Impacts of Farmer Differentiation and Environmental Cognition on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Rural Homesteads: Evidence from Two Pilot Areas in East Hubei, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis
2.1. Analytical Framework for Farmers’ Intentions to WRH
2.2. Analysis of Factors Influencing Farmers’ Willingness to WRH
2.2.1. Household Characteristics and Homestead Utilization
2.2.2. Differentiation among Farmers
2.2.3. Environmental Cognition
3. Research Area Overview and Methods
3.1. Research Area and Data Processing
3.1.1. Overview of the Research Area
3.1.2. Data Collection and Processing
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Binary Logistic Regression
3.2.2. Variable Selection
3.2.3. Robustness Test
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Summary Statistics
4.2. Influence of Household Characteristics and Homestead Utilization on the Willingness to WRH
4.3. Impact of Differentiation among Farmers on the Willingness to Withdraw from RHs
4.4. Impact of Environmental Cognition on the Willingness to WRH
4.5. Robustness Test
5. Discussion
5.1. The Influence of Characteristics of Household Homestead Utilization on Farmers’ Willingness to WRH
5.2. The Influence of Farm Household Differentiation on the Willingness to WRH
5.3. The Influence of Environmental Cognition on the Willingness to WRH
6. Conclusions, Policy Recommendations and Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rodríguez-Soler, R.; Uribe-Toril, J.; Valenciano, J.D.P. Worldwide trends in the scientific production on rural depopulation, a bibliometric analysis using bibliometrix R-tool. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Jiang, G.; Zhang, Q. Does urbanization always lead to rural hollowing? Assessing the spatio-temporal variations in this relationship at the county level in China 2000–2015. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Guo, Q. A spatial panel statistical analysis on cultivated land conversion and Chinese economic growth. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 51, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, X.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, P.; Tian, Y.; Zou, Y. A novel framework for rural homestead land transfer under collective ownership in China. Land Use Policy 2018, 78, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Luo, G.; Gong, X. Association between Hometown Landholdings and Housing Quality of Rural Migrants in Urban Areas: Evidence from China. Buildings 2024, 14, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulletin on the Main Data of the Third National Land Survey. Available online: https://www.mnr.gov.cn/dt/ywbb/202108/t20210826_2678340.html (accessed on 21 July 2024).
- Lu, M.; Guo, B.; Chen, G.; Yuan, L.; Xing, R.; Huang, Y. A Study on the Factors Influencing Farmers’ Intention to Revitalize Idle Homesteads Based on Improved TPB Framework—Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Farmer Differentiation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Zhang, X. The Spatial–Temporal Characteristics and Driving Forces of the Coupled and Coordinated De-velopment between New Urbanization and Rural Revitalization. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, L.; Duan, W.; Dong, S. Research on Leased Space of Urban Villages in Large Cities Based on Fuzzy Kano Model Evaluation and Building Performance Simulation: A Case Study of Laojuntang Village, Chaoyang District, Beijing. Buildings 2024, 14, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, C.; Wu, Q. Influence of the Kinship Networks on Farmers’ Willingness to Revitalize Idle Houses. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, T.; Carayannis, E.G.; Sindakis, S.; Showkat, S.; Kanellos, N. Technology transfer for sustainable rural development: Evidence from homestead withdrawal with com-pensation in Chengdu–Chongqing. J. Technol. Transf. 2024, 49, 303–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, C.; Chen, R.; Zhong, S.; Liu, W.; Xin, G. How social solidarity affects the outcomes of rural residential land consolidation: Evidence from Yujiang County, South China. Land Use Policy 2023, 130, 106662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Kang, J. Decision Making and Influencing Factors in Withdrawal of Rural Residential Land-Use Rights in Suzhou, Anhui Province, China. Land 2023, 12, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, R.; Hou, L.; Jia, B.; Jin, Y.; Zheng, W.; Wang, X.; Hou, X. Effect of Policy Cognition on the Intention of Villagers’ Withdrawal from Rural Homesteads. Land 2022, 11, 1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Yu, M. Evaluation and determinants of satisfaction with rural livability in China’s less-developed eastern areas: A case study of Xianju County in Zhejiang Province. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 104, 711–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.; Hu, M.; Wu, Y. Rural Land Transfer and Urban Settlement Intentions of Rural Migrants: Evidence from a Rural Land System Reform in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, P.; Shen, S.; Yang, Z.; Ji, Z. Study on the impact of hometown resource endowment on farmers’ rural-urban migration decisions against the background of “dual carbon”. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1346840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Zhao, K.; Cui, Y.; Cao, H. Formal and Informal Institutions in Farmers’ Withdrawal from Rural Homesteads in China: Heteroge-neity Analysis Based on the Village Location. Land 2022, 11, 1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, R.; Yu, C.; Jiang, J.; Huang, Z.; Jiang, Y. Farmer differentiation, generational differences and farmers’ behaviors to withdraw from rural homesteads: Evidence from chengdu, China. Habitat Int. 2020, 103, 102231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.; Wei, F.; Yang, L.; Ran, X. Research on the Measurement, Evaluation and Compensation of Traditional Village Residents’ Emotional Perception: A Case of 14 Traditional Villages in Guanzhong Region. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Xie, X. Asset Specificity on the Intention of Farmers to Continue Land Recuperation: Based on the Per-spective of Farmer Differentiation. Land 2021, 10, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Wang, L.; Jiang, F.; Lu, Z. Differentiation of rural households’ consciousness in land use activities: A case from Bailin Village, Shapingba District of Chongqing Municipality, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2015, 25, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Xie, X.; Luo, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhao, M. The influence of asset specificity on farmers’ willingness to participate in fallow from the perspective of farmer differentiation. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1107545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dufty-Jones, R. Governmentalities of mobility: The role of housing in the governance of Australian rural mobilities. J. Rural. Stud. 2015, 42, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holtslag-Broekhof, S.M.; Beunen, R.; van Marwijk, R.; Wiskerke, J.S.C. “Let’s try to get the best out of it” understanding land transactions during land use change. Land Use Policy 2014, 41, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.; Jiang, Y. Family Endowment, Personal Characteristics, and Farmer’s Livelihood Differentiation—Based on an empirical study of 199 rural households in Sichuan Province. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 692, 042126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hengzhou, X.; Tong, C. Impact of farmers’ differentiation on farmland-use efficiency: Evidence from household survey data in rural China. Agric. Econ. 2013, 59, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kipato, N.; Dorward, P.; Clarkson, G. A Lower Threat than I Thought: How the Analysis of the Interdependence between Risks Influences Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.-L.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.-L.; Cheng, S.-W.; Guo, Y.-R.; Ma, J.-H.; Sun, J.-R. The impact of the cognition of landscape experience on tourist environmental conservation behaviors. J. Mt. Sci. 2015, 12, 501–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neander, K. The Function of Cognition: Godfrey-Smith’s Environmental Complexity Thesis. Biol. Philos. 1997, 12, 567–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotchen, M.J.; Reiling, S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denzau, A.T.; North, D.C. Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions. Kyklos 1994, 47, 3–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Li, Q. Does policy cognition affect livestock farmers’ investment in manure recycling facilities? Evidence from China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 795, 148836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Liu, J.; Zhu, H.; Jiang, Y. The Impact of Risk Aversion and Migrant Work Experience on Farmers’ Entrepreneurship: Evidence from China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Lan, Y.; Wang, X. Impact of livelihood capital endowment on poverty alleviation of households under rural land consolidation. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schimmel, J. Development as Happiness: The Subjective Perception of Happiness and UNDP’s Analysis of Poverty, Wealth and Development. J. Happiness Stud. 2009, 10, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zidanšek, A. Sustainable development and happiness in nations. Energy 2007, 32, 891–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Li, J.; Li, X. Enhancing capabilities and promoting empowerment: How do follow-up support measures affect urban resettled household integration in China? Habitat Int. 2023, 140, 102905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X. Globalisation and the Rurality of Everyday Life: Cases Study of Guangdong, China. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK, 2019; p. 302. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Z.; Ran, R.; Xu, D. The Effect of Peasants Differentiation on Peasants’ Willingness and Behavior Transformation of Land Transfer: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China. Land 2023, 12, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Yu, D.; Lei, M.; Sun, J.; Wang, X. Evaluation on the willingness of migrants and native farmers to transfer farmland in resettlement areas and their coupled coordination relationships: Perspectives for environmental and social sustainability. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1297682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novisma, A.; Iskandar, E. The study of millennial farmers behavior in agricultural production. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1183, 012112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, R.; Dai, Y.; Sun, G. How risk perception and loss aversion affect farmers’ willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads: Mediating role of policy identity. Heliyon 2023, 9, e20918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheng, L. Investigating the Impacts of Poverty Alleviation Resettlement on Farmers’ Income: An Empirical Study from Hubei Province, China. In China’s Poverty Alleviation Resettlement and Rural Transformation; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 145–164. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W.; Zhang, L. Does cognition matter? Applying the push-pull-mooring model to Chinese farmers’ willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2019, 98, 2355–2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, W.; Su, S.; Sun, X. Social cognition, socioeconomic status and subjective well-being of Chinese migrant workers. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 6550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xie, Y.; Ke, S.; Li, X. Psychological resilience and farmers’ homestead withdrawal: Evidence from traditional ag-ricultural regions in China. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Du, X. Land certification, rental market participation, and household welfare in rural China. Agric. Econ. 2022, 53, 52–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Li, F.; Heerink, N.; Yu, J.; Fleskens, L.; Ritsema, C.J. Land Rental Markets, Specialization, and Rural Household Income: Evidence from the North China Plain. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2023, 48, 540–559. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C.; Zhou, Z.; Zhu, C.; Chen, Q.; Feng, Q.; Zhu, M.; Tang, F.; Wu, X.; Zou, Y.; Zhang, F.; et al. Analysis of the Evolvement of Livelihood Patterns of Farm Households Relocated for Poverty Alle-viation Programs in Ethnic Minority Areas of China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Song, J.; Yan, C.; Xu, D.; Wang, W. Rural Household Differentiation and Poverty Vulnerability: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Field Survey in Hubei, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, X.; Liu, L. Characterizing Rural Household Differentiation from the Perspective of Farmland Transfer in Eastern China Using an Agent Based Model. Hum. Ecol. 2018, 46, 875–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Westlund, H.; Klaesson, J. Report from a Chinese Village 2019: Rural Homestead Transfer and Rural Vitalization. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Cai, M.; Zhang, Z.; Li, M. The Impact of Land Transfer-In on Crop Planting Structure and Its Heterogeneity among Farmers: Evidence from China. Land 2024, 13, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, H.; He, Y.; Wang, B.; Qian, F.; Wu, Y. The Influence of Aging Population in Rural Families on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Homesteads in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China. Land 2023, 12, 1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Tang, P. Understanding the Role(s) of Social Networks in the Transition from Farmers’ Willingness to Behavior Regarding Withdrawal from Rural Homesteads: A Research Study Based on Typical Regions of Sichuan Province. Land 2023, 12, 1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, B.; Ren, P.; Huang, R.; Xiao, J.; Yuan, Q. Research on Welfare Changes of Farmers with Different Livelihood Assets after Rural Residential Land Exit in the Context of “Tripartite Entitlement System”: A Case Study of Fuhong Town in Qingbaijiang District, Chengdu, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, M.; Lal, P.; Vedwan, N. Motivations underlying farmers’ management decisions and willingness to adopt sustainable practices: A case study of the northeastern United States. J. Rural. Stud. 2023, 103, 103138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fentahun, G.; Amsalu, T.; Birhanie, Z. Farmers’ perceptions about the influence of land fragmentation and land quality on sustainable land management in the upper lake Tana Basin: Evidence from Dera District. Cogent Econ. Financ. 2023, 11, 2160132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Zhou, W.; Guo, S.; Deng, X.; Song, J.; Xu, D. The influence of peer effects on farmers’ response to climate change: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China. Clim. Chang. 2022, 175, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Ni, X.; Liang, Y. The Influence of External Environment Factors on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Rural Homesteads: Evidence from Wuhan and Suizhou City in Central China. Land 2022, 11, 1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, F.; Liu, Y.; Liu, B. The Effectiveness of Administrative Power on Farmers’ Attitude in Land Acquisition Negotiation: Mediating Role of Perceived Fairness. Land 2024, 13, 896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Cai, Y.; Wen, Q.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J. Future matters: Unpacking villagers’ willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads in China. Appl. Geogr. 2023, 158, 103049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, D.; Wang, Y.; Niu, Q.; Wu, Z.; Wu, L. Bilateral matching decision-making for rural homesteads withdrawal patterns and types of peasant households’ welfare needs: Evidence from China in the context of land spatial planning regulation. Heliyon 2024, 10, e30587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, M.Q.; Kuang, F.Y.; Lu, Y.F. Livelihood Capital Differentiation and Farmers’ Willingness to Homestead Circulation: Based on Empirical Analysis of Jiangxi Province. Agric. For. Econ. Manag. 2018, 17, 82–90. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, R.; Jiang, P.; Kong, X. Reconstructing Rural Settlements Based on Investigation of Consolidation Potential: Mechanisms and Paths. Land 2024, 13, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Types | Name of Variables | Simplified Variable Names |
---|---|---|
Household and rural homestead characteristics | Age of head of household | X1 |
Educational level | X2 | |
Places of home-stead owned | X3 | |
Homestead area | X4 | |
Is the homestead vacant or not | X5 | |
Farmers’ differentiation | Type of employment of the head of household | X6 |
Share of agricultural income in annual household income | X7 | |
Annual household income | X8 | |
Availability of housing in the town | X9 | |
Environmental cognition | Knowledge of policies related to rural homestead | X10 |
Attitudes toward the reform of the homestead policy | X11 | |
Satisfaction level with existing rural infrastructure service | X12 | |
Perception of risk avoidance after withdrawing from the rural homestead | X13 | |
Satisfaction level with existing social insurance | X14 | |
Dependent variables | Farmers’ willingness to withdraw their homesteads | Y |
Category of Variables | Variable Name | Variable Meaning and Assignments | Percentage (%) | Average Values | SD | Expected Direction of Impact | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | Y | Farmers’ willingness to withdraw their homesteads | Willing = 1 | 61.31% | 0.61 | 0.488 | |
Unwilling = 0 | 38.69% | ||||||
Independent Variable | X1 | Age of head of the household | 18–22 years old = 1 | 0.85% | 2.94 | 0.705 | - |
23–45 years old = 2 | 25.37% | ||||||
45–60 years old = 3 | 52.64% | ||||||
Over 60 = 4 | 21.14% | ||||||
X2 | Educational level | Elementary school and below = 1 | 4.86% | 3.03 | 1.005 | + | |
Junior high school = 2; | 17.76% | ||||||
Polytechnic or high school = 3 | 21.99% | ||||||
College or university = 4 | 48.63% | ||||||
Bachelor’s degree or higher = 5 | 6.76% | ||||||
X3 | Places of homestead owned | 1 | 93.23% | 1.14 | 0.285 | + | |
2 | 6.13% | ||||||
3 and more | 0.63% | ||||||
X4 | Homestead area | Smaller than 140 m2 = 1 | 19.24% | 2.55 | 0.796 | - | |
140–200 m2 = 2 | 6.34% | ||||||
Over 200 m2 = 3 | 74.42% | ||||||
X5 | Is the homestead vacant or not | Always occupied = 1 | 2.33% | 3.81 | 0.912 | + | |
Seasonal vacant = 2 | 4.44% | ||||||
Partially vacant = 3 | 3.59% | ||||||
Completely vacant = 4 | 89.64% | ||||||
X6 | Type of employment of the head of household | Engaged entirely in agriculture = 1 | 6.40% | 2.3 | 1.039 | + | |
Predominantly agriculture with part-time non-agricultural jobs = 2 | 23.10% | ||||||
Mainly non-agricultural employment with seasonal agricultural activities = 3 | 39.38% | ||||||
Fully engaged in non-agricultural employment = 4 | 31.12% | ||||||
X7 | Share of agricultural income in annual household income | 0% = 1 | 9.03% | 2.42 | 1.223 | - | |
1–25% = 2 | 42.34% | ||||||
26–50% = 3 | 28.12% | ||||||
51–75% = 4 | 9.09% | ||||||
Over 75% = 5 | 11.42% | ||||||
X8 | Annual household income | 10,000 RMB or lower = 1 | 3.59% | 5.44 | 1.934 | - | |
10,001–20,000 RMB = 2 | 8.67% | ||||||
20,001–40,000 RMB = 3 | 9.09% | ||||||
40,001–60,000 RMB = 4 | 9.09% | ||||||
60,001–80,000 RMB = 5 | 7.61% | ||||||
80,001–100,000 RMB = 6 | 12.05% | ||||||
Over 100,000 RMB = 7 | 49.90% | ||||||
X9 | Availability of housing in the town | No = 1 | 67.65% | 1.43 | 0.78 | + | |
Rented = 2 | 21.14% | ||||||
Yes = 3 | 11.21% | ||||||
X10 | Knowledge of policies related to rural homesteads | Not known at all = 1 | 5.50% | 2.62 | 0.872 | + | |
Don’t know much = 2 | 47.36% | ||||||
Understood = 3 | 26.43% | ||||||
Well known = 4 | 20.71% | ||||||
X11 | Attitudes toward the reform of the homestead policy | I don’t support = 1 | 15.22% | 2.42 | 0.429 | + | |
Indifferent = 2 | 4.02% | ||||||
I support = 3 | 80.76% | ||||||
X12 | Satisfaction level with existing rural infrastructure services | Very dissatisfied = 1 | 36.58% | 2.15 | 0.516 | - | |
Less satisfied = 2 | 25.37% | ||||||
Generally satisfied = 3 | 27.48% | ||||||
More satisfied = 4 | 7.19% | ||||||
Very satisfied = 5 | 3.38% | ||||||
X13 | Perception of risk avoidance after withdrawing from the rural homestead | I can’t perceive = 1 | 11.63% | 2.45 | 1.27 | - | |
Uncertain = 2 | 31.29% | ||||||
I can perceive= 3 | 57.08% | ||||||
X14 | Satisfaction level with existing social insurance | Very dissatisfied = 1 | 33.40% | 2.58 | 0.494 | + | |
Less satisfied= 2 | 15.86% | ||||||
Generally satisfied = 3 | 20.93% | ||||||
More satisfied = 4 | 18.82% | ||||||
Very satisfied = 5 | 10.99% |
Variables | Coefficients | Standard Errors | Significance | Co-Linear Statistics | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tolerances | VIF | ||||
X1 | −0.157 ** | 0.189 | 0.034 | 0.901 | 1.110 |
X2 | 0.151 | 0.139 | 0.275 | 0.696 | 1.437 |
X3 | 0.491 ** | 0.438 | 0.026 | 0.939 | 1.065 |
X4 | 0.493 * | 0.243 | 0.078 | 0.404 | 2.475 |
X5 | 0.038 ** | 0.157 | 0.019 | 0.807 | 1.239 |
X6 | 0.032 ** | 0.138 | 0.024 | 0.670 | 1.493 |
X7 | −0.246 ** | 0.108 | 0.017 | 0.338 | 2.959 |
X8 | 0.247 *** | 0.141 | 0.008 | 0.658 | 1.520 |
X9 | 0.175 *** | 0.130 | 0.007 | 0.534 | 1.873 |
X10 | 0.088 *** | 0.114 | 0.004 | 0.725 | 1.379 |
X11 | 0.065 ** | 0.189 | 0.011 | 0.487 | 2.053 |
X12 | −0.023 * | 0.071 | 0.056 | 0.781 | 1.280 |
X13 | 0.314 * | 0.063 | 0.071 | 0.459 | 2.179 |
X14 | 0.286 * | 0.084 | 0.070 | 0.534 | 1.873 |
X1#X1 | 0.717 *** | 0.234 | 0.002 | 0.944 | 1.059 |
X14#X14 | 0.197 ** | 0.173 | 0.025 | 0.639 | 1.565 |
X2#X7 | 0.023 * | 0.069 | 0.074 | 0.429 | 2.331 |
X2#X11 | 0.388 ** | 0.157 | 0.013 | 0.615 | 1.626 |
X4#X6 | 0.315 ** | 0.142 | 0.012 | 0.625 | 1.600 |
X8#X9 | 0.027 * | 0.128 | 0.083 | 0.932 | 1.073 |
X9#X11 | 0.383 *** | 0.133 | 0.007 | 0.555 | 1.802 |
Constant | 3.138 | 1.477 | 0.034 |
Variables | Coefficients | Standard Errors | Significance | [95% Conf. Interval] | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
X1 | −0.246 ** | 0.179 | 0.029 | −0.091 | 0.042 |
X2 | 0.076 | 0.081 | 0.169 | 0.014 | 0.138 |
X3 | 0.354 ** | 0.262 | 0.017 | −0.087 | 0.159 |
X4 | 0.208 * | 0.308 | 0.061 | −0.162 | 0.414 |
X5 | 0.152 ** | 0.093 | 0.013 | −0.031 | 0.335 |
X6 | 0.499 ** | 0.199 | 0.012 | −0.089 | 0.109 |
X7 | −0.202 ** | 0.138 | 0.043 | −0.068 | 0.472 |
X8 | 0.193 *** | 0.169 | 0.008 | −0.238 | 0.424 |
X9 | 0.176 *** | 0.077 | 0.004 | −0.328 | 0.284 |
X10 | 0.433 *** | 0.071 | 0.002 | −0.181 | 0.094 |
X11 | 0.251 ** | 0.374 | 0.042 | −0.282 | 0.148 |
X12 | −0.026 * | 0.107 | 0.069 | −0.336 | 0.082 |
X13 | 0.047 * | 0.483 | 0.062 | −0.047 | 0.141 |
X14 | 0.351 * | 0.194 | 0.081 | −0.131 | 0.288 |
X1#X1 | 0.4077 *** | 0.134 | 0.003 | −0.176 | 0.143 |
X14#X14 | 0.122 ** | 0.095 | 0.019 | −0.039 | 0.164 |
X2#X7 | 0.011 * | 0.039 | 0.077 | −0.087 | 0.065 |
X2#X11 | 0.211 ** | 0.088 | 0.016 | −0.084 | 0.028 |
X4#X6 | 0.208 ** | 0.080 | 0.019 | −0.051 | 0.365 |
X8#X9 | 0.264 * | 0.073 | 0.078 | −0.117 | 0.169 |
X9#X11 | 0.247 *** | 0.074 | 0.009 | −0.145 | 0.146 |
Constant | 2.342 | 1.955 | 0.231 | −1.675 | 1.489 |
Variables | Coefficients | Standard Errors | Significance | Co-Linear Statistics | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tolerances | VIF | ||||
X1 | −0.075 ** | 0.245 | 0.048 | 0.874 | 1.144 |
X2 | 0.181 | 0.117 | 0.124 | 0.715 | 1.399 |
X3 | 0.381 ** | 0.509 | 0.016 | 0.856 | 1.168 |
X4 | 0.284 * | 0.326 | 0.082 | 0.405 | 2.469 |
X5 | 0.061 ** | 0.235 | 0.048 | 0.687 | 1.456 |
X6 | 0.013 ** | 0.189 | 0.042 | 0.617 | 1.621 |
X7 | 0.357 ** | 0.143 | 0.045 | 0.354 | 2.825 |
X8 | 0.169 *** | 0.186 | 0.003 | 0.615 | 1.626 |
X9 | 0.221 *** | 0.183 | 0.002 | 0.496 | 2.016 |
X10 | 0.045 *** | 0.156 | 0.006 | 0.704 | 1.420 |
X11 | 0.094 ** | 0.233 | 0.017 | 0.494 | 2.024 |
X12 | −0.014 * | 0.028 | 0.068 | 0.698 | 1.433 |
X13 | 0.528 * | 0.338 | 0.054 | 0.753 | 1.328 |
X14 | 0.185 * | 0.194 | 0.630 | 0.493 | 2.028 |
X1#X1 | 0.526 *** | 0.047 | 0.008 | 0.852 | 1.174 |
X14#X14 | 0.167 ** | 0.107 | 0.047 | 0.642 | 1.558 |
X2#X7 | 0.049 * | 0.154 | 0.097 | 0.524 | 1.908 |
X2#X11 | 0.527 ** | 0.303 | 0.048 | 0.513 | 1.949 |
X4#X6 | 0.523 ** | 0.299 | 0.032 | 0.712 | 1.404 |
X8#X9 | 0.056 * | 0.257 | 0.074 | 0.875 | 1.143 |
X9#X11 | 0.422 *** | 0.271 | 0.008 | 0.614 | 1.629 |
Constant | 1.918 | 1.351 | 0.045 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yao, X.; Guo, L.; Li, J.; Zhong, Z.; Sun, L.; Wang, Y. Impacts of Farmer Differentiation and Environmental Cognition on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Rural Homesteads: Evidence from Two Pilot Areas in East Hubei, China. Land 2024, 13, 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081201
Yao X, Guo L, Li J, Zhong Z, Sun L, Wang Y. Impacts of Farmer Differentiation and Environmental Cognition on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Rural Homesteads: Evidence from Two Pilot Areas in East Hubei, China. Land. 2024; 13(8):1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081201
Chicago/Turabian StyleYao, Xiaowei, Liqi Guo, Jinteng Li, Zhiyu Zhong, Lu Sun, and Ying Wang. 2024. "Impacts of Farmer Differentiation and Environmental Cognition on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Rural Homesteads: Evidence from Two Pilot Areas in East Hubei, China" Land 13, no. 8: 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081201