How Collective Housing Achieves “Each Household Having a Dwelling”—A Case Study Based on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework

Abstract

Ensuring that “each household has a dwelling” is a fundamental principle in the reform of the rural housing system. Pilot areas for residential reform have achieved positive outcomes in rural collective housing. This paper, based on a field study conducted in District D of Province G, utilizes a case study methodology and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to explore the driving mechanisms behind the implementation of collective housing in the pilot villages of District D. It comprehensively analyzes the roles of various stakeholders throughout the entire process of “planning, construction, distribution, and management”, and evaluates the effectiveness of the initiative. The findings of the study indicate that collective housing construction can effectively alleviate land scarcity, meet the housing demands of rural residents, and enhance the overall rural environment. To ensure the successful implementation of collective housing projects, the government must assume a coordinating and guiding role, providing necessary financial and land support while streamlining the approval process. Village collectives should actively manage residential land and respect the preferences of farming households. Furthermore, pricing, allocation, and management strategies should be tailored to local conditions to ensure fairness and safeguard farmers’ rights and interests. Policies should remain adaptable, taking into account regional differences in geography, society, and culture, and selectively incorporating collective housing models to achieve the goal of “each household having a dwelling.”

1. Introduction

While the urban housing crisis has long been a central focus of academic research, the issue of rural housing has received insufficient systematic attention. However, with the growing demand for rural housing and the increasing tension between population growth and land availability, rural housing security has become a critical concern [1,2,3]. In China’s traditional residential model of “one family, one house”, characterized by free distribution and inefficient land utilization, a significant amount of land resources are wasted [4]. At the same time, in certain rural areas, land resources are scarce, and residential land applications often fail to be approved, rendering it impossible to meet the basic housing needs of farmers. To address this challenge, the reform of the “three pieces of land” initiated in 2014—namely, land expropriation, the market entry of land for collective operations and construction, and the reform of the household-registration system [5]—proposes exploring various approaches to ensure that every household in areas with scarce land per capital is able to secure a dwelling. This is particularly relevant in regions where it is difficult to meet the requirement of providing each household with its own housing. In 2019, the revised Land Management Law, specifically Article 62, was amended to grant legal validity to these reforms [6]. Following this, a series of policy documents [7,8,9,10], including the Circular on Further Strengthening the Management of Rural Residential Bases [11] and the Compilation of Responses to Suggestions on Piloting and Exploring the Transfer and Compensated Withdrawal Mechanisms of Rural Residential Land Bases in Mature Regions [12], have outlined various methods for enhancing housing security for rural residents. These include innovative models such as villager apartments and residential subdivisions for villagers. In areas where per capita arable land is limited, secondary and tertiary industries are more developed, social security systems are more complete, and the contradiction between population and land resources is more pronounced, farmers are voluntarily implementing relatively centralized, unified construction or multi-family joint construction approaches to realize the goal of “each household having a dwelling,” thereby safeguarding the rights and interests of rural collective residence members [13]. Pilot regions are actively exploring the construction of villagers’ apartments, community apartments, and other unit-type housing through unified planning, guiding farmers toward centralized housing solutions [14,15,16,17]. This initiative represents an innovative development of rural “collective housing” as a new housing model.

District D in Province G, as a pilot area for a new round of residential land system reform, pioneered the construction of collective housing in response to the challenges posed by rapid rural population growth and the scarcity of land available for residential allocation. This initiative involves transforming the traditional horizontal use of residential land into vertical, three-dimensional utilization, replacing conventional single-family bungalows with multi-story villagers’ apartments. It addresses the issue of “no land for granting” in rural areas where residential land resources are limited. Not only has it effectively addressed the housing needs of rural households, but it has also markedly enhanced the living environment and improved the quality of housing. This initiative has successfully implemented a groundbreaking reform in the district, ensuring that each household has a dwelling. The reform has been widely recognized and endorsed by the villagers, the collective, the local government, and the relevant state authorities. It has gradually emerged as an effective approach to realizing the goal of “each household has a dwelling”. This model not only offers a viable pathway for China to achieve this goal in areas where there is a pronounced conflict between population density and land availability but also provides valuable reform insights for other countries and regions. These ideas can be leveraged to address the complex challenges of public governance in the management and utilization of rural residential land. Furthermore, it offers a strategic framework that other nations can adapt to tackle the broader issue of rural land management and utilization.

Chinese scholars, within the context of the reform of the homestead system, have conducted research on ensuring that each household has a dwelling in rural areas, with a primary focus on two key aspects. The first aspect involves the legal positioning and theoretical analysis of achieving “each household having a dwelling” through legal reasoning and logical deduction [18,19]. In this framework, “each household having a dwelling” acts as a legal supplement to the “one household, one residence” system, offering a new approach to safeguarding the residential rights of rural residents [20]. The second aspect, based on an analysis of pilot reform initiatives, focuses on constructing a pathway to realizing “each household having a dwelling” from the perspectives of functional change, rootedness theory, and the urban–rural dynamic in China. This approach signifies a shift from land supply to housing supply [21,22], incorporating models such as in-kind and financial support [23,24], time for space [25], shared usage rights of the residential base [26], and other forms of housing security. In these studies, some scholars particularly emphasize that the construction of villagers’ flats represents the most reasonable and convenient solution to the issue of “each household having a dwelling” [27], while also summarizing the practices in pilot areas [28,29,30]. However, the majority of existing research consists of macro-level policy analyses and summaries of local practices, with a notable lack of in-depth deconstruction of typical cases. Furthermore, there is a distinct gap in research on the multi-party interaction mechanisms within collective housing.

At the same time, other countries are also facing significant rural housing challenges [31,32,33], and scholars have analyzed the underlying causes. Egea and Kreichauf suggest that the influx of refugees presents a major challenge to rural housing provision in Germany [34]. Gallent et al. argue that land allocation is the primary obstacle to providing affordable housing in rural areas in England [35]. Phipps et al. highlight that in Canada, the insufficient supply of rural housing results from a reduction in investment in social housing, rising income inequality, and other factors, which collectively lead to unmet housing needs [36]. Although scholars from various countries have conducted in-depth analyses of the underlying causes of the problem, empirical research on systemic solutions remains limited. In light of this, the present paper focuses on China’s residential land reform pilot as the research subject, offering an in-depth analysis of the multi-party collaboration model and institutional innovations in rural collective housing construction. The paper aims to provide transferable policy insights and practical references for regions facing similar challenges.

Rural homesteads are a typical example of public pond resources. While Buchanan’s public choice theory is commonly applied to address the allocation of public resources, it primarily focuses on resolving the dilemma of self-interest-driven collective action through market mechanisms or voting rules [37]. In contrast, the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) theory places greater emphasis on how institutional frameworks can constrain and coordinate diverse interests. It utilizes case analysis and rule design to address practical challenges [38]. North’s theory of institutional change, which highlights path dependence [39], tends to overlook real-time interest negotiation and is more frequently employed to analyze institutional issues [40] rather than practical models. In this regard, the IAD theory is better suited to analyze the interaction mechanisms of multiple stakeholders, including the government, village collectives, and farmers, within China’s unique institutional context, thus bridging the gap in existing research. Therefore, this paper adopts the Institutional Analysis and Development theory, focusing on the public pond resource attributes of rural homesteads, to explore the construction of rural collective housing in the new round of residence base system reform pilot areas, with the goal of achieving the “each household has a dwelling” objective. This exploration holds both theoretical and practical significance.

Therefore, this paper uses the construction of villagers’ apartments in District D of Province G as a case study, with the aim of uncovering the underlying mechanisms driving the selection of the collective housing model in District D through the lens of IAD. It provides an in-depth analysis of the roles of various stakeholders—such as the government, village collectives, farmers, and other actors—along with the logic of their interactions throughout the entire process of “planning–construction–allocation–management”. The study centers on two primary objectives: first, to examine how collective housing overcomes the rigid constraints of residential land resources through institutional innovation, thereby achieving the practical goal of “each household has a dwelling”; second, to explore how this model can be adapted to regions with varying socio-economic conditions, identify the constraints that influence its replicability, and offer transferable policy insights for similarly situated regions. Through an in-depth dialogue between theory and practice, this study not only provides empirical evidence for addressing China’s rural housing challenges but also extends the application scope of the IAD theory to the domain of multi-stage, multi-stakeholder public resource governance, thereby contributing to the further advancement of rural revitalization strategies.

2. Theoretical Framework for Rural Collective Housing Construction Based on IAD Theory

2.1. Overview and Adaptation of the IAD Framework

Due to the long-standing influence of collective action theory, public resources have been subject to significant loss and waste, resulting in the “tragedy of the commons”. To address this issue, in the 1980s, Professor Eleanor Ostrom and others focused on public pond resources and proposed a theoretical framework for institutional analysis and development (IAD) [41]. This framework explores how rules, natural and material conditions, and community attributes shape the structure of the action arena, the incentives faced by individuals, and the outcomes they produce [42,43]. This approach is characterized by its multidisciplinary, multifaceted, and empirical research [44]. The application of the IAD framework enhances the continuity and predictability of autonomous governance of public pond resources, providing both a theoretical and practical foundation for their rational utilization [45]. Furthermore, it demonstrates wide applicability and interpretability. A complete IAD framework consists of three components: external variables, action arenas, and interaction mechanisms and outcomes. The external variables mainly consist of three groups: resource environment, community attributes, and rules of action. These variables collectively influence the incentives and outputs of actors in different action situations. The action arena is the core element, containing both actor and action situation variables. Actors can be individual persons or groups acting as a collective entity. The action context refers to the social space or structure that directly influences the action process. Actors make decisions and adopt strategies that interact with the action context, leading to specific outcomes [46] (see Figure 1).

The key to applying the IAD framework lies in determining whether the object of analysis exhibits the typical characteristics of a non-exclusive and competitive public resource. The ownership of homesteads belongs to the village collective, while the right to use them is held by rural households. All members within the collective economic organization have the right to access and utilize homesteads, which means that rural households have equal opportunities to acquire the possession and use rights of homesteads under initial conditions. In other words, homesteads exhibit strong non-excludability within the collective. The characteristics of land use, such as fixed specialization and relative scarcity, constrain the scale and scope of resource supply, which, in turn, objectively motivate farmers to acquire and use resources competitively, potentially even at the expense of one another. From this perspective, for farmers with the same village registration, the possession and use of a homestead, which exhibits both non-exclusive and competitive characteristics [47], can be considered a typical example of a closed public pond resource [48]. Although rapid urbanization in China has led to the widespread loss of rural population, resulting in a significant amount of idle rural residential land, the fundamental issue of a large population and limited land remains a basic national condition. In some rapidly developing rural areas, the influx of foreign populations has made it impossible to guarantee the basic housing rights and interests of farmers. This situation calls for the exploration of new housing models to promote the integration of urban and rural areas and the revitalization of rural communities. In conjunction with residential land system reforms, some pilot areas have faced significant human–land conflicts. To address these issues, efforts have been made to relax geographical restrictions on land use by exploring cross-village compensated land use, cross-village construction, house purchasing, and other methods. This expansion of the land-use scope to neighboring villages, towns, or counties aims to protect the housing rights of farming households. However, the distribution of residential land remains confined to certain areas, where non-exclusivity persists, and due to the scarcity of resources, competitive characteristics still exist. Homesteads play a crucial role in ensuring the social stability of rural areas and in enabling farmers to live and work in peace and contentment. Due to their multifunctionality, homesteads serve not only as housing for rural residents but also play an important role in government administration and village governance. However, the management and utilization of this vast public resource presents significant challenges. This issue is considered a typical governance challenge for public affairs and is well suited for analysis using the IAD framework.

It is evident that the construction of collective housing, which aims to safeguard the basic rights and interests of farmers, provides a clear example of a typical public resource governance issue. Applying the IAD framework allows for a more in-depth analysis and exploration of its construction model.

2.2. Theoretical Framework for the Realization of “Each Household Has a Dwelling” Based on the IAD Theory of Collective Housing

Based on the above analysis, this paper constructs a theoretical framework for rural collective housing construction using the IAD framework to ensure that each household has access to a dwelling (see Figure 2).

Firstly, external variables are critical to consider in the construction of rural collective housing, as they represent the external factors and constraints that shape the process. These variables include the natural material conditions, community attributes, and the rules of behavior associated with the construction of rural collective housing. The external variables in collective housing construction encompass three core areas: firstly, the natural material conditions, which refer to the availability of resources for the residential base and the level of economic development; secondly, the community attributes, which relate to the behavioral standards shared by all participating subjects, including the management entities and conditions of the residential land; and thirdly, the rules of behavior, which encompass the government’s policies, laws, regulations, and local rules governing construction activities. These behavioral rules consist of seven key aspects, each corresponding to specific contexts: “boundary rules” and “location rules”, which address questions such as who the stakeholders are, where they are located, and what behaviors they may engage in; “selection rules” and “reward rules”, which clarify the specific actions, incentives, or constraints for the involved stakeholders; “aggregation rules”, which define the effectiveness of policies or regulations; “scope rules”, which explain potential outcomes; and “information rules”, which guide the process throughout. These three dimensions profoundly impact the various arenas of action, shaping the behavioral choices of actors and the interaction patterns within the context of action. To varying degrees, these external variables influence the distinct paths and patterns of collective housing construction, determining the project’s viability and sustainability.

Secondly, the theatre of action lies at the core of rural collective housing, which is inherently complex. The concept of a single collective housing theatre of action is difficult to define due to the numerous actors involved and the intricate chain of actions. For analytical purposes, the IAD framework suggests distinguishing between multiple interconnected arenas, either sequentially or simultaneously. Therefore, categorizing the theatres of action according to different contexts is a fundamental method. In this paper, the different stages of rural collective housing construction to ensure each household has a dwelling are divided into four phases: “planning, construction, distribution, and management.” This classification helps analyze the varying structures and functions of the action situations and actors at different stages. The planning stage involves the government’s and the village collective’s preparatory arrangements for collective housing construction, influenced by the constraints of external variables. The construction stage is the specific implementation of the plan, focusing on the main body of the construction process, the sources of “land” and “money”, and the construction form. The allocation stage addresses the process of defining the scale and qualifications for housing distribution, ensuring an orderly allocation of collective housing to guarantee fair rights for rural households. Lastly, the management stage involves the ongoing supervision of the collective housing to ensure quality control. These four stages interact with each other and together form the complete process of rural collective housing construction.

Finally, the outcome of these interactions is an evaluation of the impact of collective housing construction on the goal of ensuring “each household has a dwelling”. This assessment focuses on the protection of rural households’ rights and interests, the improvement of living conditions, and the optimal allocation of resources.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Case Selection

This study employs a case study methodology, utilizing IAD theory as the analytical framework. It examines the entire process of planning, construction, distribution, and management of rural collective housing projects in District D, Province G, to investigate the specific implementation process and assess the effectiveness of this reform initiative. The selection of the case is based on the following criteria:

1. Typicality: District D of Province G, designated as the pilot area for the second round of residence base reform, is situated in the southern coastal region of China. The district is characterized by well-developed secondary and tertiary industries in rural areas, a significant influx of migrant populations, and a highly constrained supply of construction land. These factors have led to a pronounced contradiction between the growing population and limited land resources, resulting in challenges in securing residence bases, which in turn fails to meet the fundamental housing needs of farming households. Capitalizing on its geographic location, economic advantages, and other contextual factors, District D has pioneered the concept of villagers’ apartments as a collective housing model, offering robust protection for the rights and interests of rural residents.

2. Data Availability: District D of Province G is the designated area for assessing the reform of the homestead system within this research group. As such, comprehensive policy information and detailed implementation records have been made available, providing a solid foundation for the study.

3.2. Data Collection

The data presented in this paper were obtained through a field survey and assessment conducted by the research group in November 2023, as part of the evaluation and synthesis of the pilot work on the homestead reform in Province G. The group collected relevant materials, including guidance documents, work programs, construction promotion materials, and other documentation necessary for the construction process of the villagers’ apartment project in District D (see

Table 1. List of information on the Village F villagers’ apartments project.

Element	Serial Number	List of Information on the Village F Villagers’ Apartments Project
Guidance on Collective Research	1	Minutes of the Thematic Working Meeting on the Reform of the Rural Homestead System in District D 2021
	2	Minutes of the Promotion Meeting for the Pilot Reform of the Rural Residential Base System in District D 2021
	3	Minutes of the Pilot Meeting on Promoting the Reform of the Rural Residential Base System in District D 2022
	4	Minutes of the First, Second, Third, and Seventh Working Meetings of the Pilot Village Building Reform of Rural Residential Base System in District D 2022
	5	Minutes of the Tenth Pilot Meeting on the Reform of the Rural Residential Base System and the Special Improvement Pilot Work on Rural Houses Built on Indiscriminate Occupation of Cultivated Land for Residential Purposes in District D
	6	Minutes of Two Pilot Work Sessions on Rural Homestead Reform in District D
Guidance Documents	7	Guiding Opinions on Improving Rural Villagers’ Housing Conditions and Promoting the Construction of Villagers’ Apartments in District D of City Z (for Trial Implementation)
	8	Regulations on the Management of the Risk Compensation Pool for Farmers’ Housing Loans in District D of City Z
	9	Agreement on the Construction of Apartments for Villagers in Village F, Township L, District D, City Z (model text)
	10	Agreement on Supervision of Funds for Villagers’ Apartments in Village F, Township L, District D, City Z (Model Text)
	11	Bank Cooperation Agreement on Risk Compensation for Farmers’ Housing Loans
	12	Tripartite agreement on the “Beautiful Farmhouse Loan”
Work Program	13	Pilot Work Program for Reform of Rural Residential Base System in Village F, Township L
	14	The work program for the construction of villagers’ apartments in village F, township L, district D
	15	Summary of Project Estimates for Village F Villagers’ Apartments
	16	Village F Villagers’ Apartments First Open Area Comparison Scheme
	17	Comparison of the total cost of villagers’ apartments in Village F
	18	Rendering of villagers’ apartments in Village F
Construction Advancement	19	Chronology of the construction of Villagers’ apartments in Village F
	20	Statistics of persons enrolled in the villagers’ apartments
	21	village collective vote
	22	Approval of the Sixteenth Batch of Land for Urban Construction in District D of City Z for the Year 2022
	23	Declaration on the construction of villagers’ apartments in village F
	24	Basic Engineering Permit for Village F Villagers’ Apartment Project
	25	Ceremony for the commencement of construction and completion of the first phase of the villagers’ apartments in village F

), as well as key data on the villagers’ apartment construction project in Village F (see

Table 2. Key data statistics of Village F villagers’ apartment project.

Dimension	Specific Indicators	Numeric	Source of Data
Demand	Base number of farm households to be covered (households)	178	Pilot Work Program for Reform of Rural Residential Base System in Village F, Township L
	Farmers with urgent housing needs (households)	30	Chronology of the construction of Villagers’ apartments in Village F
	Number of households initially enrolled in the project (households)	115	Statistics of persons enrolled in the villagers’ apartments
	Final number of households covered (households)	60	The work program for the construction of villagers’ apartments in village F, township L, district D
Genius Loci	Project site area (m2)	4787	Approval of the Sixteenth Batch of Land for Urban Construction in District D of City Z for the Year 2022
	Total floor area (m2)	7476	The work program for the construction of villagers’ apartments in village F, township L, district D
	Average household floor space (m2)	120	Rendering of villagers’ apartments in Village F
Capital	Unit construction cost (CNY/m2)	2500	Summary of Project Estimates for Village F Villagers’ Apartments
	Single Dwelling Total Gross Price (CNY/unit)	300,000	Summary of Project Estimates for Village F Villagers’ Apartments
	Minimum down payment (%)	30%	Tripartite agreement on the “Beautiful Farmhouse Loan”
	Maximum loan life (years)	20	Tripartite agreement on the “Beautiful Farmhouse Loan”
	Average monthly repayment (CNY/month)	1200	Tripartite agreement on the “Beautiful Farmhouse Loan”

). This data provides a detailed understanding of the specific processes involved in the planning, construction, allocation, and management of the villagers’ apartments, thereby offering valuable data and textual information to analyze the behavioral constraints imposed by external variables on the stakeholders, the effective facilitation of the action arena, and the evaluation of the reform’s outcomes.

3.3. Analytical Process

Stage 1 (External Variables): The natural material conditions (resource endowment, location characteristics), community attributes (the subjects and management approach of the homestead), and behavioral rules are analyzed within the framework of the IAD framework. This analysis seeks to identify the driving mechanisms behind the development of collective housing in District D.

Stage 2 (Action Arenas): The process of “planning–building–allocation–management” is divided into distinct action areas. This stage examines the promotion of the collective housing project, the behavioral choices made by actors in various action scenarios at each stage, and the collaboration efforts required to facilitate the successful implementation of the collective housing project.

Stage 3 (Impact Assessment): The effectiveness of collective housing in achieving the goal of “each household having a dwelling” for farmers is evaluated using criteria such as land efficiency, farmer satisfaction, and improvements in governance.

4. Case Study of Rural Collective Housing Construction in District D Based on IAD Theory

4.1. Overview of Case Areas

Area D was identified in September 2020 as the second pilot area for homestead reform. The region has a limited number of assignable homesteads, and there have been almost no new homestead construction land targets in the past decade. Rural areas face the dilemma of an excessive population and insufficient land, resulting in an exceptionally tense supply and demand for homesteads. Additionally, historical issues such as oversized constructions, unauthorized buildings, and the inability to apply for construction due to changes in the nature of homestead land caused by new planning exist to varying degrees, making the situation intricate and complex. In particular, Village F, located in the far suburbs of District D, faces an extreme scarcity of residential land that can be allocated and has not been assigned residential land for the past 40 years. Farmers are confronted with the dilemma of not being able to receive land grants when applying for residential plots, leading to the widespread phenomenon of multi-generational households living together on a single residential base, which fails to meet the housing needs of farmers. Therefore, there is an urgent need to explore new models of homestead management to address the housing problems of some collective members in Village F, guide villagers to build homes in accordance with the law and establish effective management practices for rural land use and house construction.

Aiming to address the challenges of overcrowding and limited land availability in rural areas, and the tight supply and demand for residential land, District D has innovated the mechanism for rural villagers’ housing security. It has explored the development of villagers’ flats and other centralized housing solutions. At the beginning of 2022, District D, based on the specific housing security needs in Village F and with full respect for villagers’ preferences, initiated a project to build villagers’ apartments, ensuring “a home for every household” for rural residents. This project involves optimizing the spatial layout of the villages and exploring ways to maximize the use of land for housing construction in an efficient, intensive manner. The villagers’ apartment construction project has been launched to guarantee that each household will have a dwelling. The project covers 0.4787 hectares of collective land, including 0.1111 hectares of irrigated land and 0.3673 hectares of other agricultural land. Through land planning adjustments, Area D will convert agricultural land into urban and rural construction land, allowing for the construction of three 11-story villagers’ apartment buildings to meet the housing needs of 60 farming households. The construction cost of the first building in the first phase is approximately Chinese yuan (CNY) 2500 per square meter, significantly lower than the price of nearby housing. The building has been completed and delivered, with owners now able to apply for property rights certificates under the normal residential construction regulations, ensuring the basic rights and interests of the farmers and realizing the goal of “a home for every household”.

4.2. External Variables: Motivating Mechanisms for the Construction of Villagers’ Flats in Area D

4.2.1. Natural and Material Conditions

The construction of flats for villagers in Area D to ensure the smooth progress of the “each household has a dwelling” project is primarily constrained by natural material conditions. First, the scarcity of residential land resources is a key factor. The historical ownership certificates for land and the houses in Area D have been in place for 30 to 40 years, and the buildings pose serious safety risks. Additionally, the land area is small, with entire families of over a dozen people living in cramped houses, which fail to meet housing demand. With the natural growth of the population and the influx of migrants, the demand for residential land continues to increase. However, there is very little residential land available for allocation in Area D. Over the past decade, nearly no new residential land has been designated, leading to a dilemma where there is no land available for allocation when farmers apply for it. As a result, the demand for residential land is exceptionally high, and the conflict between population and land availability is particularly acute. Through the construction of collective housing, residential land can be used more intensively and efficiently. This approach will replace the traditional single-family rural housing model, allowing more farmers to meet their housing needs with fewer land resources, thus effectively addressing the problem of a large population and limited land in Area D. Secondly, the economic conditions in Area D are relatively favorable. The district’s proximity to Hong Kong and Macao, its high degree of urban–rural integration, and its well-developed manufacturing and aquaculture industries provide a solid economic foundation. The government is financially robust and can provide the necessary financial support for the construction of collective housing projects. At the same time, farm households in Area D have a high level of income, strong payment capability, and a strong willingness to upgrade their housing. These factors together create favorable conditions for the construction of collective housing and the successful implementation of the project.

4.2.2. Community Attributes

The collective housing construction project in District D, led by the village collective, the government, enterprises, and local villages, requires close integration among all participants to form a cohesive community. The community’s attributes serve as the basis for defining common identities and standards of conduct, guiding the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties. The residential base is collectively owned by farmers and managed by the village collective economic organization, which exercises ownership rights in areas such as planning, distribution, and adjustment. This ensures that villagers’ autonomy is maintained, their wishes are respected, and their rights are protected. Therefore, the collective housing project in District D, aimed at ensuring each household has access to a dwelling, should be guided by the district and township governments. The collective economic organization of F Village will manage the project through a system of self-government, with the joint-stock cooperative society of F Village acting as the main body for the construction, representing the villagers. A special organization will be established to oversee the construction of villagers’ apartments, responsible for handling the relevant approvals and public relations. The project will be promoted through policy documents such as the “Work Programme for the Construction of Villagers’ Apartments in F Village, Township L, District D”, which will clarify the application conditions for farmers, scoring standards, and safeguard the fair rights and interests of the rural population. The principle of voluntary participation will be upheld, ensuring the full protection of the rights of members of rural collective economic organizations. These rights include being informed about, participating in, and supervising decisions related to village planning, fund-raising, construction processes, house distribution, and usage. By adhering to these principles, the project aims to successfully meet the housing needs of rural households and ensure that each household has access to a dwelling.

4.2.3. Rules of Behaviour

In the IAD framework, rules of conduct represent the constraints on the behavior of each participant and are a crucial part of the external variables within the framework. Embedding the rules of conduct into the case of the villagers’ flat construction in District D helps provide a deeper understanding of the logic behind the behavior of each participant [49]. In the case of the villagers’ flat construction in Village F, the scope of the actors is limited to the government of District D, the enterprise, the village collective economic organization, and the farm households. In this context, the range of actors is confined to four main subjects, each positioned differently and making distinct choices. The government of District D and the Office of Residential Reform, under the requirements of the residential base system reform, implement the eligibility rights of farmers to ensure that each household has a dwelling. They coordinate the planning for the construction of villagers’ flats and contract the project to the relevant enterprises responsible for the specific construction work. Due to the lack of land available for granting residential bases, the village collective of Village F cannot ensure that each household has a dwelling. According to government guidelines, the village collective builds the villagers’ flats, implements the government’s requirements, collaborates with the construction enterprises, and carries out various announcements, approvals, and supervision. Eligible farmers apply to the village collective based on their needs and economic conditions, following the relevant procedures, and paying a certain amount of fees to meet their housing needs and improve their living conditions. To address the interests of different stakeholders, the “Work Programme for the Construction of Villagers’ Apartments in F Village, L Township, District D” was developed to clarify the specific requirements for the construction of villagers’ flats. Public announcements were made to outline the scope and remuneration rules, highlighting the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of farmers and minimizing costs for the clear revenue subjects, as much as possible benefiting the farmers. Under the constraints of the rules of conduct in District D, the influence of collective housing contributes to the achievement of the goal “each household has a dwelling” through specific planning, construction, distribution, and management modes, ensuring the smooth progress of the project (see Figure 3).

4.3. The Theatre of Action: The “Plan–Build–Distribute–Manage” Process

Rural collective housing is a complex arena of action, and the concept of a single, unified collective housing arena is difficult to grasp due to the large number of involved actors and the complexity of the chain of actions. For analytical purposes, the IAD framework suggests that, in most cases, it is essential to distinguish between successive or simultaneous arenas, as “the context of action lies at the heart of the action arena”. Therefore, categorizing action arenas based on varying action contexts represents the most fundamental approach. In this paper, rural cluster housing construction is categorized into four action arenas—“planning, construction, allocation, and management”—each corresponding to a distinct action context aimed at ensuring “each household has a dwelling”. This categorization is employed to specifically analyze the different structures and functions that emerge within these various action arenas, shaped by their respective action contexts and actors (see Figure 4).

4.3.1. Planning Arena: Building a Policy System to Promote Collective Housing with Rules to Follow

In the process of constructing collective housing in Area D to ensure that each household has a dwelling, the key stakeholders, in response to the specific local context, have implemented land policies, actively fulfilled their territorial responsibilities, and innovatively explored new models for ensuring rural housing. The underlying logic of this process reflects the coordination between “vertical centralization of power” and “horizontal coordination of self-governance”. In this framework, the government takes the lead in construction planning, village collectives address the needs of the villagers, and grassroots organizations play a crucial role in jointly safeguarding the overarching design of the collective housing construction projects.

First, the government assumes a guiding role. The district-level people’s government and its key departments, such as the Office for the Reform of Residential Housing, serve as the central authorities in policy formulation. Adhering to core principles such as “planning first, one village, one policy, and villagers’ voluntariness”, they issued the Guiding Opinions on Guaranteeing that Each Household Has a Dwelling and Promoting the Construction of Villagers’ Apartments in District D of City Z. This document not only systematically outlines essential components of villagers’ apartment construction, including target protection, standards, land-use approval, inter-departmental division of labor, and safeguards, but also provides a comprehensive guiding framework for the collective housing construction process. This ensures that the policy remains both forward-looking and actionable.

Second, the Township has refined its planning guidelines and defined specific construction programs. In alignment with district-level policies, the people’s government of L Town has issued targeted policy documents, such as the Pilot Implementation Program for the Reform of the Rural Residential Base System in F Village, L Town and the Work Program for the Construction of Villagers’ Apartments in F Village, L Town, D District. These documents articulate the construction principles of “intensive land use, compensated use, villagers’ voluntariness, and independent management”, and provide detailed provisions regarding the construction scale, target groups, point management, fund management, and the implementation of quality supervision and monitoring. By establishing this comprehensive framework, the construction of villagers’ apartments is guided by clear operational procedures and management norms, thereby ensuring the orderly and efficient execution of the project.

Lastly, village collectives cooperate with and implement the relevant plans, fulfilling the role of self-governing organizations at the village level. As a grassroots self-governing body and a direct representative of villagers’ interests, the Village Collective Economic Organization of Village F has actively refined village planning, developed village rules and regulations, fully engaged with public opinion, and collaborated with various departments to provide robust support for the pre-planning and preparatory stages of the villagers’ apartment construction.

Through the guidance of the government, the detailed implementation by the township government, and the active cooperation of the village collectives, the collaborative efforts and coordinated planning among the key stakeholders have ensured the smooth progression of the collective housing construction project in Area D.

4.3.2. Construction Arena: Clarifying the Construction Process and Ensuring the Steady Progress of Collective Housing

In the practice of constructing villagers’ apartments in Area D, the interaction between the key actors and the operational context is of particular importance. This interaction is primarily manifested in the collaborative participation of the village collective, the government, enterprises, and other multi-party stakeholders. This has led to the establishment of a new government–enterprise–village cooperation paradigm that is “capital-driven but not out-of-control, locally led but not isolated”, fostering a cooperation model characterized by “power checks and balances, benefit sharing, and risk sharing” among the main parties. Through this collaborative framework, the three core issues of “people”, “land”, and “money” are addressed in a joint and coordinated manner.

First, from the perspective of the main body of construction, District D is led by the village collectives, with the F Village Shareholding Economy Co-operative Joint Society serving as the primary construction entity. This organization is responsible for handling the approval application and overseeing the implementation of the construction project and related tasks. Meanwhile, the relevant construction company is responsible for engineering design, construction, and quality supervision, while the testing station is tasked with monitoring construction quality. The grassroots government and relevant departments, on the other hand, fulfill their respective duties, effectively communicate, and coordinate with the company, working together to promote the construction of villagers’ flats. This process fully reflects the collaboration and division of labor among the key stakeholders (village collectives, enterprises, and the government), collectively establishing an operational framework for advancing the construction of villagers’ flats. Secondly, in addressing the land-use issue, District D has resolved the problem of “landlessness” by integrating surrounding agricultural land through the conversion of agricultural land for overall development and construction. In this process, the government, village collective agricultural departments, and other stakeholders are jointly involved in the legal procedures for agricultural land conversion, while adjusting high-standard farmland indicators within the scope of the local township. Finally, in terms of financing, District D has developed a diversified financing model based on “village collectives contributing land, farmers contributing money, and banks providing loans”. Villagers who voluntarily participate in the construction of the villagers’ flats pay construction costs in installments, with relevant district-level departments providing financial support for infrastructure projects. Simultaneously, banking and financial institutions are encouraged to offer loan support, and a “risk compensation fund” has been established to safeguard the interests of lenders.

This process not only reflects the cooperation and win–win scenario among the key stakeholders (village collectives, farmers, banks, and the government) but also highlights the impact and influence of the broader context (such as policy environment, financial markets, etc.) on the behavior of these actors. By clearly defining the primary entities involved in construction, securing the land through various methods, and raising necessary funds, Area D has effectively addressed the challenges related to “people”, “land”, and “money” in the development of villagers’ flats, ensuring the steady progress of the project.

4.3.3. Allocation Arena: Orderly Allocation of Collective Housing to Safeguard Equitable Rights

In the process of rural collective housing construction, ensuring equitable distribution and safeguarding the rights and interests of rural households are the primary objectives. By establishing clear eligibility criteria for applying for villagers’ apartments, exploring the points system, and innovatively examining the inter-village allocation of residential land-use rights, Area D not only ensures fair distribution at the institutional level but also facilitates an orderly allocation process. Moreover, it upholds the principle of fairness by implementing a fully transparent and open distribution process throughout, thereby safeguarding the right to equity for all involved.

In terms of points management, District D has established a directory for determining eligibility for residential land allocation based on the Guidelines for Determining the Eligibility of Members of Rural Collective Economic Organizations in District D of City Z. The district has also introduced a “points system” evaluation mechanism that translates applicants’ personal situations and living conditions into points, assessing those who have voluntarily applied and met the eligibility requirements for a villager’s apartment. This ensures a fair and reasonable allocation of residential land. Additionally, District D has clearly defined the allocation process for villagers’ apartments, which includes application, review, public announcement, points evaluation, list determination, allocation by lottery, and signing of swap approval agreements. This comprehensive process ensures both the reasonableness and operability of the allocation system. Moreover, District D has eliminated geographical restrictions by allowing eligible owners of residential land in neighboring villages, who meet the “one household, one residence” condition, to jointly apply for the construction of villagers’ apartments across villages. This not only expands the housing options for villagers but also effectively alleviates the pressure on residential land resources. Throughout the process, District D has ensured the fairness and rationality of the distribution through institutional innovation, clearly defined norms, and transparent, open operations. This approach not only fulfills the objectives of rural collective housing construction but also improves the rural living environment and fosters the optimal allocation of land resources in rural areas.

4.3.4. Managing Arena: Improving Follow-Up Management and Guaranteeing Centralized Quality

After the construction of the villagers’ apartments is completed, the land’s designation remains residential, although it differs from traditional detached houses. The subsequent management approach must be clarified according to regional conditions and architectural characteristics. District D has established provisions for its registration, transfer, and property management, which define the primary management entity, prevent property rights disputes, and enhance the quality of life for farming households.

First, to regulate the registration and transfer of rights, District D will explore methods for confirming rights, transfers, and other post-construction management processes to enhance the efficiency of collective housing utilization. Upon the completion and acceptance of the villagers’ apartments, the district’s natural resources and real estate-registration department will adhere to the provisions governing the right to use state-owned construction land and the ownership of buildings. This department will then facilitate the registration of real estate rights for the participating farmers. Additionally, the transfer and withdrawal of villagers’ apartments will follow the regulations related to the transfer of rural residential land-use rights and residential property, in accordance with the relevant provisions of applicable regulations. Effectively avoid property rights disputes and improve the quality of life of farmers. Second, the property management of villagers’ apartments has been standardized. Pilot villages have been instructed to formulate the Property Management Regulations for Villagers’ Apartments, define the property-management area, and establish guidelines for the creation of owners’ associations and committees, as well as the property-management model. Following the formation of the owners’ committee, it will organize a vote among all owners to select a property service provider responsible for managing the property, or the owners’ committee may choose to manage the property independently. The property service fee for villagers’ apartments may be adjusted based on the scope and content of the services commissioned by the owners’ committee or the general meeting of owners. To safeguard the leading role of village collectives in the management of villagers’ apartments, strengthen local autonomy, enhance villagers’ sense of participation and initiative in apartment management, improve the flexibility of local governance, increase public satisfaction, and ensure the sustainable development of villagers’ apartments.

4.4. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Collective Housing in Rural Areas

The construction of collective housing, as a key strategy for safeguarding the basic rights and interests of rural households and achieving the goal of “one dwelling for each household” in Area D, has demonstrated the remarkable effectiveness of the close interaction among actors in a specific action context. Under the combined constraints and influences of natural material conditions, community characteristics, and institutional rules, the actors have developed a highly effective and synergistic mode of interaction throughout the various stages of “planning, construction, allocation, and management”, while considering policy orientations, practical needs, and management practices.

The planning and construction of collective housing in Village F, Area D, has not only effectively addressed the urgent housing needs of rural households and realized the goal of “one dwelling for each household”, but has also reduced the cost of building homes and achieved the dual objectives of alleviating housing pressure and conserving land resources. Moreover, the construction of collective housing has led to improvements in the living environment and strengthened rural governance. By integrating land resources and optimizing the spatial layout of rural areas, a 120-square-meter house was constructed on a homestead with only 13 square meters per person. This approach effectively mitigates land waste associated with traditional single-family, decentralized housing, significantly enhancing land-use efficiency [50]. At the same time, the development of robust infrastructure and an optimized rural environment not only enhances the quality of life for farmers but also improves the overall appearance of rural areas, thus enhancing the effectiveness and level of rural governance.

The exploration of cross-village allocation of residential land usage rights in District D represents a significant innovation in the traditional mechanism of residential land allocation. This reform breaks geographical limitations by allowing eligible owners of residential land rights in two neighboring villages to jointly apply for the construction of villagers’ apartments across villages. This initiative is not only a valuable attempt to optimize the allocation of residential land resources but also serves as an important practical reference for the ongoing optimization and upgrading of residential land policies. This innovative practice not only helps to address the housing challenges in rural areas, where there are tense housing resources and significant human–land conflicts but also provides valuable experience for further reform and improvement of housing policies.

The collective housing construction in District D has been characterized by close interaction between the key stakeholders and the context of action. Each participant has fully leveraged their respective strengths, fostering synergistic cooperation among all parties involved in the construction process, leading to remarkable outcomes. Not only has it achieved the social goal of “providing a dwelling for every household”, but it has also promoted the efficient use of land resources, improved the living environment, and enhanced rural governance. This model offers a replicable and scalable development path for rural areas with limited land resources and large populations. It provides valuable academic references and practical insights for the comprehensive development of rural areas.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Contribution: Adaptive Extension of the IAD Framework in Rural Homestead Governance

This study enriches the theoretical discourse on rural housing security by applying the IAD framework to the governance of rural homesteads. While existing literature primarily focuses on macro-level policy analysis or the summarization of housing security models [19,51], this study systematically integrates the external variables, arenas of action, and assessment criteria within the IAD framework, offering an analysis of the complex interactions among stakeholders, institutional rules, and situational factors in the pursuit of the goal of ensuring that each household has access to a dwelling. By segmenting the implementation process into four stages—“planning, construction, allocation, and management”—and applying the IAD theory to the practical issues of rural housing security, we not only validate the adaptability of the IAD framework in managing rural residential bases but also extend its applicability to the governance of multi-stage, multi-agent public resource allocation.

5.2. Practical Insights: The Chinese Paradigm of Collaborative Multi-Agent Governance

The case of District D offers valuable lessons for regions grappling with land scarcity and housing inequality. First, the success of collective housing projects depends on synergistic governance among the government, village collectives, and farmers, aligning with China’s rural homestead-management framework [52]. This model is analogous to Singapore’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) system, where the government ensures housing equity through land nationalization and centralized construction [53], as well as Germany’s cooperative housing model, both of which emphasize multi-party participation [54]. Second, the experience of District D illustrates that innovative mechanisms for inter-village land allocation, coupled with a flexible financing model where “village collectives provide land, farmers provide capital, and banks provide housing loans”, are critical to addressing local constraints. This model significantly mitigates the financial pressures associated with the “total replacement” approach in Zhejiang [55], making it more feasible for broader adoption. Third, the point-based allocation method ensures fairness in the distribution process and helps alleviate social conflicts, offering a crucial reference for regions with similar population pressures [56]. Fourth, standardized property registration and community-led management post-completion underscore the importance of institutional sustainability in the long term. Policymakers should prioritize adaptive governance structures that effectively balance top-down direction with grassroots autonomy.

5.3. Analysis of Regional Differentiation Model Options

This study demonstrates that the collective housing model exhibits significant replicability in land resource-constrained regions with smaller cultivated areas and more developed secondary and tertiary industries. However, when applying this model to other regions, it is essential to fully consider the geographic, social, and cultural characteristics of each area, tailoring housing security models according to the specific attributes of different regions [21]. Firstly, the study area of this paper, Area D, features level terrain and convenient transportation, making it suitable for the construction of high-rise collective housing. In contrast, the central and western regions of China are characterized by complex topographies, which pose challenges for construction. As a result, while the collective housing model from Area D could serve as a reference, a more localized adaptation, such as the model of ground-floor townhouses, should be employed to better align with the local topographical conditions. Secondly, the successful promotion of collective housing in Area D is largely attributed to the strong governance capacity of village collectives and the high level of trust that villagers place in these collectives. However, economically underdeveloped regions are typically more reliant on financial support from higher levels of government, and their capacity for self-governance is comparatively weaker. Simply replicating the D model in such regions could result in project stagnation due to insufficient funding or management capabilities. Therefore, during implementation, it is necessary to introduce external support mechanisms, such as special provincial funds, integrate resources through platforms like the “digital village”, and ensure transparency in the allocation of funds to foster greater trust among farmers in the village collectives. Moreover, distinct rural cultures exist across various regions, such as the strong clan-based culture in Southern China and the deeper-rooted courtyard culture in Northeastern China. These cultural factors must be thoroughly considered during housing planning and allocation processes. Housing designs should be adjusted to align with local cultural preferences in order to better meet the needs of the rural population and promote the sustainable development of rural housing. Therefore, policymakers must take these cultural, geographic, and social factors into account when promoting housing initiatives, ensuring that each region can adopt an appropriate model that aligns with its unique characteristics.

5.4. Research Shortcomings and Prospects

This study is currently limited to a single case; future research could employ multi-case comparisons to explore the drivers of regional differentiation by examining different regional pilot programs. Furthermore, while the present study primarily focuses on the analysis of the implementation phase, a more comprehensive evaluation of the policy’s effects would require tracking and assessing the long-term impact of collective housing on both the social structure and economic development of rural villages. Additionally, future research could incorporate the theory of institutional change [39], enabling a deeper exploration of how path dependence either constrains or facilitates policy innovations within varying contexts. This would provide enhanced theoretical support and practical guidance for the formulation of future policies.

6. Conclusions

During the reform of the homestead system, it became imperative to safeguard the basic housing needs of farmers, with particular emphasis on the residential function of homesteads. In areas with rapid economic development, limited per capital farmland, and relatively well-developed secondary and tertiary industries, the contradiction between the supply and demand for newly added construction land has become increasingly prominent. Consequently, ensuring farmers’ housing rights through the allocation of individual homesteads has become more challenging. Therefore, it is necessary to shift from the traditional allocation model of homesteads, moving from a focus on “land supply” to “housing supply”, and to adopt various approaches to ensure that each household has a dwelling.

This paper examines the case of the villagers’ apartment construction project in Village F, District D, and explores how the development of collective housing in Village F achieves the goal of “ensuring each household has a dwelling” in rural areas, within the context of the pilot reform of the new round of rural homestead system. The following conclusions are drawn: Firstly, the construction of collective housing in rural areas of China can effectively address the challenges posed by the scarcity of construction land and the unmet basic housing needs of farmers. This approach helps achieve the goal of ensuring that each household has a dwelling while also improving the rural living environment. It is a feasible solution. Secondly, during the construction of collective housing, the government should make overall plans and enhance financial and land supply support. While adhering to the red line for farmland protection, the government should relax the approval process for land-use conversion in order to address the challenges of “financing” and “land acquisition” in project implementation. Thirdly, as the owner of homesteads, the village collective should fully exercise its management functions related to homesteads by taking charge of publicity, approval, and other key tasks during the construction of collective housing. Moreover, the village collective should leverage the role of villagers’ self-government organizations in homestead management, respecting farmers’ wishes, safeguarding their rights to know, participate, express opinions, and supervise the construction of collective housing. This will also enhance governance capabilities. Fourthly, appropriate methods for pricing, allocation, and subsequent management of collective housing should be selected based on local conditions. Costs should be minimized as much as possible, and application qualifications should be clarified. The primary principle must be safeguarding farmers’ rights and interests, ensuring that the quality of collective housing is improved to guarantee that each household has a dwelling. Fifthly, the collective housing construction model in Area D is particularly suitable for regions characterized by significant rural human–land conflicts, a well-developed secondary and tertiary industry sector, and higher levels of villagers’ self-governance. The widespread adoption of this model requires careful consideration of economic, geographical, socio-cultural, and other relevant factors. Drawing from the experience of Area D, it is essential to select a housing security model that is tailored to the specific conditions of each locality.

Based on the above conclusions, the following policy recommendations are drawn: First, in promoting the construction of collective housing in rural areas, it is essential to focus on the flexibility and adaptability of policies, ensuring they can accurately meet the specific needs of different regions and conditions. This requires taking into account regional differences and the actual challenges faced by farm households when formulating policies, as well as continuously adjusting and improving these policies in practice to make them more realistic and operable. Second, communication with farmers should be strengthened to ensure the transparency and fairness of the policy, so that farmers can fully understand the policy content and actively participate in the construction and management of collective housing. Third, the government and village collectives should jointly explore sustainable financing models to alleviate the financial burden on farm households, while ensuring the rational use and effective supervision of construction funds. Through these measures, the healthy development of rural collective housing construction can be further promoted, and the goal of ensuring that each farmer has a dwelling can be truly realized.