves the efficient mobilization and utilization of existing resources within the village but also necessitates the establishment of corresponding operational rules to optimize the roles of key stakeholders. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure farmers can access adequate living spaces. In this process, the social–ecological system (SES) framework is often employed, as it underscores the complex interactions and interdependencies among system components and the dynamic equilibrium between the system and its external environment. The application of the SES framework in securing housing for rural households provides valuable insights into the interaction processes within the village as a multifaceted system. By analyzing these interactions, the framework facilitates the identification of the system’s operating mechanisms, offering critical lessons that can inform policy and practice in similar regions.

3.1. The Social–Ecological System (SES) Framework and Its Applicability

The social–ecological system (SES) framework, pioneered by Ostrom through her Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, systematically examines the interdependencies between social and ecological subsystems in complex adaptive systems [43]. As an evolutionary advancement in collective action theory, this framework demonstrates enduring theoretical vitality through continuous paradigm refinement and cross-disciplinary application [44]. Its foundational application in public pond resource studies reveals how socio-ecological couplings operate through four core subsystems—resource systems (RS), resource units (RU), governance systems (GS), and actors (A)—whose interactions define systemic behaviors [45]. Whereas the IAD framework offers macro-level institutional diagnostics, the SES framework overcomes its predecessor’s limitations in granularity by integrating a multidimensional variable architecture [46]. This innovation enables precise mapping of component relationships, empowering researchers to decode context-specific system dynamics and identify causal mechanisms governing functionality. Structurally, the framework operates through dual analytical strata (Figure 1). The primary stratum coordinates eight elements: four subsystems (RS, RU, GS, A) interact within action situations to co-produce processes and outcomes moderated by external socioeconomic settings (S) and ecological conditions (ECO), forces that reshape system trajectories. The operational variables expand these components in the secondary stratum—sectoral scope, boundary definition, and spatial scale characterize RS; RU is characterized by mobility patterns, valuation metrics, quantity thresholds, and spatiotemporal configurations; GS is characterized by institutional hierarchies, rule typologies, and compliance regimes; and A is characterized by demographic composition, socioeconomic stratification, and historical resource engagement. Extensive scholarly validation has crystallized these variables into diagnostic tools for disentangling complex socio-ecological mechanisms.

The traditional “one residence per household” system of residential land allocation has led to the inefficient utilization of land resources. It has failed to meet the housing needs of some farmers, resulting in a “tragedy of the commons” scenario. A primary objective of farmers’ apartments is to address these housing needs. Theoretically, as long as households meet the established requirements related to household registration and land subdivision, they can access these apartments rather than be permanently excluded. In this sense, farmers’ apartments function as a public resource pool. Moreover, ensuring that farmers have access to adequate housing serves as a supplement to the traditional residential land allocation system, offering diverse solutions to meet the housing demands of farmers. This process still involves the rational allocation of residential land resources, which, in the existing literature, is often characterized as a form of public pool resource [47]. Therefore, the social–ecological system framework can be applied to explain the operational mechanism of farmers’ apartments and their role in securing housing for households. The advantages of the SES framework over other frameworks are as follows:

• Resource and Governance Integration: The SES framework integrates the resource system (RS) with the governance system (GS), addressing the impact of resource constraints (e.g., per capita housing space) on policy effectiveness, which the IAD framework overlooks. It accounts for factors like land, financial support, and policy instruments in rural housing security.
• Clear Rule System: SES provides a hierarchical rule system (constitutional, collective choice, and operational rules) that improves policy formulation, deliberation, and monitoring. This clarity allows policymakers to address rural housing challenges more effectively, unlike the IAD framework, which lacks operational clarity.
• Flexible Actor Network: SES adapts to complex interactions among multiple actors (residents, government, market) and different rural contexts, unlike property rights economics, which assumes a single rational actor. It offers flexibility, as seen in the shift from “land exchange” to “idle land transfer”, improving policy implementation and addressing land resource underutilization.

This figure presents the core structure of the social–ecological system (SES) framework, which systematically analyzes the interdependencies between resource systems (RS), resource units (RU), governance systems (GS), and actors (A) in complex adaptive systems.

3.2. SES Framework for the Operational Mechanism of Farmers’ Apartments

The operational mechanism refers to the inherent processes and principles through which the elements of a system, organization, or entity are interconnected and interact to achieve a specific goal or function. Analyzing this mechanism involves identifying its components, the interaction process, and the practices employed to achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, within the framework of the social–ecological system, this paper will examine the operational mechanism of farmers’ apartments by focusing on the identification of elements, the interaction process, and operational practices, thereby providing a clear explanation of the mechanism, as shown in Figure 2.

The realization of secure housing for farmers’ apartments results from the synergistic operation of social–ecological system elements driven by socio-political and economic contexts. The reform of the homestead system created institutional space for resource integration, fostering urban–rural element flow and diversifying housing demands. This transformation shifted traditional housing models toward more intensive land use. By clarifying ownership boundaries and optimizing spatial layouts, dispersed residential land was converted into efficiently utilized construction land. Resource units increased asset mobility and functional mixes, meeting housing needs. A collaborative network of stakeholders—”government guidance, villagers’ main role, enterprise participation”—ensures policy efficiency and safeguards villagers’ rights. Governance system rules, through constitutional authorization, democratic decision making, detailed operations, and supervision, institutionalize interaction among elements. This process integrates housing security via spatial reconstruction, property rights balance, and governance upgrades, overcoming land constraints and aligning residential security with development rights.

The socio-political and economic contexts (S) are critical for securing farmers’ housing. Residential land reform created a favorable policy environment. At the same time, economic development facilitated more factor flow between urban and rural areas, with some villages transitioning from agricultural production to industry, leading to differentiated housing needs.

The resource system (RS) includes resource boundaries, geographic location, residential base size, infrastructure, and residential land stock. Resource units (RU) include factors like homestead size, use, mobility, and property attributes.

Various actors (A)—the government, village collectives, villagers, and enterprises—are essential in ensuring housing security. Grassroots governance, villagers’ sense of access, and satisfaction affect project success.

The governance system, involving government guidance and non-governmental participation, relies on constitutional, collective choice, operational, and monitoring rules. Constitutional rules set the framework for collective decision making, operational rules guide daily behaviors, and monitoring rules ensure resource use regulation. Building farmers’ apartments involves member determination, plan finalization, feedback gathering, and subsequent supervision, forming the operational framework for development.

This paper focuses on the internal operational mechanism of farmers’ apartments without delving into the ecosystem’s impact. In conclusion, socioeconomic and political factors, as well as resource systems and units, jointly act to form a governance system that defines and sets rules. These actors’ interactions and mutual influence are needed for the construction of farmers’ apartments and the realization of secure housing for rural residents.

This figure illustrates the dynamic interactions among four core subsystems of the social–ecological system (SES) framework—resource systems (RS), governance systems (GS), actors (A), and resource units (RU)—shaping the operational mechanism of farmers’ apartments in L Village.

4. Concrete Practice of Building Farmers’ Apartments in Village L to Ensure That Households Have a Place to Live

4.1. Case Selection and Research Methodology

District N, where Village L is located, is on the eastern coast of China and characterized by its economic prosperity, high population density, and industrial diversification. With rapid economic growth and a continuous rise in population, the demand for residential land has significantly increased. However, since 1997, District N has ceased allocating new rural residential land, and, in 2010, it halted the approval of new construction, alterations, expansions, or renovations of rural housing. This has resulted in the cessation of building activities on old village land, leaving no capacity to provide new living space for incoming residents or growing families. Consequently, the housing needs of farmers have not been effectively addressed. Village L, with a total population of 18,164, enjoys a relatively developed economy. According to official statistics, the village’s collective income in 2022 surpassed CNY 600 million, with per capita dividend shares amounting to approximately CNY 10,000. Despite this economic prosperity, the population of Village L continues to grow, but the per capita residential area remains limited to just 37.55 square meters. This is smaller than the surrounding areas, and the lack of approval for new housing construction has led to two or more generations of families living in cramped conditions within the old houses. The inadequate living space has resulted in poor living conditions, and the increasing demand for housing driven by population growth has become an urgent livelihood issue in Village L.

This paper employs a case study approach to explore the construction of farmers’ apartments in L Village to ensure adequate housing for local households. The research team conducted fieldwork in L Village in 2023, gathering relevant reports and policy documents about constructing farmers’ apartments, as shown in

Table 1. List of policy documents related to rural community apartment construction and homestead management in Region N.

File Name	Source
“Implementation Measures for Village Community Apartment Construction in District N of F City (Pilot)”	Official website of the N District government
“Village-Level Governance Procedures for Rural Homesteads and Residential Construction in District N of F City”	Official website of the N District government
“Eligibility Criteria and Management Measures for Rural Homestead Allocation in District N of F City (Trial)”	Official website of the N District government
“Implementing Opinions on the Orderly Withdrawal and Revitalization and Utilization of Rural Residential Bases in N District of S City”	Official website of the N District government

. In addition, this study also gathered data on various factors, including the village’s collective income level, the size of the homestead, the per capita homestead area, the actual number of households, and the area of land saved. These data were primarily sourced from government websites, government reports based on field research, and the village ledger, as detailed in

Table 2. Table of key variables for the L Village farmers’ apartment project under the SES framework.

The SES Variable Hierarchy	Variable Name	Variable Declaration	Index Interpretation and Quantification
Resource Systems (RS)	Clarity of Resource Boundaries	Housing and Land Ownership Confirmation Situation	100% right confirmation
	The Geographical Location of the Village	Distance From the City	About 12 km
	The Overall Scale of Homestead Land	Overall Area of the Homestead	100 acres (3123 cases)
Resource Unit (RU)	Per Capita Homestead Situation	Per Capita Homestead Area	37.55 m2
	The Actual Use of Homestead Land	Residential, Business, or Other Purposes	To live
Governance System (CS)	Governmental Structures	Government Role	Leading
	Non-Governmental Structures	Non Governmental Role	Participate in
	Constitutional Rules	Policy Document	“Eligibility Criteria and Management Measures for Rural Homestead Allocation in District N of F City (Trial)”
	Collective Choice Rules	Policy Document	“Village-Level Governance Procedures for Rural Homesteads and Residential Construction in District N of F City”
	Operating and Supervisory Rules	Policy Document	“Implementation Measures for Village Community Apartment Construction in District N of F City (Pilot)” “Village-Level Governance Procedures for Rural Homesteads and Residential Construction in District N of F City”
Actor (A)	Type of Actor Grassroots	Actors Involved in the Action	The government, the village collective, the villagers, and the enterprises
	Grassroots Governance Capacity	Grassroots Governance Information Platform and Other Complete Degree	Complete
Socioeconomic Settings (S)	Village Collective Economic Level	Village Collective Income	About CNY 600 million
	Policy Reform	Homestead Reform Situation	Two rounds of homestead system reform pilot areas
Outcome (O)	Residential Security	Farmers’ Apartment Occupancy Situation	299 households
	Resource Efficiency	Land Saving Quantity	20.7 acres

.

The data in the table come from village accounts, government reports, and official government websites.

4.2. Construction and Distribution of Farmers’ Apartments

The farmers’ apartment initiative in Village L emerged as a strategic response to acute residential land shortages and multigenerational overcrowding—conditions locally characterized as “multiple households sharing a single residence”. The project systematically addressed core housing challenges through three interdependent operational phases by implementing intensive land use strategies.

4.2.1. Pre-Construction Preparations: Institutionalizing Resource Foundations

Land scarcity mitigation centered on inter-associational land exchanges ratified through democratic deliberation. Eligibility criteria, codified via village assemblies, prioritized landless households and those voluntarily relinquishing homesteads. Financing mechanisms strategically combined farmer self-funding with supplementary bank credit lines and municipal subsidies, while the village collective provided critical bridging capital. Professional planning consortiums orchestrated spatial configurations to optimize functional integration, securing essential utility approvals through cross-departmental coordination.

4.2.2. Construction Governance: Embedding Quality Assurance Protocols

Transparent bidding processes selected construction consortia committed to stringent quality benchmarks. Material procurement followed rigorous vetting protocols under continuous oversight, while iterative consultations with future residents informed design adaptations, exemplified by accessibility enhancements for elderly occupants. Progressive quality inspections at critical construction milestones enforced compliance with national standards, complemented by post-occupancy maintenance frameworks, ensuring sustained performance.

4.2.3. Allocation Mechanisms: Balancing Equity and Sustainability

After a three-year construction period, the first farmers’ apartment in L Village was completed in 2023. The project covers a total construction area of 69,088.34 square meters, including a usable area of 42,370.43 square meters and 1962.95 square meters of commercial space. The development comprises six fourteen-story residential buildings with a two-story basement, totaling 299 housing units. Allocation of these units was carried out through a lottery system, ensuring that 299 farmers in the local economic community were provided with housing. Regarding managing the farmers’ apartments, Village L has taken steps to enhance the village’s human environment by standardizing land use and introducing green spaces, alongside significant improvements to the village’s infrastructure. In addition to residential housing, income generated from renting commercial spaces in L Village is shared between the village collective and the villagers, thereby contributing to the collective economic revenue. Furthermore, the price of the farmers’ apartments is considerably lower than neighboring market rates, which ensures that farmers can secure housing without incurring a heavy economic burden. Building on the successful experience of the first farmers’ apartment project, construction of two additional farmers’ apartments in L Village is progressing.

The L Village farmers’ apartments exemplify how institutionalized land intensification protocols transcend conventional single-dwelling paradigms while addressing spatial resource constraints. This systemic approach—integrating democratic decision making with multi-stakeholder coordination—has successfully reconfigured residential patterns previously constrained by finite land availability. The project’s strategic co-location of educational institutions, healthcare facilities, and commercial hubs creates a socio-spatial ecosystem that elevates habitation quality through multi-functional clustering.

Such integrated development generates compound governance effects, as improved living environments catalyze community stewardship behaviors, while service accessibility strengthens institutional legitimacy. These mutually reinforcing dynamics demonstrate scalable solutions for rural settlements navigating the dual pressures of population growth and land scarcity. The operational blueprint emerging from L Village’s experience offers transferable insights into balancing spatial efficiency with social equity in resource-constrained contexts.

5. Components of the SES Analysis of L Village’s Rural Apartments to Secure Housing for Households

5.1. Social Ecosystem Components Affecting Farming Household Security in L Village

5.1.1. Socioeconomic Settings

The socioeconomic settings operate through three interdependent dimensions. Within the policy domain, as a designated pilot zone for residential land system reforms, District N—where L Village is situated—has institutionalized governance frameworks through iterative policy experimentation. This process has established clearly defined accountability mechanisms for farmers’ apartment construction while standardizing operational protocols, thus creating regulatory foundations for sustainable housing development. Economically, the village’s strong collective economic capacity and elevated household income levels generate sufficient fiscal resources to support housing infrastructure investments. This economic vitality enables consistent capital allocation for construction initiatives without compromising other developmental priorities. Socially, L Village’s status as a regional migration hub necessitates adaptive housing solutions. Recent expansions in tertiary sector employment, complemented by talent repatriation programs, have accelerated demographic growth. These shifting population dynamics intensify housing demand, positioning farmers’ apartments as critical instruments for maintaining habitation security amidst rapid urbanization pressures.

5.1.2. Resource Systems and Resource Units

A resource system (RS) manifests as a collective pool of assets exhibiting common pool resource characteristics, while resource units (RUs) denote discrete components appropriated by individual users. Both entities exist in dynamic interdependence. The RS framework incorporates boundary definition clarity, geographic positioning, aggregate homestead capacity, infrastructure viability, and land reserve inventories. Conversely, per capita allocation metrics, utilization patterns, transferability potential, and tenure attributes characterize RUs.

L Village, positioned 12 km from the urban core, exemplifies a suburban settlement with integrated transportation networks and developed infrastructural foundations. Its farmers’ apartment program enforces residency eligibility exclusively for registered villagers, instituting strict resource boundary demarcation. Geomorphologically constrained by mountainous terrain and limited flatlands, the village accommodates 3123 residential parcels spanning approximately 6.67 hectares. However, per capita land allocations remain insufficient to satisfy single-household occupancy demands. Homesteads exhibit strong tenure security and high transferability, which incentivize retention of original plots and result in fragmented utilization patterns, compounding this scarcity.

L Village has operationalized inter-community land exchange mechanisms to reconcile land deficits with demographic pressures to acquire construction sites for centralized apartments. This strategy simultaneously addresses three systemic challenges, mitigating land supply–demand imbalances, incentivizing voluntary homestead relinquishment, and upgrading village infrastructure, thereby elevating habitation standards while optimizing spatial efficiency.

5.1.3. Actors

The actor network governing L Village’s farmers’ apartment initiative comprises four interdependent stakeholders, whose coordinated agency shapes project outcomes. Governmental actors establish regulatory frameworks and monitor compliance, while village collectives operationalize implementation through localized governance structures. As primary beneficiaries, resident households engage as rights holders and participatory evaluators, and their needs directly inform construction protocols. Private enterprises contracted for technical execution adapt construction practices through iterative end-user consultations. This multi-scalar collaboration generates recursive feedback loops; policy mandates cascade into village-level operational norms, construction processes integrate resident input, and beneficiary evaluations refine governance iterations. The initiative’s efficacy stems from robust grassroots governance mechanisms that institutionalize consensus building, amplified by elevated resident ownership perceptions and satisfaction indices. These collectively legitimize procedural outcomes and sustain participatory engagement.

5.1.4. Governance System

The governance architecture for rural apartment construction integrates governmental institutions, non-state actors, and multi-tiered regulatory frameworks. In Village L’s case, this system operates through dynamic interactions between policy directives from municipal authorities and participatory engagement by village collectives, residents, and private enterprises.

Governmental actors, serving as policy formulators, regulatory supervisors, and implementation guarantors, have codified constitutional governance rules through three key regulatory documents: the “Implementation Measures for Village Community Apartment Construction in District N of F City (Pilot)”, the “Village-Level Governance Procedures for Rural Homesteads and Residential Construction in District N of F City”, and the “Eligibility Criteria and Management Measures for Rural Homestead Allocation in District N of F City (Trial)”. These policies systematically define accountability structures by identifying primary implementation entities, delineating housing security scopes, standardizing approval processes, establishing multilevel supervision mechanisms, and constructing the foundational governance framework for rural apartment development.

Village collectives act as operational rule makers and project implementers. Their responsibilities encompass land exchange negotiations for construction sites and eligibility criteria formulation for beneficiary selection. Collective entities collaborate with financial institutions to enable loan-based funding models for residents to mitigate financing barriers. Competitive bidding processes governed by predefined contractual obligations ensure procurement transparency.

Inclusive deliberation platforms like the Villagers’ Assembly Hall embed collective choice mechanisms where participatory rulemaking facilitates adaptive adjustments to construction protocols. Beneficiary households engage in dual capacities as project stakeholders and quality oversight agents, contributing to both physical construction and procedural audits.

Private enterprises, contracted as technical executors, operate under tripartite supervision from governmental regulators, collective representatives, and resident committees. This multilevel accountability framework ensures alignment between construction practices, regulatory standards, and community needs, thereby operationalizing collaborative governance principles.

5.2. Action Scenario: Interactive Processes of Guaranteeing Households a Place to Live in L Village Farmers’ Apartments

The collaborative governance framework integrating governmental institutions, village collectives, villagers, and enterprises demonstrates multilevel coordination mechanisms that systematically advance the development of farmers’ apartments, as structurally outlined in Figure 3.

5.2.1. Government and Village Collectives: Policy Support and Implementation

Governmental bodies establish regulatory foundations through land use policies that define standardized parameters for housing development while enforcing compliance via layered supervision systems, including document audits, on-site inspections, and progress reporting requirements. Village collectives operationalize these directives by managing daily construction activities and maintaining iterative consultation with authorities. This bidirectional coordination enables adaptive policy adjustments through joint reviews of emerging challenges, ensuring regulatory responsiveness to implementation realities.

5.2.2. Government and Villagers: Communication and Rights Protection

Governmental actors mediate state–community relations through institutionalized communication platforms, including structured village assemblies and digital feedback channels. Legal safeguards reinforce these mechanisms by formalizing residents’ entitlement protections. Participatory processes further integrate villagers into budgetary reviews, transforming their role from passive recipients to active contributors to housing governance cycles.

5.2.3. Government and Enterprises: Regulatory Oversight and Construction Efficiency

Regulatory frameworks enforce phased quality assurance protocols spanning planning approvals, material audits, and safety certifications. Independent technical inspections at critical construction stages mandate corrective actions through standardized remediation procedures. Enterprises reciprocate by adopting advanced construction technologies, such as modular techniques and digital monitoring systems, which optimize timelines while ensuring compliance with safety standards.

5.2.4. Village Collectives and Enterprises: Cooperation and Quality Control

Village collectives administer contractor selection through competitive tendering processes, prioritizing technical capacity and financial viability. Contracted enterprises implement certified quality management systems monitored through real-time digital platforms tracking material specifications and workflow compliance. Collective oversight committees conduct joint reviews with project managers to verify milestone achievements, aligning market efficiency with community quality expectations.

5.2.5. Villagers and Enterprises: Financing and Construction Surveillance

Financial collaboration combines community-driven microcredit schemes with enterprise equity contributions, ensuring sustained project funding. On-site supervision adopts a dual-channel model where villager representatives monitor progress alignment with community needs while enterprise teams enforce technical specifications through automated monitoring systems. Dispute resolution mechanisms integrate mediation committees to address construction conflicts proactively.

5.2.6. Village Collectives and Villagers: Co-Governance and Rights Protection

Village collectives implement eligibility verification systems involving documentary checks and homestead rights validation to ensure equitable resource allocation. Participatory supervision is institutionalized through rotating villager inspection teams conducting weekly site audits documented in public registries. This co-governance framework formalizes residents’ roles in procedural oversight and outcome evaluation.

The synergy between various stakeholders has been instrumental in the development of farmers’ condominiums, with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private enterprises playing distinct yet complementary roles, each encountering unique challenges in the implementation of such projects. NGOs, including farmers and village collectives, typically assume roles in advocacy, resource mobilization, and monitoring and evaluation, thus driving the initiation and execution of farmers’ condominium initiatives. However, these organizations often face challenges, such as inadequate funding, limited human resources, and regulatory and policy constraints, that hinder their effectiveness. On the other hand, private enterprises are primarily responsible for financing and investment, construction, and the market-oriented operation of these projects, ensuring their smooth implementation and long-term sustainability. Nevertheless, private entities also face significant hurdles, including financing difficulties, policy uncertainties, and the challenge of balancing profitability with social responsibility. To enhance the success of farmers’ condominium projects, there is a clear need for stronger collaboration between NGOs and private enterprises. By addressing these challenges collectively, both sectors can contribute to the sustainable and equitable development of such initiatives.

This Figure 3 maps the multi-stakeholder interaction mechanisms that drive the farmers’ apartment project in L Village, emphasizing how collaborative governance ensures housing accessibility.

5.3. Operational Practices of Farmers’ Apartments in Guaranteeing Households a Place to Live

The operational effectiveness of the farmers’ condominium system under the SES framework hinges on its dynamic response to resource constraints, institutional tensions, and subjective interactions at the practical level. This section examines L Village as a case study by analyzing the strategies behind farmers’ apartment construction from three perspectives: the intensive and multidimensional use of residential land, open decision making and oversight throughout the process, and collaborative promotion by stakeholders. These practical insights not only validate the interactive dynamics among resources, rules, and actors within the SES framework but also offer a robust foundation for refining a universal operational mechanism, as shown in Figure 4.

5.3.1. Intensive Three-Dimensional Shared Use of Residential Land

Village L, located in a highly urbanized area, faces a significant shortage of homestead resources despite the presence of a large number of households eligible for homesteads. The traditional “one household, one house” allocation system is increasingly difficult to sustain, leading to the common issue of multiple households sharing a single home. Additionally, villagers are reluctant to relinquish their existing residential rights. In response, Village L has innovatively repurposed residential land to construct high-rise, multi-block farmers’ apartments. This approach replaces the traditional model of decentralized, single-family homestead allocation with more intensive, three-dimensional use of land, addressing the housing needs of landless households. By maximizing the use of existing residential areas, this strategy not only preserves villagers’ residential rights but also ensures that every household has a home, offering a viable solution to the constraints of limited land resources.

5.3.2. Full-Process Open Decision Making Oversight

In the construction of farmers’ apartments, L Village fosters the project through open decision making and oversight. During the collective deliberation phase, the village gathers villagers’ preferences on apartment types and the location of ancillary facilities through door-to-door visits and surveys. A preliminary plan is then developed and refined through discussions with village representatives, economic society members, and village cadres. Once the proposal is finalized, it is put to a collective vote and sequentially submitted for approval at the party branch meeting, the party members’ meeting, and the villagers’ economic organization meeting. The final plan is ratified by a majority vote, either by secret ballot or show of hands, with more than two-thirds approval required. During implementation, the villagers elect a supervisory group to oversee the entire process, including the verification of building material procurement, construction quality, and fund usage. The “four on-site” system is strictly enforced, with villagers’ representatives monitoring key milestones, signing off on progress, and ensuring that information is publicly shared. Throughout construction, both physical suggestion boxes and online feedback channels are open for input. The coordinator addresses general issues, while major problems are revisited through deliberation and voting. This open decision making and supervision process has significantly increased villagers’ engagement, safeguarded their rights and interests, and facilitated the successful completion of the farmers’ apartments.

5.3.3. Participants Join Forces to Advance as One

The construction of farmers’ apartments in Village L involves a collaborative effort among the government, village collectives, villagers, and enterprises. The government provides policy support and ensures strict supervision to maintain compliance. Village collectives handle implementation and coordination, liaising with the government, resolving issues, and working with enterprises through bidding to ensure quality and timely progress. Villagers contribute by raising funds and actively participating in construction oversight to maintain transparency and efficiency. Enterprises are tasked with high-quality construction while adhering to government, collective, and villager supervision throughout the process. This joint effort enhances construction efficiency, ensures adequate housing for farmers, and fosters trust and cooperation among all stakeholders, creating a positive community atmosphere.

In conclusion, the practical exploration of Village L—through the intensive, multidimensional use of residential land, the establishment of an open decision making and supervision process, and the synergistic coordination of multiple stakeholders—not only validates the logic of rule adjustments and actor interactions within resource constraints under the SES framework but also offers a concrete foundation for refining the theoretical understanding of the operational mechanisms behind the construction of farmers’ apartments.

The operational practice diagram of rural apartments in Village L illustrates the intensive use of residential land, open decision making and oversight, and collaborative efforts among the government, village collectives, villagers, and enterprises, ensuring effective housing solutions for all households within resource constraints.

6. Explaining the Operational Mechanism of Farmers’ Apartments to Ensure Households’ Access to Housing

The analysis of social–ecological system elements, their interactions, and operational practices reveals that the reformation of the residential land system and the level of economic development create conditions for farmers to secure housing in their apartments. The process of ensuring this in Village L relies on the resource system, environmental elements, and the collaborative efforts of stakeholders alongside institutional rules within the governance system. Through resource integration, governance optimization, and collaborative construction, L Village has established a closed-loop operational mechanism characterized by “resource consolidation, democratic governance, and collaborative construction”, as shown in Figure 5.

6.1. Resource Consolidation: Addressing Land Resource Constraints

Under the constraints of limited land resources, resource integration enables the efficient use of land and the dual protection of farmers’ rights through the “qualification right retention + spatial intensification” dual-track model. From the SES framework perspective, this approach fosters vertical development and optimal land allocation by unlocking the inherent potential of resource systems and units. Specifically, “Eligibility Right Reservation” respects farmers’ existing rights to their homesteads, preserving the stability and continuity of the rural land system while preventing the erosion of property rights due to condominium construction. Meanwhile, the “spatial intensification” strategy consolidates dispersed homestead resources into centralized construction land for farmers’ apartments. This process considers the overall size and stock of residential land, as well as the attributes of resource units (e.g., per capita land size and mobility). For instance, in L Village, land exchanges between economic societies overcame the limitations of scattered and insufficient homestead resources, addressing the land supply–demand imbalance. Additionally, apartment construction planning emphasized mixed spatial functions, integrating residential, commercial, and public service areas to enhance land-carrying capacity and utilization efficiency. This shift from a flat, scattered layout to a three-dimensional, efficient model alleviates land resource bottlenecks, providing a sustainable solution. Resource integration not only optimizes the spatial arrangement of rural land but also activates the economic value of residential bases while maintaining their residential function. It fosters the rational flow and optimal allocation of rural land resources, aligning with the principles of efficient use and fair distribution in managing public resources.

6.2. Democratic Governance: Building Farmers’ Apartment Rules Chain

Under the SES framework, the democratic governance model of farmers’ apartment buildings aims to ensure the stability and development of the social ecosystem through a structured design and dynamic operation of the rule system. The success of this governance model depends on the establishment of a comprehensive governance chain involving “rule synergy—rule implementation—rule evolution”. At the rule synergy level, the “three-tier joint review” decision making mechanism breaks the traditional administration-led model by integrating leadership from party organizations, deliberations by party members, and villagers’ voting, creating a rulemaking system with diverse stakeholder participation. This mechanism not only ensures scientific decision making but also reduces decision making risks through checks and balances of power. Additionally, village-level coordinators and collective resolutions form a regulatory system, complementing decision making processes and closing the loop of rulemaking and supervision, thus minimizing institutional friction costs. At the rule implementation level, the “four presence” deliberation system embeds democratic participation throughout the construction process, with the villagers’ deliberation hall serving as a platform to transform rules into actionable governance practices. The online and offline communication network facilitates real-time feedback and dynamic adjustments, ensuring that rule implementation is transparent, credible, and effective. At the rule evolution level, the “problem reporting—collective resolution—rectification feedback” regulatory chain establishes a mechanism for dynamic rule adjustment. In response to system complexities, continuous information exchange and collective decision making enable rules to evolve from static constraints to dynamic solutions, allowing the governance system to adapt to uncertainty and ensuring the sustainable operation of farmers’ apartment construction and management. This model highlights that translating democratic principles into a structured rule synergy system, a standardized enforcement mechanism, and an adaptive evolution path are essential for the sustainable governance of social–ecological systems, offering a theoretical framework for similar farmers’ apartment developments.

6.3. Collaborative Construction: Multi-Actor Synergy Optimization

Relying on a four-way collaboration among the government, village collectives, villagers, and enterprises, this multi-agency approach leverages the strengths of each actor within the social ecosystem, fostering the synergistic development of housing rights protection and community governance optimization. The government, acting as a guide, uses its authority and resource deployment capabilities to formulate and refine policies and regulations for farmers’ apartment construction, ensuring alignment with national strategies and local development needs. The village collective, as the implementation hub, capitalizes on its knowledge of local conditions and organizational capacity to manage key tasks, such as demand coordination, program execution, and conflict resolution, facilitating smooth communication between the government and villagers. Villagers, as the primary beneficiaries, engage through co-financing, construction oversight, and profit sharing, actively participating in project supervision to protect their interests while strengthening community cohesion. Enterprises, as the execution unit, bring technical expertise and management experience, ensuring high-quality, efficient construction through a bidding process. The collaborative framework effectively integrates resources from all parties, improving both the efficiency and quality of the farmers’ apartment construction while ensuring fairness and sustainability. This model offers a practical example of rural public governance, highlighting the importance of multi-stakeholder synergy in achieving systemic goals.

The successful operation of the farmers’ apartments in L Village highlights the importance of institutional reforms to the homestead system and regional economic development in creating a foundation for sustainable rural housing solutions. This success is attributed to the strategic integration of finite resources, the institutionalization of participatory governance, and the synergistic collaboration of multiple stakeholders. The cyclical governance model employed in L Village follows phases of resource aggregation, democratic deliberation, and collaborative implementation, effectively addressing housing security challenges during urbanization. This approach not only resolves key issues in rural–urban transitions but also provides transferable methodologies for ensuring universal housing accessibility. The project’s success depends on the organic integration of three essential elements: resource integration, democratic decision making, and multi-stakeholder participation. Without any one of these components, significant challenges could arise, such as unresolved tensions over housing resources, biased decision making, or inefficiency due to lack of collaboration. These elements are indispensable for overcoming obstacles and ensuring the project’s successful implementation.

This Figure 5 illustrates the closed-loop operational mechanism underpinning L Village’s farmers’ apartment project, emphasizing three interdependent pillars critical to achieving housing security under land scarcity. The model demonstrates how balanced integration of resources, inclusive governance, and coordinated roles create a replicable pathway for rural housing security in resource-constrained contexts.

7. Discussion

The L Village farmer’s apartment project exemplifies a resilient and adaptable approach to addressing the constraints of land resources within the framework of a social–ecological system (SES) through its closed-loop model of “Resource Intensification—Democratic Decision-Making—Collaborative Construction”. This mechanism responds flexibly to policy shifts and market fluctuations by integrating various strategies, such as land exchange and diversified financing sources, including government subsidies, village collective capital, and social investments, ensuring the continuous progress of construction. At the same time, the project leverages the autonomous governance of village collectives, such as villagers’ assemblies and supervisory committees, and encourages deep engagement from the villagers themselves [4]. This participatory governance approach not only fulfills the core objective of providing affordable housing for residents but also distributes the revenues from commercial spaces through the mechanism of “right of residence + equity” and “right of ownership”. The combination of “right of abode + equity” enables fair sharing of commercial benefits, fosters community cohesion, and promotes the sustainable development of the village [5].

Research indicates that the project’s success can be attributed to the synergy of three key elements: the legitimacy of resource integration (ensuring clear collective land ownership and cross-village resource allocation) [26], the substance of democratic decision making (ensuring villagers’ active participation throughout the planning, distribution, and supervisory processes) [40], and the fairness of benefit distribution (promoting economic inclusion) [41]. While L Village benefits from a strong collective economy and a long-standing tradition of democratic governance, its core institutional framework—specifically, its eligibility and allocation rules—can be adapted to regions at different stages of development through the “standardized institutional core + flexible implementation tools” strategy. This approach uses methods like modularization and multilevel supervision to allow for adaptability across diverse settings.

The “aboveground housing + underground storage” model, piloted in Zhejiang, illustrates the potential for standardization [5]. Additionally, the diversified financing model, which moves beyond a single funding source, enhances the project’s adaptability [35]. By balancing institutional rigor with practical flexibility, this model not only ensures policy stability but also accommodates regional differences. It provides land-scarce villages with a housing solution that is both resilient and sustainable, making it a replicable reference model in the context of urban–rural integration and rural revitalization.

The theoretical contributions of this study can be summarized as two key aspects. First, it transcends the traditional binary “system-behavior” analytical framework in homestead research by systematically exploring the dynamic interactions among “resource-rule-subject” through the design of nested variables within the SES framework [42]. For instance, the study reveals that the land exchange mechanism (RU2 resource mobility) in L Village requires not only policy authorization (GS5 constitutional rules) but also the achievement of cultural adaptation through multi-subject negotiations (I interaction mechanism). This finding broadens the cultural adaptation explanations within the public pond resource theory. Second, the study validates the applicability of Ostrom’s principle of autonomous governance in homestead scenarios while emphasizing the necessity of local contextual adaptation.

At the practical level, the experience of L Village offers innovative solutions for addressing urban–rural land conflicts. First, spatial reconfiguration is implemented by integrating dispersed residential bases into centralized apartment sites through land reclamation and the policy of linkage between increases and decreases in land [31]. This approach not only meets the housing needs of 299 households but also provides legal land use entitlements for urban development, creating a feedback mechanism of revenue distribution that ensures mutual benefits for urban and rural areas. Second, the model of functional mixing, incorporating a “residence + production + ecology” three-dimensional development strategy, is adopted. This approach guarantees residential quality, maintains agricultural production functions, and enables farmers to benefit from the transformation of “residential rights + equity [38]”. Third, institutional synergy is promoted by constructing a multilevel governance system, extending from county and township planning to village regulations. This system innovatively integrates clan deliberation with modern supervision, addressing both policy compliance and cultural adaptability. This strategy transcends the urban–rural dichotomy, establishing a win–win framework wherein “cities gain space, farmers receive benefits, and villages are revitalized”. It provides an actionable solution to land use conflicts in the context of new urbanization. The core innovation lies in the systematic institutional design, which transforms the externalities of urban expansion into an endogenous driving force for rural revitalization. This design facilitates the optimal allocation of production factors and equitable value sharing between urban and rural areas.

This study, based on the SES framework, explores the operational mechanisms of farmers’ apartments in Village L, but it faces limitations in data depth and methodology. Future research should focus on constructing a dynamic database with mixed methods, such as Likert scales and GIS spatial analysis, to strengthen causal inferences. Additionally, the model’s applicability may be challenged in central and western regions due to financial constraints, warranting a multi-case study across different regions in China to determine thresholds for institutional adaptation. Cultural factors, like clan networks, should also be considered to understand their impact on policy effectiveness. Furthermore, long-term risk management mechanisms, such as the potential weakening of community cohesion and shared maintenance costs, require a comprehensive four-dimensional assessment model that integrates policy, economic, social, and ecological dimensions. This model should incorporate climate resilience and policy indicators to address sustainable risks and systematically ensure long-term sustainability.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1. Conclusions

This study applies the social–ecological system (SES) framework to analyze the operational mechanisms of ensuring housing for farming households in areas with limited land resources using the construction of farmers’ apartments in L Village as a case study. The findings are summarized as follows:

(1)

Farmers’ apartments, designed to ensure that households have a place to live, form an organic system composed of several key elements. These include the socioeconomic context, the resource system and units related to residential land, the governance structure and institutional rules, and the synergies and interactions between the government, village collectives, farmers, and enterprises. All of these factors are essential for the successful completion of the L Village farmers’ apartments.

(2)

The intensive, three-dimensional communal use of residential land, the entire democratic decision making and oversight process, and the synergy of multiple stakeholders are key practices ensuring the effective operation of farmers’ apartments. These practices are crucial for addressing resource constraints on residential land, constructing pathways to protect farmers’ housing rights, and providing practical references for achieving the goal of “households having a home” in resource-scarce areas during urbanization.

(3)

The process of ensuring that farmers’ apartments provide households with a place to live operates through an interactive, closed-loop mechanism of “resource consolidation- democratic governance-collaborative construction”. This closed-loop mechanism not only safeguards the basic rights and interests of farmers but also fosters the economic and social development of the community, offering a new model for rural development.

In conclusion, the core value of the L Village practice lies in transforming the traditional housing security model into a modern, efficient system by rebuilding the social–ecological framework. This approach underscores the importance of activating local dynamics when developing rural apartments in resource-scarce areas. It calls for synergies between institutional innovation and resource integration while optimizing spatial planning to respect villagers’ rights and interests. Additionally, strengthening the integration of democratic and collaborative governance ensures the sustainable progression of housing security projects. The model offers replicable solutions for regions facing human–land conflicts and rural spatial transformations, demonstrating the significant explanatory and practical value of social ecology theory in rural revitalization.

8.2. Recommendations

Based on the findings presented, we propose the following policy recommendations.

Firstly, it is essential to enhance the content of existing policies. A comprehensive and well-structured policy framework ensures that farming households can access adequate housing. While pilot regions have introduced various policies regarding farmers’ apartments, these policies are often fragmented, primarily addressing qualifications for homesteads and approval procedures for housing construction. Refining the policy content will further address these gaps. Specifically, this includes clarifying the target population for protection, streamlining the approval processes, defining the funding sources, and establishing robust supervisory mechanisms.

Secondly, village collectives should fully leverage their autonomous governance capacity. The strong governance capabilities of these collectives have been instrumental in constructing farmers’ apartments, ensuring that households have access to adequate housing. We should strengthen village collectives’ decision making and executive powers to improve this process further, ensuring that policies and measures are accurately implemented. Additionally, we must provide training to enhance the professionalism of village cadres, equipping them with the skills to coordinate resources from various stakeholders effectively. This will help ensure the smooth functioning of the autonomous governance mechanism, ultimately better meeting the housing needs of villagers.

Thirdly, it is essential to encourage the active participation of social forces, including social organizations, enterprises, and individuals, in constructing farmers’ apartments to ensure that farmers have access to adequate housing. This approach would create a multifaceted model driven by the government, with active societal involvement. The inclusion of social forces provides fresh momentum toward achieving better living conditions for farmers. Therefore, it is crucial to explore methods for channeling social capital into constructing farmers’ apartments, such as through government service purchases, subsidized loan interest rates, and rewards in place of subsidies. These strategies will ultimately contribute to ensuring that farmers can secure better housing.

Fourthly, enhancing public–private partnerships would allow for integrating infrastructure development with ecological agriculture. It is recommended that local governments encourage collaboration between public and private sectors through public–private partnership (PPP) models to promote infrastructure development, particularly in rural areas, by integrating agricultural infrastructure with ecological environmental protection facilities. Special funds, tax incentives, and land use rights preferences can be provided to attract social capital into collective economic projects in rural areas while offering policy support and regulatory guarantees. The focus should be on aligning with policies like “comprehensive land consolidation” and “realization of ecological product values”, with green agricultural development at the core. This integration would improve agricultural ecological protection and enhance the quality of life of farmers, creating a win–win situation in terms of both social and economic benefits.

Finally, regional coordination mechanisms should be established to strengthen policy linkage and resource integration. Given the national push for urban–rural integration, local governments should strengthen regional coordination mechanisms and fully utilize national policy resources to promote local economic development. As policies like “territorial spatial planning” and “market entry of collective profit-oriented construction land” are implemented, farmers’ apartment projects should be strategically aligned with other regional policies, such as land transfer and reforms of land contract expiration. Local governments can refine policy implementation and create regional support measures to attract more social capital and policy funding. This approach would facilitate the comprehensive development of regional economies. At the same time, it is crucial to protect farmers’ interests, ensuring that they benefit from the policies and strengthening their participation and support.