Next Article in Journal
Recent Advances in the EAGLE Concept—Monitoring the Earth’s Surface Based on a New Land Characterisation Approach
Previous Article in Journal
How Do Invasive Species Influence Biotic and Abiotic Factors Drive Vegetation Success in Salt Marsh Ecosystems?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/land14081524
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Multiple Effects of Land Transfer on Rural Revitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Chinese Cases

by
Yangguang Hou
1,
Haoyang Kang
1,
Meichen Fu
1,*,
Xu Dong
1,
Yuting Wu
1 and
Lijiao Li
1,2
1
School of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China
2
School of Marxism, Zhaotong University, Zhaotong 657000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(8), 1524; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081524
Submission received: 25 June 2025 / Revised: 20 July 2025 / Accepted: 21 July 2025 / Published: 24 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Land Socio-Economic and Political Issues)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Rural revitalization, as a crucial strategic goal for rural development in contemporary China, encompasses multidimensional connotations and requirements. Following the establishment of the ‘three rights separation’ system in 2014, land transfer has increasingly assumed a vital role, demonstrating a close and complex intrinsic logical relationship with rural revitalization. To comprehensively analyze the diverse impacts of land transfer on rural revitalization as discussed in the literature, we employ a ‘goal–strategy–indicator–outcome’ analytical framework to conduct a meta-analysis and visual assessment of 131 cases drawn from 52 articles published over the past decade. We systematically explore the pathways by which land transfer impacts rural revitalization and validate the results using typical cases reported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs through Python 3.9 analysis. The findings reveal the following: (1) Land transfer generally exerts a positive impact on rural revitalization (81.7% of 107 cases). (2) It significantly boosts living standards (84% positive cases) and industrial prosperity (88.4% positive cases); rural cultural civilization shows 100% positive cases yet with statistically insignificant coefficients, while its impacts on ecological livability (60%) and effective governance (70.6%) are insignificant. (3) Among 12 indicators, those related to agricultural production and farmers’ livelihoods are positive, whereas those concerning rural ecology and governance are negative. This study indicates that land transfer plays a key role in the rural revitalization strategy, but the ecological impacts and governance challenges that it presents require ongoing attention and optimization at the policy level.

1. Introduction

Poverty governance and sustainable development represent common challenges to human society in the 21st century. The ongoing global poverty reduction initiatives and the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty not only reveal a shared vision for eliminating poverty but also underscore the severity of the foundational challenge posed by rural decline. In the face of globalization, industrialization, and urbanization, issues such as labor loss, economic contraction, and resource misallocation undermine the foundations of rural development and represent a global barrier to achieving sustainable development goals [1]. In the context of global economic integration in the 21st century, China has undergone an unprecedented socioeconomic transformation and attracted widespread international attention due to its development model and economic growth rate [2]. As an active participant in the global poverty alleviation effort, China has achieved historic accomplishments in its battle against poverty, which has laid a solid foundation for the comprehensive implementation of the rural revitalization strategy [3]. However, during this process, rural areas have faced numerous challenges, and the growing urban–rural gap has become a key factor constraining balanced socioeconomic development [4,5,6]. In this context, the Chinese government has proposed the rural revitalization strategy, which aims to promote agricultural modernization, improve rural infrastructure, enhance farmers’ living standards, and achieve coordinated development between urban and rural areas through a series of policy measures. As the fundamental spatial carrier of human social and economic activities, land and its mode of use, spatial structure, and organizational patterns have a profound impact on the development of regions and nations [7]. The structural contradictions in land use patterns, efficiency, and institutional systems between China’s urban and rural areas have exacerbated developmental imbalances and triggered manifestations of ‘rural maladies’, such as farmland abandonment, construction idleness, and ecological degradation. These necessitate land system reforms to address structural dilemmas, including fragmented arable land, spatial disorganization, and industrial underdevelopment, unleash rural endogenous vitality, and redefine integrated urban–rural development paradigms.
Rural land constitutes both a fundamental livelihood resource for farmers and critical material capital for rural transformation [8,9,10]. The effective utilization of these resources proves pivotal in advancing comprehensive revitalization across rural industries, talent pools, cultural ecosystems, and organizational structures. In 2014, China’s State Council institutionalized the ‘three rights separation’ reform through the Opinions on Guiding the Orderly Transfer of Rural Land Management Rights and subsequent amendments to the Rural Land Contracting Law, which legally delineated land management rights and transfer rights [11]. This institutional innovation catalyzed diversified land utilization patterns, facilitated optimal resource allocation and created institutional prerequisites for agricultural modernization through scaled operations and industrial restructuring [12,13,14]. Given the reform’s foundational role in rural revitalization, in this study we adopt 2014 as the analytical baseline to systematically evaluate the longitudinal impacts of land transfer mechanisms on rural development trajectories and thereby capture both the criticality of institutional transition and the sustainability of the policy effect.
Rural revitalization, as China’s strategic developmental imperative, embodies multidimensional objectives, where land transfer plays a dualistic catalytic role [15]. Despite institutional innovations, such as the ‘three rights separation’ reform that began in 1978, land circulation mechanisms confront institutional dilemmas involving ambiguous property rights, fragmented operations, and inadequate policy frameworks. While extant scholarship confirms the capacity of land transfer to increase agricultural productivity through scaled operations and accelerate rural–urban factor mobility and poverty alleviation [16,17], its impacts present paradoxical characteristics: econometric analyses reveal nonlinear correlations between operational scale and land output [18], with risks including farmers’ marginalization [19], ecological degradation [20], and paradoxical ‘prosperity–depopulation’ effects [21]. Current research predominantly addresses sectoral impacts but lacks systematic evaluation frameworks to reconcile its heterogeneous socioeconomic-ecological consequences [22,23,24]. This epistemic gap underscores the necessity for multidimensional assessment paradigms to decode the complex longitudinal impacts of land transfer on rural transformation trajectories.
In this study, we synthesize the multidimensional effects of China’s land transfer on rural revitalization through a systematic review and meta-analysis of 131 nationwide cases from 52 peer-reviewed articles, following the PRISMA framework. Despite the high heterogeneity of local-scale studies in terms of contextual backgrounds, stakeholders, implementation processes, and solutions, the systematic review and meta-analysis effectively integrate these findings to provide broad insights that are transferable across regions [25]. In comparison with international research on land transfer and rural development, foreign studies have predominantly focused on the impacts of land transfer—occurring within a context of relatively high land marketization—on agricultural large-scale operations and the protection of farmers’ rights and interests (e.g., Daymard (2022) [26] & Kvartiuk’s (2025) [27] study on land rental markets in developing countries). In contrast, China’s land transfer, shaped by its distinctive land property rights system and guided by the rural revitalization strategy, exhibits marked differences in both goal orientation and practical pathways. Grounded in China’s national realities, this research draws upon the well-established experience of international systematic review methodologies in integrating heterogeneous studies. It examines and compares the positive and negative outcomes of rural land transfer in line with the five goals outlined in China’s rural revitalization strategy, while also identifying and synthesizing representative conclusions regarding the diverse effects of land transfer from existing literature. The overarching goal is to comprehensively assess the influence of land transfer on rural revitalization, with three specific objectives: (1) to identify and categorize land transfer effects evaluated in empirical Chinese case studies; (2) to quantify the spatial differentiation of positive/negative impacts across China and measure their magnitude; and (3) to synthesize multidimensional effects (including neutral impacts) and analyze the theoretical framework underlying the role of land transfer in rural revitalization. This systematic evidence synthesis provides a scientific basis for evaluating policy effectiveness, optimizing rural revitalization strategies, and identifying critical directions for theoretical advancement and policy refinement.

2. Research Methods

2.1. Literature Search

For the literature search, we used a modified PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) to illustrate the literature selection process. This flow diagram was adapted from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Page et al., 2020) [28] with some adjustments to better meet the requirements of this study. The method consists of three steps: identification, screening, and inclusion (Figure 1). The specific implementation steps are as follows: (1) Literature identification phase: Using ‘land transfer’ as the search term, literature published from January 2014 to October 2024 was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection and CNKI (Chinese Core, CSSCI) databases. A total of 672 preliminary documents were obtained through searches of titles, keywords, and abstracts. Through deduplication using Excel, 65 duplicate documents were removed. (2) Screening phase: Based on title and abstract information, studies related to industrial land transfer, urban land transfer, and other nonagricultural fields were excluded, which yielded 162 peer-reviewed documents focused on rural land transfer. A full-text screening was subsequently conducted on the theme of the ‘effects of land transfer’, and 70 core documents were retained. A three-tier quality assessment was then implemented using the criteria of regional relevance (limited to rural practice cases in China), research content (requiring the analysis of transfer effect dimensions), and methodology (requiring empirical data support). This led to the exclusion of 18 documents that did not meet the criteria. Ultimately, 52 high-quality documents were identified that possessed both spatial scale adaptability and academic rigor (Figure 1). (3) Inclusion phase: The 52 selected articles were incorporated into the systematic review study.

2.2. Data Extraction

For the 52 relevant articles that were initially screened, a manual content analysis method was employed for a systematic and critical review to identify commonalities and differences among the studies and, on the basis of this, to filter and categorize the effects of land transfer. Since the collected studies include various types of land transfer effects and employ diverse data and measurement methods, only effects that met specific evidence strength criteria were included in the filtering process. To ensure the reliability of the extracted data, we constructed a decision matrix based on four factors, namely the rigor of the research design, the reliability of the data sources, the representativeness of the samples, and the degree of control over various biases, and we evaluated the selected articles accordingly [29]. After all the factors were comprehensively scored, the bias risk of each article was precisely categorized into three levels: low (comprehensive score ≤ 6), medium (6 < comprehensive score ≤ 9), and high (9 < comprehensive score ≤ 12). On the basis of these criteria, we selected articles with high and medium levels of evidence strength, as illustrated in Figure 2.
When extracting cases from the literature with medium and high evidence strength levels, we divided the identified case outcomes into two categories: positive correlation and no/negative correlation. Positive correlation outcomes refer to the significant positive impact of land transfer on farmers’ living conditions, agricultural development, or rural environments, manifested as notable improvements, high stakeholder acceptance, or increased satisfaction. In contrast, no/negative correlation outcomes indicate that land transfer did not yield the expected results; had negative effects on rural production, living conditions, or ecology; or led to a decline in farmer satisfaction. When a study analyzes multiple outcomes or discusses the effects of land transfer in different regions, each outcome is recorded as an independent case. For example, in the study by Li, G in 2023, the author found that land transfer could significantly increase household income and promote consumption diversity. We thus extract two positive outcome cases, namely ‘household income’ and ‘consumption diversity,’ which yields a total of 2 cases. Ultimately, 131 valid cases were extracted from the 52 studies.
To minimize subjectivity and potential bias in the case identification process, we assessed the repeatability of case identification to evaluate the consistency between the case inclusion process and the classification process [30]. Specifically, 13 articles (approximately 25% of the total references) were randomly selected from all the references, and the first two authors independently reviewed and extracted cases (see Supplementary S3). To determine the level of consistency, McNemar’s test was employed: a contingency table was constructed to present the paired binary classification data during the coding and classification phases; subsequently, the chi-square statistic was calculated by comparing the number of inconsistent pairs in the two classifications, and the corresponding p value was determined on the basis of the chi-square distribution with 1 degree of freedom. The test results indicated a significant level of consistency between case identification and classification (p < 0.05), which suggests that the case extraction process is highly reliable.

2.3. Construction of the Evaluation System

To systematically evaluate the multidimensional role of land transfer in rural revitalization, we construct a four-level analytical framework that includes the layers of strategy, goal, indicator, and outcome, which is based on policy implications and academic consensus (Table 1). This framework effectively connects policy objectives with empirical results through the logical nesting of the strategic layer, goal layer, indicator layer, and outcome layer. At the strategic level, we deconstruct the concept of rural revitalization on the basis of the ‘three rural issues’ to form a three-dimensional strategic system comprising farmer revitalization, agricultural revitalization, and rural revitalization. At the goal level, we systematically integrate the five core objectives of the ‘Rural Revitalization Strategic Plan (2018–2022)’ with the strategic dimensions: ‘affluent living’ and ‘rural civilization’ are categorized under farmer revitalization and represent the subjects’ development and cultural enhancement; ‘ecological livability’ and ‘effective governance’ fall under rural revitalization and reflect spatial optimization and institutional guarantees; and agricultural revitalization centers on ‘thriving industry’ as its core objective and focuses on the dimension of industrial upgrading.
To construct the indicator system, a systematic approach was employed to classify the results of the case studies and map these classifications to the target layer. First, thematic clustering was conducted on the basis of the similarity and relevance of the case results to form an initial pool of indicators. Second, cross-validation with existing literature was performed to ensure the reliability of the indicators. Specifically, we referred primarily to the research findings of certain scholars regarding the evaluation indicator system for rural revitalization and established a systematic indicator system based on five major goal dimensions [31,32,33]. A dual verification mechanism was subsequently employed to ensure the scientific validity and applicability of the indicator system. First, we used bibliometric methods to test the content validity of the indicators by searching for relevant literature from the past five years in the CNKI and Web of Science databases and selecting authoritative studies with citation rates exceeding 50 for comparison to ensure the theoretical foundation of the indicators. Second, a case retrospective method was used for practical validation, in which we reclassified 131 cases into the optimized indicator system and achieved a classification consistency rate of 92.3%, which indicates that the indicator system has good practical applicability. Ultimately, through the comprehensive analysis and verification mentioned above, 12 core evaluation indicators were identified (Figure 3). The affluent living goal includes the three indicators of farmers’ income, quality of life, and urban–rural disparity; the thriving industry goal encompasses the three dimensions of industrial development, cultivated land layout, and production efficiency; the ecological livability goal consists of the three indicators of agricultural carbon emissions, ecological security, and ecological environmental quality. Since case clustering revealed that “farmers’ cognition” is highly correlated with and generalizable to the manifestations of rural civilization, and cross-validation with literature confirmed its consistency with theoretical connotations while avoiding formalistic deviations, coupled with the fact that case retrospective verification showed a classification consistency rate of 91.7%—indicating strong applicability, compliance with the principle of simplicity in the indicator system, and assurance that core dimensions remain undiluted—the “rural civilization goal” in the rural revitalization evaluation index system is thus focused on the single indicator of “farmers’ cognition”; and the effective governance goal includes the two indicators of social stability and rural governance. On the basis of this indicator system, 131 cases were systematically classified into 12 indicators and 5 goal dimensions (Supplementary S2).

2.4. Descriptive Statistics

In this study, we employ a two-phase analytical approach to address data heterogeneity: we use initial descriptive statistics to characterize data distributions and then conduct one-tailed Fisher’s exact tests to assess significance directionality (positive/negative correlations) for variables with small positive/negative case counts [34]. Taking industrial revitalization as an example (42 positive vs. 8 nonpositive cases among 50 samples), we establish median-based reference distributions (e.g., 25:25) to evaluate directional significance. This methodological framework was systematically implemented across all explanatory variables using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0, with adaptive reference distribution adjustments tailored to specific test conditions. If p < 0.001, the hypothesis of homogeneity is rejected, indicating the presence of significant heterogeneity. If p > 0.001, the hypothesis of homogeneity is not rejected tentatively.
To further quantify the analysis results, the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the likelihood of various variables producing positive outcomes. The OR value is derived by comparing the odds of positive outcomes to those of negative outcomes. When the OR value exceeds 1, it indicates that the variable is more likely to yield positive than negative outcomes, and the larger the OR value is, the greater the likelihood of achieving positive results. The statistical analysis of the OR values was conducted using STATA Statistics (version 15.0), and the specific results are presented in Figure 4.

3. Results

3.1. Spatial Distribution of Land Transfer Cases

Among the retrieved articles, 28 focused on all provinces of China as the research area or utilized data from the China Family Panel Studies for their research; these studies demonstrate the various benefits brought by land transfer at the macro level. An additional 24 articles approached the topic from the perspective of provinces and cities and selected a specific province or city as the research area for empirical study. To better explore the spatial distribution of land transfer benefits, we divided China into three regions, Central, Eastern, and Western, on the basis of the existing four major economic zones. We employed ArcMap 10.7 for visual processing and quantified the positive and negative effects of land transfer and their spatial differentiation across Eastern, Central, and Western China.
The rural revitalization effects of land transfer demonstrate significant geographical differentiation (Figure 5). Central China, identified as a research hotspot, is the subject of nine articles focusing on land transfer. In this region, agricultural resource endowments and policy support create a synergistic effect: its rich agricultural ecological foundation renders it an ideal location for the development of diversified agricultural product cultivation and breeding. Government subsidies and an improved market system have driven positive interactions between land transfer and agricultural upgrading [35]. The rural revitalization case underscores the governance risks in Central China and its surrounding areas, whereas the negatively correlated cases concentrated in the Central China Plain reveal the potential decline in ecological carrying capacity and the increase in social conflicts resulting from excessive scale expansion. This suggests that in advancing land transfer in Central China, it is essential to focus on the governance of the ecological environment and sustainability, ensure the effective protection of farmers’ rights, and address the social conflicts arising from land transfer.
The distribution of cases in the western region is relatively scattered; the vastness of the area and low population density have resulted in delayed market development and been compounded by factors such as land fragmentation and traditional beliefs, which create institutional barriers to land transfer [36]. The farmer revitalization-type cases in the 11 western provinces exhibit a significant positive correlation effect, with 16 cases achieving increased farmer income and economic growth through land transfer, whereas there is only 1 negative case. The widespread distribution of positive cases across 11 provinces indicates that land transfer significantly enhances farmers’ living standards and contributes to the development of a spiritual civilization. Although there are few cases in the eastern region (n = 5), its high degree of marketization and the attractiveness of nonagricultural employment reflect the deep connection between land transfer and regional economic structures [37]. The positive correlation cases related to agricultural revitalization are concentrated predominantly in the eastern region and are closely linked to the rapid economic development of the eastern coastal areas. The agricultural revitalization-type cases (n = 34) demonstrate an overall positive trend, with 28 positive cases promoting overall agricultural production efficiency. However, the negative cases in six provinces, including Shandong (n = 6), caution against the nonlinear relationship between land transfer and agricultural production efficiency. This suggests that land transfer may produce some negative effects in the process of promoting agricultural development and does not necessarily lead to an increase in agricultural production efficiency. Overall, the spatial responses of different types of revitalization cases exhibit gradient differences. The rural revitalization effects of land transfer demonstrate significant spatial heterogeneity, which necessitates the formulation of differentiated policies tailored to local conditions in the eastern, central, and western regions. The eastern region should strengthen market-driven institutional innovation, the central region should establish a mechanism for ecological and social cost constraints on scale expansion, and the western region needs to overcome geographical and cultural barriers to develop a foundation for the transfer market. The coordinated advancement of government guidance, legal protection, and capacity building will become the key pathway for the synergistic evolution of land transfer and rural revitalization.

3.2. Statistical Analysis of Land Transfer

As illustrated in Figure 6, among the 131 cases included in the analysis, land transfer has a significant positive effect on rural revitalization. Specifically, 107 cases (81.7%) confirm that land transfer positively promotes rural revitalization, whereas only 24 cases (18.3%) indicate negative effects or no significant impact. The odds ratio (OR) analysis reveals that the number of cases with positive effects is 4.46 times greater than the number of cases with negative effects (OR = 4.46, p < 0.001). This indicates that the positive effects of land transfer are statistically significant and that land transfer plays a generally favorable role in the overall process of rural revitalization.
In the strategic layer of farmer revitalization, the number of positive examples significantly exceeds the number of negative cases. The p value obtained via Fisher’s exact test is well below 0.01, which indicates that the positive effects of land transfer in the strategic layer of farmer revitalization are statistically significant, with positive effects being 6.13 times greater than negative effects (OR = 6.13). Land transfer plays a positive role in the achievement of affluent living, and positive examples are statistically significant (p < 0.001, OR = 5.20). Notably, its role in promoting farmers’ income and improving their economic level is the most direct. There is no record of negative cases, and the difference is statistically significant (OR = 24, p < 0.001).
The impact of land transfer on rural revitalization is reflected in two aspects: ecological livability and effective governance (Figure 7). There are a total of 33 related cases, including 21 positive cases (66.7%) and 11 negative cases (33.3%). The odds ratio of positive to negative cases is 1.91; however, the p value is 0.16, which indicates that the promoting effect of land transfer at the strategic level of rural revitalization is not very significant. In terms of ecological livability, the 15 research cases include 9 positive cases, whereas the remaining 6 cases record negative impacts of land transfer on ecological livability. The strategic goal of agricultural revitalization is to achieve a thriving industry, and the positive effects of land transfer on this goal are statistically significant (p < 0.001, OR = 7.6). The total number of research cases is 43, with 38 positive cases (88.3%) and only 5 negative cases (21.7%). The goal of a thriving industry comprises three indicators: industrial development, production efficiency, and cultivated land layout. The positive effect of land transfer is most significant in terms of production efficiency (p < 0.001, OR = 23), and the p value indicates that its positive effect is statistically meaningful.

3.3. Effects of Land Transfer

To further analyze the impact of land transfer on various aspects of rural revitalization, this study provides an overview of the effects of land transfer on the basis of selected research cases categorized according to the ‘strategy–goal–indicator–result’ framework of rural revitalization:
(1)
The impact of land transfer on the strategic level of farmers’ revitalization is reflected primarily in two goals, affluent living and rural civilization, and these are related to multiple indicators, including farmers’ income, quality of life, urban–rural disparity, and perceptions.
(a)
Affluent living. By releasing land resources, land transfer provides farmers with diversified livelihood options. On the one hand, it stabilizes agricultural income (such as rent and dividends); on the other hand, it promotes the transfer of rural labor to non-agricultural industries, increasing wage income. This process drives the input of factors such as capital and technology, creating more employment opportunities. Land transfer attracts enterprises and social capital to invest in rural areas, accelerating the flow and integrated development of urban–rural resources. Meanwhile, labor transfer broadens farmers’ horizons, enhances their ability to participate in the market, and indirectly reduces structural poverty caused by information occlusion and lack of opportunities, thereby reducing the poverty rate and farmers’ financial vulnerability. This transformation not only improves farmers’ housing conditions and enhances their life satisfaction but also facilitates the orderly transition of the labor force to other industries. However, large-scale land transfers and changes in living conditions may adversely affect traditional farmers and older adults, with potential impacts on their mental health and quality of life. Furthermore, extensive land transfer may lead to a significant loss of the rural labor force and further widen the income gap between urban and rural areas.
(b)
Rural civilization. During the process of land transfer, farmers begin to reassess the economic value of land as a resource. By transferring land, farmers have the opportunity to earn additional income beyond traditional agricultural production, which encourages them to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of the market economy, enhances their market awareness and competitive mindset, and significantly improves their perception of efficiency. Following land transfer, land operators seek to maintain the long-term value of the land by paying increased attention to the protection and rational use of cultivated land, which stimulates farmers’ enthusiasm for participating in land conservation. In the context of land transfer, agricultural producers place increased emphasis on the resource utilization of agricultural waste and become exposed to more advanced agricultural knowledge. Additionally, the economic benefits derived from land transfer provide farmers with increased learning opportunities and resources.
(2)
The impact of land transfer on rural development and construction is reflected in two goals, namely ecological livability and effective governance, which encompass five indicators: agricultural carbon emissions, ecological security, environmental quality, social stability, and rural governance.
(a)
Ecological livability. Land transfer can influence ecological value by altering land use patterns and cultivation methods. If the transferred land is well protected and utilized, its ecological value may increase; conversely, if it is overexploited or damaged, its ecological value may decrease. Land transfer aids in the protection and enhancement of natural capital, such as soil fertility and water resources, by optimizing land resource allocation and thereby promoting ecosystem sustainability. Furthermore, land transfer serves as a crucial channel for green finance to mitigate agricultural non-point source pollution. With the agricultural scale and specialized management resulting from land transfer, agricultural products may reflect an increased emphasis on quality and ecological value. Land transfer may lead to an increase, decrease, or no change in agricultural carbon emissions depending on the interplay of various factors; however, it contributes to the enhancement of agricultural green total factor productivity. Naturally, the advancement of scale management may also result in increased fertilizer application intensity and plastic film usage, which negatively impacts the rural ecological environment.
(b)
Effective governance. The transfer of land from individual farmers to large-scale operators may weaken or deprive farmers of their sources of social security, which is detrimental to social stability. Following land transfer, farmers may transition from traditional agricultural work to other industries, such as urban labor or rural nonagricultural sectors. This shift can create new employment opportunities but may also expose some farmers to the risk of unemployment. Nevertheless, land transfer assists farmers in breaking away from excessive dependence on land and enables them to adopt more diversified livelihoods and thereby strengthen social networks. The industrial transformation and population mobility resulting from land transfer may promote social integration; however, they can also lead to issues such as resource waste and social injustice.
(3)
The impact of land transfer on agricultural development targets primarily the goal of achieving a thriving industry, which encompasses three aspects: industrial development, production efficiency, and cultivated land layout. As a key measure to promote agricultural modernization, land transfer significantly enhances the levels of agricultural mechanization and production efficiency by concentrating land resources and introducing advanced technologies and management models, which increases agricultural production value and improves the quality of agricultural products. Simultaneously, it accelerates the inflow of agricultural and financial capital, enhances land utilization efficiency and factor allocation efficiency, reduces long-term production costs, and facilitates the transfer of the surplus labor force and the development of scale management. Furthermore, land transfer optimizes the crop structure; although it may, to some extent, promote the non-grain utilization of cultivated land, it can also lead to the phenomenon of land abandonment. It may also give rise to the risk of monoculture, thereby reducing agricultural resilience.

4. Discussion

4.1. Factors and Processes Driving the Effects of Land Transfer

Affluent living’ is the fundamental goal of rural revitalization and plays an important role in promoting the sustained and in-depth development of rural revitalization [38]. The above research shows that land transfer is an important path for achieving the goal of affluent living in rural revitalization, and its income-generating effect has been empirically supported. By promoting large-scale land management, land transfer can optimize the allocation of agricultural resources, promote the transfer of family labor to the nonfarm sector, and form a stable source of nonfarm income [39]. This structural adjustment not only increases the income level of farm households but also improves their living environment and social relations and enhances the accumulation of human capital and the accessibility of social public services [40]. However, in the early stage of large-scale operation, land transfer households need to bear investment costs, such as land rent and labor hiring, and face financing constraints, which results in limited improvement in their living environment [41,42]. This phenomenon indicates that land transfer needs to be complemented by agricultural socialization services and rural social security systems to alleviate the short-term pressure caused by large-scale operations.
Rural civilization provides strong cultural support and a spiritual impetus for rural revitalization. In this study, all the cases of the impact of land transfer on rural civilization are positive cases, which indicates that land transfer has a positive effect on the construction of rural civilization. On the one hand, farmers’ emotional connection to the land and traditional culture can be preserved in the process of land transfer, and the cultural exchange between urban and rural areas gives rise to a brand of rural culture with local characteristics, which strengthens farmers’ cultural self-confidence [43]. On the other hand, land operators are driven by economic interests and government supervision to pay close attention to the protection of arable land, which forms a double guarantee mechanism [44]. Notably, some scholars, from the perspective of straw reuse, have found that land transfer can improve farmers’ economic cognition and efficiency cognition and thus promote the utilization rate of straw return to the field [45]. However, the scarcity of relevant cases suggests that scholars need to give increased attention to the construction of farmers’ spiritual civilization, and that land transfer needs to be synergized with cultural preservation policies to achieve the simultaneous enhancement of material and spiritual civilization.
Ecological livability is an intrinsic requirement and key support of the strategy of rural revitalization, and it is highly important for improving rural residents’ quality of life, promoting the green development of the countryside, displaying the unique charm of the countryside, and promoting the integrated development of urban and rural areas [46]. The systematic review reveals that land transfer has dual impacts on the ecological environment. Scale operations may reduce pollution via improved production efficiency and the reduced use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but the over-concentration of operations may also lead to ecological risks, such as high-carbon production and biodiversity decline. For example, the use of capital in operations may take advantage of environmental externalities to reduce costs [47], and the transfer of land for sloppy operations exacerbates the degradation of soil quality [48]. The spatial distribution data identified in this study show that the negative ecological effects of land transfer are more prominent in Central China than in other regions, which highlights the importance of vigilance regarding regional ecological risks [49]. The study of moderate-scale management shows that scientific and reasonable land transfer policies can promote soil quality improvement. This requires policy makers to seek a balance between economic benefits and ecological protection and guide farmers to adopt environmental protection measures through regulatory mechanisms (Figure 8).
Effective governance is an important foundation and guarantee for rural revitalization and permeates all aspects of rural revitalization. Land transfer has reshaped social relations in the countryside and provides a dual path for effective governance. On the one hand, stable land income enhances farmers’ participation in rural governance, and reasonable labor mobility eases the surplus problem and creates a stable environment for rural governance [50]. On the other hand, the overconcentration of land may lead to social conflicts, and the diversification of interest subjects increases the complexity of governance. The risk of land monopolization due to the lack of supervision and the difficulty of coordinating interests in dispute handling has led to increased requirements for the capacity of rural governance [51]. This suggests that land transfer needs to be embedded in the rural governance system to protect farmers’ rights and interests and promote social equity through the institutional design.
Industrial prosperity is the foundation of rural revitalization, which is not only a prerequisite for solving all problems in rural areas but also the fundamental driving force promoting the comprehensive upgrading of agriculture, the progress of rural areas, and farmers’ development [52]. Comprehensive studies have shown that land transfer promotes the optimization of the rural industrial structure and the extension of the industrial chain through the integration of land, labor, capital, technology, and other factors. The productivity enhancement, technology diffusion, and labor mobility caused by scale operations are the core mechanisms through which land transfer promotes industrial prosperity [53]. However, diminishing returns to scale restrict the long-term benefits, whereas the marginal output leveling and transaction gain effects verify the resource optimization role of land transfer at the macro level [54]. In addition, the improvement in the cultivation structure and layout of arable land by land transfer creates conditions that support large-scale agricultural operations.

4.2. Mechanisms by Which Land Transfer Affects Rural Revitalization

In light of China’s unique fundamental national conditions and practical challenges, the report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party explicitly outlined the rural development goals. Within this framework, rural revitalization is not solely manifested in population migration or the improvement in rural infrastructure; rather, it should be regarded as a comprehensive, multidimensional process that encompasses various aspects, such as politics, economics, culture, society, and ecology [55]. Its essence lies in the concurrent revitalization of rural areas and their inhabitants, along with their production and lifestyles, which facilitates the urbanization of farmers’ lifestyles while enhancing rural production and living conditions and achieves the equalization of public services between urban and rural areas [56]. Land transfer refers to the process of legally transferring and optimizing the rights to operate and utilize rural land through market-oriented mechanisms within the context of rural land system reform and aims to promote efficient land use and agricultural modernization [57]. This process is not only related to the development of the rural economy but also closely linked to the implementation of modern property rights theory and the ‘three rights separation’ policy.
On the basis of the articles retrieved and the current state of rural development, this study analyzes the foundational theories related to the impact of land transfer on rural revitalization (Figure 9). (1) Resource allocation theory aims to achieve maximum benefits through the optimization of resource distribution [58]. During the land transfer process, this theory encourages the concentration of land among specialized large households, agricultural enterprises, and other entities; promotes large-scale and intensive management; effectively prevents the idleness and waste of land resources; and facilitates the aggregation of labor, capital, technology, and other factors, which greatly enhances agricultural production efficiency. (2) Factor mobility theory advocates that the free movement of production factors is key to promoting economic development [59]. Land transfer has been established as a legitimate and orderly channel for the flow of land factors, which facilitates the coordinated movement of labor, capital, technology, and other resources. (3) The theory of property rights emphasizes that clearly defined property rights are fundamental to the efficient operation of economic activities [60]. Land transfer further clarifies the relationships among land ownership, contracting rights, and management rights, which effectively safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of all property rights holders, reduces disputes during the land use process, and encourages contractors to confidently transfer land while allowing operators to make long-term investments with peace of mind. (4) The theory of sustainable development requires that economic growth be harmonized with resource conservation and ecological integrity [61]. Land transfer directs agriculture toward ecological development, promotes green agricultural technologies, facilitates the integration of rural industries, preserves the rural cultural heritage, and achieves sustainable development in rural economies, societies, and cultures. (5) The theory of human–land relationships concerns the interaction between human activities and the geographical environment. Land transfer, informed by natural conditions and demographic factors, leads to the rational adjustment of land use practices to satisfy human needs for land while safeguarding land resources and thereby achieves the harmonious coexistence between humans and land. These theories are interrelated and together highlight the critical role of land transfer in rural revitalization, which promotes comprehensive development in rural areas.
Land transfer, as a key measure in the rural revitalization strategy, has facilitated the optimization and reallocation of production factors, such as capital, labor, and land, according to market principles and national development needs [62]. Furthermore, it has dismantled the rigid property rights associated with land development and significantly enhanced the spatial distribution of these factors. Economic entities establish property rights connections with rural landowners through investments, mergers, and acquisitions and allocate resources, such as capital, labor, and technology, to rural construction and industrial development. Rural landowners sell or lease the property rights of land and other factors to economic entities and direct resources to more efficient industries. This, in turn, promotes the bidirectional free flow of production factors such as land, capital, and labor between urban and rural areas and supports the ‘spatial’ movement between regions [63]. Notably, it strengthens the urban–rural linkage role of returning rural laborers for employment and entrepreneurship, college graduates returning to build their hometowns, and the ‘flock effect’ of new local elites. Furthermore, technological changes that contribute to a more refined and separated industrial division of labor lead some industries in developed regions to shift to surrounding areas. The extensive land transfer provides rural areas with the necessary space to accommodate this industrial transfer, thereby catalyzing the spatial flow of resources and enhancing the connection between urban and rural areas. This contributes to a spatial collaborative mechanism for development that promotes urban–rural integration and regional interconnectivity and ultimately facilitates the sustained revitalization of rural areas.

4.3. Case Verification via Python Text Analysis

The Chinese government has published numerous typical cases through government websites, authoritative media, and policy documents during the promotion of rural land transfer. These cases cover various regions, different transfer models, and application scenarios and showcase both the successful experiences of land transfer and the problems and solutions encountered in practice. Given that the literature focuses on the benefits of land transfer in a somewhat biased manner, we constructed an automated analysis framework based on Python natural language processing technology. First, we used the Scrapy framework to crawl 60 typical land transfer case texts that are publicly available on official platforms, such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the China Rural Network. We employed the BERT semantic model for case similarity calculation and deduplication and ultimately selected 30 effective cases with regional representativeness and model diversity (see Supplementary S4). In the text preprocessing stage, we utilized the Jieba word segmentation tool for part-of-speech tagging and stop-word filtering, combined with the TF-IDF and TextRank algorithms to extract feature vocabulary, and we generated a visual word cloud of the semantic field of land transfer using the word cloud library (Figure 10). The frequency analysis revealed that ‘land transfer’ (occurring 35 times), ‘large-scale operations’ (occurring 16 times), ‘farmers’ (occurring 15 times), ‘ecological agriculture’ (occurring 12 times), ‘dispute mediation’ (occurring 11 times), ‘food security’ (occurring 10 times), ‘farmers’ income increase’ (occurring 11 times), and ‘rural revitalization’ (occurring 9 times) were core high-frequency terms. These terms are highly consistent with the role of land transfer in the five goals—prosperous industries, rural civilization, affluent livelihoods, ecological livability, and effective governance—as elaborated in this paper.
The co-occurrence network constructed using Gephi 0.9.2 further reveals a strong correlation between ‘land transfer’ and ‘rural revitalization.’ In this context, land transfer revolves around five key themes: farmers, ecological agriculture, dispute mediation, collective economy, and agricultural modernization. This aligns with the benefits of land transfer for the five major goals of rural revitalization as outlined in the present study. Compared with those included in the studied research, new feature terms, such as ‘digital management platform’ and ‘ecological compensation mechanism’, are significantly emphasized in official cases, which confirms the trend of deep integration between land transfer and the digital rural strategy (Figure 11). However, the frequency of discussions regarding the ‘non-grain utilization’ issue in the case texts is noticeably lower than that in the academic literature samples, which reveals a discrepancy between official promotional guidance and the disclosure of practical issues. This comparative validation method based on Python text mining effectively overcomes the subjective selection bias of traditional case studies and provides a multidimensional evidence chain for the evaluation of land transfer policies.

5. Conclusions and Policy Impact

Our comprehensive research indicates that land transfer serves as a double-edged sword in the rural revitalization strategy. On the one hand, its significant role in promoting affluent living and thriving industries provides strong momentum for rural economic development; on the other hand, the positive impact of land transfer on ecological livability and effective governance is not statistically significant, and for some indicators of ecological livability and effective governance, negative effects have emerged owing to the institutional externalities of land transfer. However, overall, the positive effects of land transfer on rural revitalization still outweigh its negative effects. Nevertheless, land transfer is a complex socioeconomic phenomenon that involves multiple aspects, such as property rights, economics, and society, and entail issues such as unclear property rights, an imperfect transfer market, non-grain utilization of farmland, a lack of effective management entities, insufficient social service support, and an incomplete policy framework. The existing cases with no impact and negative cases present real issues and potential risks that deserve attention in the future.
(1)
While rural land transfer facilitates labor mobility between urban and rural areas, an overreliance on urban employment alone fails to ensure sustained rural revitalization. Current challenges include the inadequacy of traditional agricultural operators and the absence of new agricultural entities. To address these challenges, new entities need to be fostered to promote local non-agricultural employment, guiding cross-regional resource integration, and strengthening agricultural supply chain coordination. The goal of these measures is to achieve shared production factors and moderate-scale operations. Recommendations include improving rural land transfer market mechanisms and advancing the “three rights separation” reform of farmland to reduce transaction costs and enhance transfer efficiency.
(2)
Ecological governance necessitates institutional coordination. Policymakers should establish dynamic monitoring frameworks to assess interactions between land transfer, socioeconomic systems, and ecological impacts. Integrated strategies must align agricultural non-point source pollution control with the resource utilization of livestock and poultry waste. Incorporating eligible green agricultural projects into rural infrastructure financing systems could advance low-carbon agriculture. Enhancing agricultural productivity and cost-effectiveness will further support sustainable rural development.
(3)
Although land transfer plays a significant positive role in various objectives of rural revitalization, fundamental management issues arise during the process of large-scale operations. Localities should comprehensively consider factors such as regional natural conditions, economic development levels, rural labor mobility, and the degree of agricultural mechanization. With the full respect of farmers’ wishes, appropriate standards for local large-scale land operations should be scientifically and reasonably formulated to prevent the issue of ‘inefficient scale.’
While systematic reviews and meta-analyses are recognized as robust methods for deriving reliable findings, they are not without limitations that could compromise result accuracy. For example, in empirical research, relevant information from some cases may be lost, and certain related studies might be overlooked during the screening process. Furthermore, land transfer mechanisms and models for rural revitalization differ across varying spatial scales. Quantitative analyses of how land transfer affects interactions among rural economic, social, and ecological subsystems, as well as the specific land transfer requirements for different types of villages under the rural revitalization strategy, may all introduce biases into the identification results. To attain the ambitious goal of agricultural and rural modernization by 2050, as outlined in the rural revitalization strategy, current efforts regarding rural land transfer must align closely with the strategic positioning of rural revitalization. This involves expanding platforms, innovating implementation pathways, and, while mitigating and eliminating adverse effects, consolidating and enhancing the overall performance of land transfer.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/land14081524/s1, PRISMA checklist, Supplementary S1: Information Table of Relevant Articles. Supplementary S2: Information Table of Relevant Cases. Supplementary S3: Information Table for Subjectivity Test of Cases. Supplementary S4: Official Cases Used for Text Analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.H.; methodology, Y.H.; software, Y.W. and L.L.; validation, H.K. and Y.H.; formal analysis, Y.H. and M.F.; investigation, H.K. and Y.H.; resources, Y.W. and X.D.; data curation, H.K. and Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.H.; writing—review and editing, Y.H. and M.F.; visualization, X.D.; supervision, L.L.; project administration, Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Liu, Y.; Li, X.; Guo, Y. Exploring land system reform for demographic transition in rural China. Land Use Policy 2024, 147, 107355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yu, T.; Leng, H.; Yuan, Q.; Yuan, Z. Spatial-temporal patterns and driving mechanism of rural vulneraiblity at county level:A case study of 117 counties in Heilongjiang Province, China. J. Rural Stud. 2025, 113, 103475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cao, H.; Chen, C.; Chen, J.; Song, W.; He, J.; Liu, C. Differentiation of urban-rural interface and its driving mechanism: A case study of Nanjing, China. Land Use Policy 2024, 140, 107090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhan, L.; Wang, S.; Xie, S.; Zhang, Q.; Qu, Y. Spatial path to achieve urban-rural integration development—Analytical framework for coupling the linkage and coordination of urban-rural system functions. Habitat Int. 2023, 142, 102953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gao, M.; Tu, X.; Li, Y. Regional relationship between urban-rural economic inequality and carbon intensity in China’s counties: Unveiling the trade-off. J. Rural Stud. 2025, 119, 103799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhu, J.; Zhu, M.; Xiao, Y. Urbanization for rural development: Spatial paradigm shifts toward inclusive urban-rural integrated development in China. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 71, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Han, B.; Jin, X.; Zhao, Q.; Chen, H. Spatiotemporal patterns and mechanisms of land-use conflicts affecting high-quality development in China. Appl. Geogr. 2023, 155, 102972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, K.; Long, H.; Liao, L.; Tu, S.; Li, T. Land use transitions and urban-rural integrated development: Theoretical framework and China’s evidence. Land Use Policy 2020, 92, 104465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, H.; Chen, K.; Yan, L.; Yu, L.; Zhu, Y. Citizenization of rural migrants in China’s new urbanization: The roles of hukou system reform and rural land marketization. Cities 2023, 132, 103968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Niu, B.; Ge, D.; Sun, J.; Sun, D.; Ma, Y.; Ni, Y.; Lu, Y. Multi-scales urban-rural integrated development and land-use transition: The story of China. Habitat Int. 2023, 132, 102744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, J.; Quan, T.; Zhang, H. Reform of Agricultural Land Property Rights System and Green and High-Quality Development of Agriculture: Empirical Evidence Based on China’s “Three Rights Separation” Reform. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2023, 32, 5147–5159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gong, M.; Zhong, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Elahi, E.; Yang, Y. Have the new round of agricultural land system reform improved farmers’ agricultural inputs in China? Land Use Policy 2023, 132, 106825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, C.; Xie, H.; Huang, Z.; Gai, Q. Property rights, resource reallocation and welfare effects: Evidence from a land certification programme. Land Use Policy 2025, 154, 107562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, Z.; Ding, H.; Zhu, W. Environmental regulation and land resource allocation in China: Empirical evidence from micro-level land transaction data. Land Use Policy 2024, 140, 107126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, D.; Gao, W.; Lv, Y. The Triple Logic and Choice Strategy of Rural Revitalization in the 70 Years since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China, Based on the Perspective of Historical Evolution. Agriculture 2020, 10, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Peng, K.; Yang, C.; Chen, Y. Land transfer in rural China: Incentives, influencing factors and income effects. Appl. Econ. 2020, 52, 5477–5490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, P.; Wang, F. A study of the impact of land transfer decisions on household income in rural China. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0276559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Liu, Y.; Yan, B.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Y. Will land transfer always increase technical efficiency in China?—A land cost perspective. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sun, J.; Cheng, P.; Liu, Z. Social Security, Intergenerational Care, and Cultivated Land Renting Out Behavior of Elderly Farmers: Findings from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey. Land 2023, 12, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xu, H.; Fan, Z.; Ahmad, F.; Zhang, D. Exploring the ecological protection impacts of cultivated land transfer: Explanation based on fertilizers and pesticides. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xie, Y.; Jiang, Q. Land arrangements for rural-urban migrant workers in China: Findings from Jiangsu Province. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fei, R.; Lin, Z.; Chunga, J. How land transfer affects agricultural land use efficiency: Evidence from China’s agricultural sector. Land Use Policy 2021, 103, 105300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, Y.; Wang, H. Effects of farmland use rights transfer on collective action in the commons: Evidence from rural China. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhou, Z.; Tan, L.; Qu, L.; Li, Y.; Chen, X. The impact of rural land transfer on the living satisfaction of middle-aged rural residents and the implications: A perspective of land attachment. Habitat Int. 2024, 148, 103085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bender, R.; Bunce, C.; Clarke, M.; Gates, S.; Lange, S.; Pace, N.L.; Thorlund, K. Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 857–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Daymard, A. Land rental market reforms: Can they increase outmigration from agriculture? Evidence from a quantitative model. World Dev. 2022, 154, 105865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kvartiuk, V.; Bukin, E.; Herzfeld, T. “For whoever has will be given more”? Land rental decisions and technical efficiency in Ukraine. Land Use Policy 2024, 146, 107336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Washington-Ottombre, C.; Pijanowski, B.; Campbell, D.; Olson, J.; Maitima, J.; Musili, A.; Kibaki, T.; Kaburu, H.; Hayombe, P.; Owango, E.; et al. Using a role-playing game to inform the development of land-use models for the study of a complex socio-ecological system. Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koutsos, T.M.; Menexes, G.C.; Dordas, C.A. An efficient framework for conducting systematic literature reviews in agricultural sciences. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 682, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Gao, Y.; Hua, X.; Sokolov, B.I.; Zhao, F.; Shen, S. Offset or harmonious coexistence: Untangling the interrelationship between green finance and rural revitalisation. Front. Environ. Sci. 2025, 13, 1512889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, B.; Liu, L. Social capital for rural revitalization in China: A critical evaluation on the government’s new countryside programme in Chengdu. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, X.; Li, W.; Zhang, P.; Chen, H.; Lai, M.; Zhao, S. The Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Rural Revitalization in Western China. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. O’Shaughnessy, P.; Cavanaugh, J.E. Performing T-tests to Compare Autocorrelated Time Series Data Collected from Direct-Reading Instruments. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2015, 12, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Liu, L.; Wang, X.; Meng, X.; Cai, Y. The coupling and coordination between food production security and agricultural ecological protection in main food-producing areas of China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Y.; Li, R.; Guo, S.; Xu, D. Why do aging households in agriculture prefer land abandonment to transfer? Evidence from hill plots in Sichuan, China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2024, 35, 4985–4996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ying, C.; Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhong, J.; Ai, S.; Tian, P.; Huang, Q.; Cao, L.; Mouazen, A.M. Evolution and prediction of rural ecological environment quality in eastern coastal area of China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1403342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xiong, Z.; Huang, Y.; Yang, L. Rural revitalization in China: Measurement indicators, regional differences and dynamic evolution. Heliyon 2024, 10, e29880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Wang, W.; Gong, J.; Wang, Y.; Shen, Y. Exploring the effects of rural site conditions and household livelihood capitals on agricultural land transfers in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 108, 105523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xiao, W.; Zhao, G. Who is affected: Influence of agricultural land on occupational choices of peasants in China. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ji, X.; Wang, Y.; Yang, L.; Li, C.; Chen, L. The impact of cropland transfer on rural household income in China: The moderating effects of education. Land Use Policy 2025, 148, 107399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, L.; Feng, S.; Heerink, N.; Qu, F.; Kuyvenhoven, A. How do land rental markets affect household income? Evidence from rural Jiangsu, PR China. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xia, F.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, X. Hometown attachment or urban dependence? The reciprocal effects between multi-dimensional relative poverty of migrant workers and urban-rural land dependence. Habitat Int. 2023, 137, 102850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chen, C.; Yu, L.; Choguill, C.L. “Dipiao”, Chinese approach to transfer of land development rights: The experiences of Chongqing. Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. He, J.; Zhou, W.; Guo, S.; Deng, X.; Song, J.; Xu, D. Effect of land transfer on farmers’ willingness to pay for straw return in Southwest China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jiang, X.; Wang, L.; Su, X.; Zeng, W.; Xu, A.; Zheng, Q.; Xu, W. Spatial heterogeneity in and distributional characteristics of rural ecological livability in China—The case of Fujian Province. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, 0244238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Quan, T.; Zhang, H.; Quan, T.; Yu, Y. China’s agricultural land transfer: Carbon emissions driver or opportunity? The pivotal role of rural human capital revealed. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1480636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, B.; Shen, Y. Effects of land transfer quality on the application of organic fertilizer by large-scale farmers in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 105124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bai, Z.; Zhang, X.; Xu, J.; Li, C. Can Farmland Transfer Reduce Fertilizer Nonpoint Source Pollution? Evidence from China. Land 2024, 13, 798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nie, J.; Dong, Z.; Tang, L.; Liu, J.; Wu, Y. Social network effect on land transfer willingness of the rural elders: Evidence from China. Heliyon 2024, 10, e34966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Li, N.; Tang, L.; Che, X.; Shi, X.; Ma, X. Does the democratization level of village governance affect perceptions of security and integrity of land rights?—An analysis from the perspective of social network abundance. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 94, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, N. County-rural revitalization spatial differences and model optimization in Miyun District of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 86, 724–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lu, H.; Xie, H.; He, Y.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, X. Assessing the impacts of land fragmentation and plot size on yields and costs: A translog production model and cost function approach. Agric. Syst. 2018, 161, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhu, Y.; Waqas, M.A.; Li, Y.; Zou, X.; Jiang, D.; Wilkes, A.; Qin, X.; Gao, Q.; Wan, Y.; Hasbagan, G. Large-scale farming operations are win-win for grain production, soil carbon storage and mitigation of greenhouse gases. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2143–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhao, Q.; Bao, H.X.H.; Yao, S. Unpacking the effects of rural homestead development rights reform on rural revitalization in China. J. Rural Stud. 2024, 108, 103265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yin, X.; Chen, J.; Li, J. Rural innovation system: Revitalize the countryside for a sustainable development. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 93, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kan, K. Creating land markets for rural revitalization: Land transfer, property rights and gentrification in China. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 81, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Michalscheck, M.; Groot, J.C.J.; Fischer, G.; Tittonell, P. Land use decisions: By whom and to whose benefit? A serious game to uncover dynamics in farm land allocation at household level in Northern Ghana. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bao, H.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, S. Has the monetary resettlement compensation policy hindered the two-way flow of resources between urban and rural areas? Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hong, Z.; Sun, Y. Power, capital, and the poverty of farmers’ land rights in China. Land Use Policy 2020, 92, 104471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Accorsi, R.; Cholette, S.; Manzini, R.; Nni, C.; Penazzi, S. The land-network problem: Ecosystem carbon balance in planning sustainable agro-food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 158–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cao, D.; Wang, Y.; Zang, L. Land reallocation and collective action in the commons: Application of social-ecological system framework with evidence from rural China. Land Use Policy 2024, 144, 107267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Song, M.; Wu, Y.; Chen, L. Does the land titling program promote rural housing land transfer in China? Evidence from household surveys in Hubei Province. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01524 g001
Figure 1. Modified PRISMA flow diagram. This diagram is adapted from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Page et al., 2020 [28]) with modifications made by the author.
Figure 1. Modified PRISMA flow diagram. This diagram is adapted from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Page et al., 2020 [28]) with modifications made by the author.
Land 14 01524 g001
Land 14 01524 g002
Figure 2. Decision matrix score chart.
Figure 2. Decision matrix score chart.
Land 14 01524 g002
Land 14 01524 g003
Figure 3. ‘Strategic-Goal-Indicator-Result’ framework.
Figure 3. ‘Strategic-Goal-Indicator-Result’ framework.
Land 14 01524 g003
Land 14 01524 g004
Figure 4. Descriptive statistics forest diagram.
Figure 4. Descriptive statistics forest diagram.
Land 14 01524 g004
Land 14 01524 g005
Figure 5. Distribution map of positive and negative cases of land transfer.
Figure 5. Distribution map of positive and negative cases of land transfer.
Land 14 01524 g005
Land 14 01524 g006
Figure 6. Types of effects of rural revitalization.
Figure 6. Types of effects of rural revitalization.
Land 14 01524 g006
Land 14 01524 g007
Figure 7. Proportion of each target case.
Figure 7. Proportion of each target case.
Land 14 01524 g007
Land 14 01524 g008
Figure 8. Driving factors and process diagram of the land transfer effects.
Figure 8. Driving factors and process diagram of the land transfer effects.
Land 14 01524 g008
Land 14 01524 g009
Figure 9. The impact mechanism of land transfer on rural revitalization.
Figure 9. The impact mechanism of land transfer on rural revitalization.
Land 14 01524 g009
Land 14 01524 g010
Figure 10. Land transfer case word cloud.
Figure 10. Land transfer case word cloud.
Land 14 01524 g010
Land 14 01524 g011
Figure 11. Network relationship diagram of land transfer benefits.
Figure 11. Network relationship diagram of land transfer benefits.
Land 14 01524 g011
Table 1. Summary of cases based on target layer.
Table 1. Summary of cases based on target layer.
ProjectPositive (Code)Negative (Code)
Affluent livelihoods1, 11, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29,
30, 31, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70
72, 79, 90, 91, 92, 99, 118, 129, 130		2, 12, 37, 60
61, 85, 127
Rural civilization68, 45, 74, 76, 110, 122, 128
Ecologically livable3, 16, 18, 19, 20, 27, 101, 105, 10617, 87, 88, 78, 115, 116
Effective governance35, 36, 48, 55, 56, 62, 81, 111, 12457, 86, 94, 96, 112
Prosperous industries7, 8, 9, 10, 24, 25, 26, 4, 32, 33,
34, 38, 45, 46, 47, 73, 77, 80, 82,
83, 84, 89, 93, 94, 97, 98, 100
102, 103, 104, 108, 131		107, 114, 119, 123
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hou, Y.; Kang, H.; Fu, M.; Dong, X.; Wu, Y.; Li, L. Multiple Effects of Land Transfer on Rural Revitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Chinese Cases. Land 2025, 14, 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081524

AMA Style

Hou Y, Kang H, Fu M, Dong X, Wu Y, Li L. Multiple Effects of Land Transfer on Rural Revitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Chinese Cases. Land. 2025; 14(8):1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081524

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hou, Yangguang, Haoyang Kang, Meichen Fu, Xu Dong, Yuting Wu, and Lijiao Li. 2025. "Multiple Effects of Land Transfer on Rural Revitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Chinese Cases" Land 14, no. 8: 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081524

APA Style

Hou, Y., Kang, H., Fu, M., Dong, X., Wu, Y., & Li, L. (2025). Multiple Effects of Land Transfer on Rural Revitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Chinese Cases. Land, 14(8), 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081524

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop