Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Policy of Multi-Subject Land Supply in China and Its Impact on Rural Development
3. Definition of Stakeholders Involved in the Land Supply Reform
4. Identification of Risk Types of Different Stakeholders
5. Study Area and Methods
5.1. Study Area
5.2. Research Approach and Questionnaire Design
6. Results
6.1. Sample Characteristics Analysis
6.2. Questionnaire Reliability Test
6.3. Frequency Analysis of Risk Probability and Severity
6.4. Determination of Risk Level Based on Risk Matrix Method
6.5. Risk Type Ranking Based on Borda Count Method
6.5.1. Determination of Ordinal Value for Risk Probability
6.5.2. Determination of Ordinal Value for Risk Severity
6.5.3. Determination of Borda Count and Borda Ordinal Value
7. Conclusions and Discussion
- The results show that these stakeholders perceived significant risk, often only one or two, on the premise of the coexistence of multiple risks. The result of risk perception has individual perception difference, which also indicates that these risks do exhibit uncertainty.
- The result of risk grading is a comprehensive effect of risk probability and risk severity. Among all kinds of risks, information asymmetry risk and market risk belong to the high risk level, while other risks belong to the medium level, with the lowest level of accountability risk. Trust is the key factor that affects farmers’ participation in the collective. The impact of information asymmetry on farmers is notorious [35].
- Borda count method is a measure of the risk importance of all risk events. From the perspective of stakeholders, farmers and banks have the strongest risk perception, followed by the government. This indicates that, the less available information, the stronger the risk perception.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Respondent | Variable Code | Question | Assessment | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Government workers and experts | A1 | 1-a | Do you think the marketization of collective-owned construction land has an impact on local government fiscal revenue and its solvency? | 1—No influence, 2—Little influence, 3—Medium, 4—Big influence, 5— Great influence |
1-b | Do you think there will be a serious debt crisis for local governments affected by this? | 1—Negligible degree, 2—Less serious, 3—Medium, 4—More serious, 5—Very serious | ||
A2 | 2-a | Do you think the marketization of collective-owned construction land will make land expropriation more difficult for the local government in the future? | 1—No possibility, 2—Less likely, 3—Medium, 4—High probability, 5—Most likely | |
2-b | Do you think the government will raise the standard of land compensation for farmers? | 1—Unchanged, 2—Little, 3—Medium, 4—Larger, 5—The largest | ||
A3 | 3-a | Do you think the collective economic organization, to get more profits, would trade some agricultural land or some land with disputes as construction land for market transactions? | 1—No possibility, 2—Less likely, 3—Medium, 4—High probability, 5—Most likely | |
3-b | If the use of collective land is illegally changed, how much do you think the loss of land is? | 1—Negligible degree, 2—Less serious, 3—Medium, 4—More serious, 5—Very serious | ||
A4 | 4-a | Do you think that with the increase in land supply caused by multi-subject land supply, will real estate developers be affected to buy more land? | 1—No possibility, 2—Less likely, 3—Medium, 4—High probability, 5—Most likely | |
4-b | How much do you think this will affect the balance of supply and demand in the housing market? | 1—Negligible degree, 2—Less serious, 3—Medium, 4—More serious, 5—Very serious | ||
A5 | 5-a | Do you think the real estate market will be impacted after the land market allows multiple subjects to supply land and the new housing policy is implemented? | 1—No influence, 2—Little influence, 3—Medium, 4—Big influence, 5—Great influence | |
5-b | How much do you think the price of real estate will be affected by this? | 1—Unchanged, 2—Little, 3—Medium, 4—Larger, 5—The largest | ||
Collective economic organizations | B1 | 1-a | After collective construction land is transferred or leased, do you think to have the circumstance that land users do not press agreement pay assignment gold or rent? | 1—Never occurs, 2—Individual cases, 3—Less parts, 4—Occur more, 5— Almost all |
1-b | If this happens, how much do you think it will affect the village’s income? | 1—Negligible degree, 2—Less serious, 3—Medium, 4—More serious, 5—Very serious | ||
B2 | 2-a | In the process of land use, is there any dispute between the land user and the villagers or the village committee? | 1—Never happened, 2—Once or twice, 3—Four or five times, 4—Less than 10 times, 5—More than 10 times | |
2-b | If that happens, do you think these disputes and similar problems will be easy to deal with? | 1—Easy to deal with, 2—A little difficult, 3—Medium, 4—Difficult, 5—Very difficult | ||
Collective economic organizations | B3 | 3-a | After the collective construction land is transferred or leased, does the land user not use the land according to the prescribed purposes? | 1—Never happened, 2—Once or twice, 3—Three or four times, 4—Less than six times, 5—More than six times |
3-b | If this happens, how much damage do you think it will do to the village? | 1—Negligible degree, 2—Less serious, 3—Medium, 4—More serious, 5—Very serious | ||
B4 | 4-a | Does the village collective have enough money for the construction of rental houses? | 1—Very abundant, 2—Basically abundant, 3—A little bit inadequate, 4—Big funding gap, 5—Severely underfunded | |
4-b | Do you think it will be easy to raise money if there is not enough money? | 1—Easy to deal with, 2—A little difficult, 3—Medium, 4—Difficult, 5—Very difficult | ||
Farmers | C1 | 1-a | Do you understand the current reform of collective profit-oriented construction land in the village? | 1—Know very well, 2—Understand better, 3—Medium, 4—Know little, 5—Not at all clear |
1-b | Is there a unified distribution standard about the income of the marketization of collective-owned construction land? | 1—Standard clear, 2—Relatively clear, 3—A little vague, 4—Very vague, 5—No standard | ||
C2 | 2-a | Will the collective economic organization announce to the farmers the specific situation of the collective construction land transaction? | 1—Announce all deals, 2—Announce most of the deals, 3—Announce a minority of deals, 4—Announce very few deals, 5—Never announce a deal | |
2-b | According to the income you have received, do you think the transparency of the transaction situation has an impact on your income? | 1—No influence, 2—Little influence, 3—Medium, 4—Big influence, 5—Great influence | ||
C3 | 3-a | According to the distribution of income in your village, do you think the income you have received is reasonable and acceptable? | 1—Very reasonable, 2—Relatively reasonable, 3—Medium, 4—Less reasonable, 5—Unreasonable | |
3-b | If you are not satisfied with your gains, how much do you think you have lost? | 1—Minimal loss, 2—Relatively small, 3—Medium, 4—Big loss, 5—Great loss | ||
C4 | 4-a | Compared with the living environment of the village before, do you think the village has been affected by some pollution after the collective profit-oriented construction land is transferred or leased to enterprises? | 1—No influence, 2—Little influence, 3—Medium, 4—Big influence, 5—Great influence | |
4-b | If so, to what extent do you think this has affected your life? | 1—Negligible degree, 2—Less serious, 3—Medium, 4—More serious, 5—Very serious | ||
Land users | D1 | 1-a | At present, laws and policies related to land supply system reform have not been improved, and there are constraint conflicts. Does this affect your land development and construction? | 1—No influence, 2—Little influence, 3—Medium, 4—Big influence, 5—Great influence |
1-b | If so, how much damage do you think it will do to your own earnings? | 1—Minimal loss, 2—Relatively small, 3—Medium, 4—Big loss, 5—Great loss | ||
D2 | 2-a | Compared with the land acquired from the government before, do you think the development cost will increase due to the land reclamation and land consolidation expenses when the land is directly acquired from the peasant collective for development? | 1—Unchanged, 2—Little, 3—Medium, 4—Larger, 5—The largest | |
2-b | If the cost increases, how much do you think the loss will be to the final investment income? | 1—No loss, 2—Very few losses, 3—Relatively small, 4—Relatively large, 5—Great loss | ||
D3 | 3-a | How much do you think the clarity of land ownership affects the outcome of collective land financing? | 1—No influence, 2—Little influence, 3—Medium, 4—Big influence, 5—Great influence | |
3-b | If so, how much do you think your gains will be lost? | 1—Minimal loss, 2—Relatively small, 3—Medium, 4—Big loss, 5—Great loss | ||
Banks | E1 | 1-a | The “multi-subject land supply” reform increased the land supply and affected the land price. According to the bank’s previous loan situation, do you think the changes in market conditions will have an impact on the bank’s loan income? | 1—No influence, 2—Little influence, 3—Medium, 4—Big influence, 5—Great influence |
1-b | If so, to what extent do you think it will affect bank earnings?? | 1—Minimal loss, 2—Relatively small, 3—Medium, 4—Big loss, 5—Great loss | ||
E2 | 2-a | Are there any cases in which the bank takes legal risks due to disputes arising from the unclear definition of collective land ownership in the process of mortgage loans with collective land? | 1—Never happened, 2—Once or twice, 3—Three or four times, 4—Less than six times, 5—More than six times | |
2-b | If so, how much impact do you think it will have on the work of banks? | 1—Negligible degree, 2—Less serious, 3—Medium, 4—More serious, 5—Very serious | ||
E3 | 3-a | In the process of the bank’s financial support to the marketization of collective profit-oriented construction land, is there any situation that the government or enterprises cannot repay the bank loan on time? | 1—Never happened, 2—Once or twice, 3—Three or four times, 4—Less than six times, 5—More than | |
3-b | If there is a similar situation, what do you think is the loss of earnings for the bank? | 1—Minimal loss, 2—Relatively small, 3—Medium, 4—Big loss, 5—Great loss |
References
- United States Department of Agriculture. Report Name: China’s 2020 Agricultural Policy Document Stays the Course; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
- Tan, R.; Wang, R.; Heerink, N. Liberalizing rural-to-urban construction land transfers in China: Distribution effects. China Econ. Rev. 2020, 60, 101147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, Y.; Peng, Y.; Li, B.; Lin, Y. Industrial land development in urban villages in China: A property rights perspective. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Fang, F.; Li, Y. Key issues of land use in China and implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y. Analysis of land supply policy under the housing system of “simultaneous Purchase and Rent”. China Land 2019, 5, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.; Ye, J.; Wang, F. Innovation of multi-subject land supply channel and property right disposal mode. China Land 2018, 5, 49–51. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, Z. What does multi-subject land supply mean? China Land Resources Newspaper, 23 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.; Zhang, C. Speeding up the Establishment of a Housing System That Ensures Supply through Multiple Sources, Provides Housing Support Through Multiple Channels, and Encourages Both Housing Purchase and Renting. Price Theory Pract. 2017, 11, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, H.; Duan, J.; Zhang, G. Land Politics under Market Socialism: The State, Land Policies, and Rural-Urban Land Conversion in China and Vietnam. Land 2018, 7, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mao, B.; Ao, C.; Cheng, Y.; Jiang, N.; Xu, L. Exploring the role of public risk perceptions on preferences for air quality improvement policies: An integrated choice and latent variable approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. Energy Environ. 2010, 22, 835–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wildavsky, A.; Dake, K. Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why? Daedalus 1990, 119, 41–60. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Liu, T. Community participation effects on preparedness behaviour through risk perception: Empirical data of hazardous chemicals from China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 44, 101421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maestas, C.; Chattopadhyay, J.; Leland, S.; Piatak, J. Fearing Food: The Influence of Risk Perceptions on Public Preferences for Uniform and Centralized Risk Regulation. Policy Stud. J. 2020, 48, 447–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindell, M.K.; Barnes, V.E. Protective response to technological emergency: Risk perception and behavioral intention. J. Saf. Res. 1989, 20, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaughan, E. Chronic exposure to an environmental hazard: Risk perceptions and self-protective behavior. Health Psychol. 1993, 12, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapira, S.; Aharonson-Daniel, L.; Bar-Dayan, Y. Anticipated behavioral response patterns to an earthquake: The role of personal and household characteristics, risk perception, previous experience and preparedness. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P.; Finucane, M.L.; Peters, E.; MacGregor, D.G. Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P.; Peters, E. Risk Perception and Affect. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 15, 322–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, D.M.; Lai, M.S.; Houghton, B.F.; Paton, D. Volcanic hazard perceptions: Comparative shifts in knowledge and risk. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 1999, 8, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pu, S.; Shao, Z.; Yang, L.; Liu, R.; Bi, J.; Ma, Z. How much will the Chinese public pay for air pollution mitigation? A nationwide empirical study based on a willingness-to-pay scenario and air purifier costs. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 218, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wauters, E.; van Winsen, F.; de Mey, Y.; Lauwers, L. Risk perception, attitudes towards risk and risk management: Evidence and implications. Agric. Econ. 2014, 60, 389–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bekiros, S.; Jlassi, M.; Naoui, K.; Uddin, G.S. Risk perception in financial markets: On the flip side. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2018, 57, 184–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.; Zheng, J.; Fang, Q. How a typhoon event transforms public risk perception of climate change: A study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 121163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khwaja, A.; Sloan, F.; Salm, M. Evidence on preferences and subjective beliefs of risk takers: The case of smokers. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2006, 24, 667–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutter, M.; Kocher, M.G.; Glätzle-Rützler, D.; Trautmann, S.T. Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents’ Field Behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 2013, 103, 510–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soler, L.; Verburg, P.; Alves, D. Evolution of Land Use in the Brazilian Amazon: From Frontier Expansion to Market Chain Dynamics. Land 2014, 3, 981–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyer, P.; Bozzola, M.; Hirsch, S.; Meraner, M.; Finger, R. Measuring Farmer Risk Preferences in Europe: A Systematic Review. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 71, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmed, Z.; Guha, G.S.; Shew, A.M.; Alam, G.M.M. Climate change risk perceptions and agricultural adaptation strategies in vulnerable riverine char islands of Bangladesh. Land Use Policy 2021, 103, 105295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riwthong, S.; Schreinemachers, P.; Grovermann, C.; Berger, T. Agricultural commercialization: Risk perceptions, risk management and the role of pesticides in Thailand. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2017, 38, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinillos, D.; Poccard-Chapuis, R.; Bianchi, F.J.; Corbeels, M.; Timler, C.J.; Tittonell, P.; Ballester, M.V.; Schulte, R.P. Landholders’ perceptions on legal reserves and agricultural intensification: Diversity and implications for forest conservation in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 129, 102504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Benni, N.; Finger, R.; Meuwissen, M.P.M. Potential effects of the income stabilisation tool (IST) in Swiss agriculture. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2016, 43, 475–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meuwissen, M.P.M.; de Mey, Y.; van Asseldonk, M. Prospects for agricultural insurance in Europe. Agric. Financ. Rev. 2018, 78, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giampietri, E.; Yu, X.; Trestini, S. The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools. Bio-Based Appl. Econ. 2020, 9, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, C.; Ren, D. Impact of Rural Construction Land Marketization on Rural Development. China Land Sci. 2018, 32, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, D. Study on the Influence Mechanism of Collective Commercial Construction Land on Rural Transformation and Development. Master’s Thesis, Qufu Normal University, Jining, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sroka, W.; Żmija, D. Farming Systems Changes in the Urban Shadow: A Mixed Approach Based on Statistical Analysis and Expert Surveys. Agriculture 2021, 11, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, W.; Yao, N.; Guo, Q.; Wang, F. Public risk perception and willingness to mitigate climate change: City smog as an example. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 881–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ridolfi, E.; Albrecht, F.; Di Baldassarre, G. Exploring the role of risk perception in influencing flood losses over time. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2020, 65, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, N.A.; Gao, Q.; Iqbal, M.A.; Abid, M. Modeling food growers’ perceptions and behavior towards environmental changes and its induced risks: Evidence from Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 20292–20308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McEvoy, J.; Gilbertz, S.J.; Anderson, M.B.; Ormerod, K.J.; Bergmann, N.T. Cultural theory of risk as a heuristic for understanding perceptions of oil and gas development in Eastern Montana, USA. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2017, 4, 852–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lacasse, K. Going with your gut: How William James’ theory of emotions brings insights to risk perception and decision making research. New Ideas Psychol. 2017, 46, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flaten, O.; Lien, G.; Koesling, M.; Valle, P.S.; Ebbesvik, M. Comparing risk perceptions and risk management in organic and conventional dairy farming: Empirical results from Norway. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2005, 95, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vollmer, E.; Hermann, D.; Mußhoff, O. Is the risk attitude measured with the Holt and Laury task reflected in farmers’ production risk? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2017, 44, 399–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, N.; Xie, Q.; Hu, X.; Wang, X.; Meng, H. A dual perspective on risk perception and its effect on safety behavior: A moderated mediation model of safety motivation, and supervisor’s and coworkers’ safety climate. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 134, 105350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Linden, S. The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; Wang, F.; Wei, J. Optimal decision model for emergency resource reserves in chemical industrial parks in China: A risk perception perspective. Process Saf. Prog. 2019, 38, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S. The Application of Risk Matrix in Enterprise Risk Management; People Post Press: Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Akano, D.I.; Ijomah, W.; Windmill, J. Stakeholder considerations in remanufacturability decision-making: Findings from a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, L.; Feng, Y.; Lu, W.; Kong, L.; Yang, Z. Evolutionary game analysis of stakeholders’ decision-making behaviours in construction and demolition waste management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 84, 106408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schueller, L.; Booth, L.; Fleming, K.; Abad, J. Using serious gaming to explore how uncertainty affects stakeholder decision-making across the science-policy divide during disasters. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X. The Influence Path of Public Environmental Risk Perception on Behavior Choice. J. Jishou Univ. Soc. Sci. 2019, 40, 114–123. [Google Scholar]
- Moon, W.-K.; Kahlor, L.A.; Olson, H.C. Understanding public support for carbon capture and storage policy: The roles of social capital, stakeholder perceptions, and perceived risk/benefit of technology. Energy Policy 2020, 139, 111312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santoro, S.; Pluchinotta, I.; Pagano, A.; Pengal, P.; Cokan, B.; Giordano, R. Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception to promote Nature Based Solutions as flood protection strategies: The case of the Glinščica river (Slovenia). Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 188–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harclerode, M.A.; Lal, P.; Vedwan, N.; Wolde, B.; Miller, M.E. Evaluation of the role of risk perception in stakeholder engagement to prevent lead exposure in an urban setting. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 184, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qu, F. Land Economics; China Agricultural Press: Beijing, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, F.; Yan, X. Trilateral Game Analysis on Collective Construction Land Transfer: In View of Local Governments, Rural Collectivesand Land Using Enterprises. China Land Sci. 2009, 23, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Li, G. How is Rural Land Marketization Possible?—Cases Study Based on the Approach of Double Influences. J. Public Manag. 2019, 16, 108–117+173. [Google Scholar]
- Bian, Y.; Li, Y. Land Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China; China Legal Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1998.
- Wang, Y. Research on Rural Land Management Mode under Four Modernizations Synchronization—Based on the Practice of Zhanjiang, Guangdong. Econ. Geogr. 2015, 35, 157–164. [Google Scholar]
- Tong, W.; Lo, K.; Zhang, P. Land Consolidation in Rural China: Life Satisfaction among Resettlers and Its Determinants. Land 2020, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Long, K. Rural Collective Construction Land Transfer: Evolution, Mechanism Regulation and Control. Ph.D. Thesis, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, Q.; Cheong, K.C. Urban-Rural Construction Land Replacement for More Sustainable Land Use and Regional Development in China: Policies and Practices. Land 2019, 8, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poku-Boansi, M. Multi-stakeholder involvement in urban land use planning in the Ejisu Municipality, Ghana: An application of the social complexities’ theory. Land Use Policy 2021, 103, 105315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, J.; Flak, L.S.; Sæbø, Ø. Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 362–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burt, G.; Mackay, D.; Mendibil, K. Overcoming multi-stakeholder fragmented narratives in land use, woodland and forestry policy: The role scenario planning and ‘dissociative jolts’. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, Z.; Lu, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Bassett, E.; Tan, T. A Psychological Approach to ‘Public Perception’ of Land-Use Planning: A Case Study of Jiangsu Province, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hannachi, M.; Fares, M.; Coleno, F.; Assens, C. The “new agricultural collectivism”: How cooperatives horizontal coordination drive multi-stakeholders self-organization. J. Co-Oper. Organ. Manag. 2020, 8, 100111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Shang, Y.; Guo, H.; Wang, J. Social network efficiency of multiple stakeholders on agricultural drought risk governance—A southern China case study. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingram, J.; Gaskell, P.; Mills, J.; Dwyer, J. How do we enact co-innovation with stakeholders in agricultural research projects? Managing the complex interplay between contextual and facilitation processes. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 78, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, F.; Yan, J. Direct transfer of rural collective construction land into the market: Role, risks and suggestions. Econ. Restruct. 2014, 3, 70–74. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Tao, R. On the “Zhejiang Mode” of land Development Right Transfer and Trade—The origin of system, operation mode and its important meaning. Manag. World 2009, 8, 39–52. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, J. Local government financial pressure, land transfer revenue and real estate prices—Evidence from China’s 35 cities panel data. Macroecon. Res. 2020, 2, 63–74+175. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, J.; Chen, Z. Pilot Reform of Collective Operation Land for Construction: Difficulties and Solutions. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2019, 19, 112–122+159. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.; Jiang, J.; He, J.; Zhang, Y. Land finance problems under the perspective of central-local relationship. Times Financ. 2019, 28, 80–84. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, J.; Wei, M. A Study on compensated Adjustment of Land Consolidation Index under plan Management—A case study of Zhejiang Province. Rural Econ. 2011, 4, 40–43. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Yin, Q.; Tang, H.; Zhang, Z. A supervisory game model for village committees’ behavior in the marketilization of rural commercial collective—Owned construction land. J. Univ. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2018, 35, 805–813. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Li, M.; Xiao, J.; Tang, P. Game analysis of value-added income distribution of collective operational construction land in the market—Taking Chengdu’s Pidu District as an example. South Land Resour. 2019, 11, 39–43+47. [Google Scholar]
- Han, S. The ownership of collective profit-oriented construction land and its coordination with the land expropriation system in the process of urbanization. Contemp. Law 2016, 30, 69–80. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, X.; Feng, S.; Lv, P.; Liu, Z. The Economical and Intensive Use of Construction Land: A Case Study on Old Town, Old Village and Old FactoryTransformation in Foshan. Resour. Sci. 2014, 36, 1554–1562. [Google Scholar]
- He, H.; Ye, L. Practice and Consideration on the Reform of Collective Commercial Construction Land Market—Taking Wujin District, Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province as an Example. China Land 2018, 1, 43–45. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, K. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit; Huaxia Press: Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, H.; Chen, A.; Chen, N. Some extensions on risk matrix approach. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 1269–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, F.I.; Amyotte, P.R.; Amin, M.d.T. Advanced methods of risk assessment and management: An overview. Methods Chem. Process Saf. 2020, 4, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, F.; Rathnayaka, S.; Ahmed, S. Methods and models in process safety and risk management: Past, present and future. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2015, 98, 116–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahid, M.A.; de Swart, H. The Borda Majority Count. Inf. Sci. 2015, 295, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neveling, M.; Rothe, J. Control complexity in Borda elections: Solving all open cases of offline control and some cases of online control. Artif. Intell. 2021, 298, 103508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, H.; Wu, X.; Mi, X.; Herrera, F. An integrated method for cognitive complex multiple experts multiple criteria decision making based on ELECTRE III with weighted Borda rule. Omega 2020, 93, 102052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X. Social Survey Research Practice Course; People Post Press: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Potchana, K.; Saengsuwan, J.; Kittipanya-ngam, P. Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of a Thai Stroke Physical Activity Questionnaire. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2021, 30, 105907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, C.; Muraleedharan, G.; Guedes Soares, C. Assessment of the uncertainty of estimated extreme quantiles by regional frequency analysis. Ocean Eng. 2019, 190, 106347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Nikolopoulos, E.I.; Marra, F.; Morin, E.; Marani, M.; Anagnostou, E.N. Evaluation of MEVD-based precipitation frequency analyses from quasi-global precipitation datasets against dense rain gauge networks. J. Hydrol. 2020, 590, 125564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y. Commodity residential land for the New Deal analysis. China Land 2018, 7, 16–18. [Google Scholar]
- Long, Z.; Mo, F. Challenges and solutions of rural collective construction land entering rental housing market. Reform 2019, 3, 30–37. [Google Scholar]
- Popovic, N.F.; Bentele, U.U.; Pruessner, J.C.; Moussaïd, M.; Gaissmaier, W. Acute Stress Reduces the Social Amplification of Risk Perception. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holzmeister, F.; Huber, J.; Kirchler, M.; Lindner, F.; Weitzel, U.; Zeisberger, S. What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Laypeople. Manag. Sci. 2020, 66, 3977–4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Renn, O.; Rohrmann, B. (Eds.) Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Xu, Y. The Influence Factor of Public Perceived Risk: A Two-Dimensional Examination from Interestand Information—Based on the Empirical Analysis of L City. J. Northeast Univ. Soc. Sci. 2020, 22, 73–80. [Google Scholar]
- Mustafiz, S.; Nakayasu, A.; Itabashi, M. Marketing of Vegetable Seeds: Practice and Behavioral Inclinations of Vegetable Seed Sellers and Farmers in Selected Areas of Bangladesh. Agriculture 2021, 11, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, J.; McDaniels, T.L. Understanding individual risk perceptions and preferences for climate change adaptations in biological conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 27, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altobelli, F.; Marta, A.D.; Heinen, M.; Jacobs, C.; Giampietri, E.; Mancini, M.; Cimino, O.; Trestini, S.; Kranendonk, R.; Chanzy, A.; et al. Irrigation Advisory Services: Farmers preferences and willingness to pay for innovation. Outlook Agric. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binici, T.; Koç, A.A.; Zulauf, C.R.; Bayaner, A. Risk attitudes of farmers in terms of risk aversion: A case study of Lower Seyhan Plain farmers in Adana Province. Turkey. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2003, 27, 305–312. [Google Scholar]
- Sulewski, P.; Kłoczko-Gajewska, A. Farmers’ risk perception, risk aversion and strategies to cope with production risk: An empirical study from Poland. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2014, 116, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ullah, R.; Shivakoti, G.P.; Ali, G. Factors effecting farmers’ risk attitude and risk perceptions: The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 13, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bampasidou, M.; Kaller, M.D.; Tanger, S.M. Stakeholder’s Risk Perceptions of Wild Pigs: Is There a Gender Difference? Agriculture 2021, 11, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, M.d.A.; Guttormsen, A.G. Risk in aquaculture: Farmers’ perceptions and management strategies in Bangladesh. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2019, 23, 359–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, X. Scientific Connotation and Realization of “Same Right and Same Price” of Collective and State-owned Land. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 9, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, X. Establishment of the Integrated Urban-Rural Construction Land Market System. China Land Sci. 2019, 33, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
0–2 = Very Low Risk 3–4 = Low Risk 5–6 = Moderate Risk 7–8 = High Risk 9–10 = Very High Risk | Loss Rate | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Most Severe: 5 | Relatively Severe: 4 | Moderate: 3 | Slight: 2 | Almost No Damage: 1 | ||
Frequency of Loss | Almost Certain to Happen: 5 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 |
Frequent: 4 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | |
Several Times: 3 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | |
Possible but Never Happened: 2 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | |
Rare: 1 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
Characteristics of Respondents | Stakeholders | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Government Staffs | Collective Economic Organizations | Farmers | Land Users | Bank Staffs | |||
Number and Percentage | Number and Percentage | Number and Percentage | Number and Percentage | Number and Percentage | Number and Percentage | ||
Gender | Male | 16 5.2% | 47 15.3% | 92 30.0% | 29 9.4% | 19 6.2% | 203 66% |
Female | 10 3.3% | 24 7.8% | 60 19.5% | 4 1.3% | 6 2.0% | 104 34% | |
Age | Under 25 years old | 2 0.7% | 6 2.0% | 12 3.9% | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 20 7% |
26–35 years old | 4 1.3% | 25 8.1% | 28 9.1% | 8 2.6% | 9 2.9% | 74 24% | |
36–45 years old | 8 2.6% | 20 6.5% | 37 12.1% | 11 3.6% | 10 3.3% | 86 28% | |
46–55 years old | 8 2.6% | 15 4.9% | 49 16.0% | 9 2.9% | 6 2.0% | 87 28% | |
Over 56 years old | 4 1.3% | 5 1.6% | 26 8.5% | 5 1.6% | 0 0.0% | 40 13% | |
Education level | Junior high school and below | 0 0.0% | 3 1.0% | 63 20.5% | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 66 21% |
High school | 0 0.0% | 18 5.9% | 35 11.4% | 7 2.3% | 0 0.0% | 60 20% | |
Junior college | 0 0.0% | 19 6.2% | 30 9.8% | 12 3.9% | 3 1.0% | 64 21% | |
Undergraduate | 14 4.6% | 26 8.5% | 24 7.8% | 14 4.6% | 15 4.9% | 93 30% | |
Master’s degree and above | 12 3.9% | 5 1.6% | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 7 2.3% | 24 8% | |
Monthly income | Below CNY 2000 | 0 0.0% | 4 1.3% | 59 19.2% | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 63 21% |
CNY 2000–5000 | 2 0.7% | 60 19.5% | 74 24.1% | 0 0.0% | 19 6.2% | 155 50% | |
CNY 5000–10,000 | 20 6.5% | 7 2.3% | 19 6.2% | 9 2.9% | 6 2.0% | 61 20% | |
Over CNY 10,000 | 4 1.3% | 0 0.0% | 0 0.0% | 24 7.8% | 0 0.0% | 28 9% | |
Total | 26 8.5% | 71 23.1% | 152 49.5% | 33 10.7% | 25 8.1% | 307 100% |
Research Factor | Cronbach Alpha Coefficient |
---|---|
A1 | 0.801 |
A2 | 0.787 |
A3 | 0.655 |
A4 | 0.815 |
A5 | 0.923 |
B1 | 0.697 |
B2 | 0.681 |
B3 | 0.647 |
B4 | 0.868 |
C1 | 0.834 |
C2 | 0.755 |
C3 | 0.880 |
C4 | 0.857 |
D1 | 0.930 |
D2 | 0.859 |
D3 | 0.871 |
E1 | 0.954 |
E2 | 1.000 |
E3 | 0.625 |
Total sample | 0.828 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Qu, Z.; Wei, Y.; Li, X. Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders. Agriculture 2021, 11, 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070646
Qu Z, Wei Y, Li X. Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders. Agriculture. 2021; 11(7):646. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070646
Chicago/Turabian StyleQu, Zhongqiong, Yongxin Wei, and Xun Li. 2021. "Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders" Agriculture 11, no. 7: 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070646