How Social Networks Affect Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Homesteads: Evidence from Jiangsu Province, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis
1.1.1. The Effect of Social Networks on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Homesteads
1.1.2. The Mediating Role of Risk Resilience
2. Research Methods and Data Materials
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Source
2.3. Variable Declarations
2.3.1. Explained Variable
2.3.2. Core Explanatory Variable
2.3.3. Mediating Variable
2.3.4. Control Variables
2.4. Model Setting
3. Empirical Results and Analysis
3.1. Basic Regression Analysis
3.2. Robustness Test
3.2.1. Replacement of Measurement Model
3.2.2. Variable Substitution
3.2.3. Changing Sample Size
3.3. Heterogeneity Analysis
3.3.1. Regional Heterogeneity
3.3.2. Social Network Heterogeneity
3.4. Intermediation Effect Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Implications
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zou, W.; Wang, Z.K.; Xu, B.; Zhang, B.L. Study on the impacts of rural household differentiation on the rural residential land exit: Based on the empirical research of 1456 rural households in Jiangsu province. China Land Sci. 2017, 31, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang Tianzuo: Reflections on the Establishment of the “Village Linkage” System for the Increase and Reduction of Rural Collective Construction Land. Available online: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/qKHWsiVs_400lwYnkbRNCQ (accessed on 17 April 2024).
- Zhou, X.P.; Wang, Q.; Gu, X.K.; Qian, H. Factors influencing the effect of rural residence replacement based on logistic regression modeling for Waigang, Shanghai. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 258–264. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.Z. Influencing factors and policy cohesion of households’ idle homestead exiting—From the perspective of behavioral economics. Econ. Geogr. 2015, 35, 140–147. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, X. Research on the Effect of Farmers’ Quitting Rural Residential Land. Master’s Thesis, Northwest Agricultural and Forestry University, Shaanxi, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.L.; Shi, H.; Wang, M.; Feng, Z.L. Different resource endowment, rural housing land registry and rural housing land circulation: A theoretical analysis and empirical observations from Hubei. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2018, 34, 52–67. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Y.G.; Wu, X.; Wang, C.; Yu, Y.Y.; Dong, W.J.; Xu, X.F. The impact factors of rural household decision-making behavior of rural residential land paid-exit and paid-use: Evidence from the traditional agricultural regions of Yicheng city. China Land Sci. 2018, 32, 22–29. [Google Scholar]
- Goldfinch, S. Property rights and the mystery of capital: A review of de Soto’s simplistic solution to development. Prog. Dev. Stud. 2015, 15, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobbinah, P.B.; Aboagye, H.N. A Ghanaian twist to urban sprawl. Land Use Policy 2017, 61, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, C.; Morrison, T.H.; Phinn, S. The thermodynamics of indoor air pollution: A pilot study emulating traditional Kenyan homesteads. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 62, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, J.; Maxwell, B.D. The role of the Conservation Reserve Program in controlling rural residential development. J. Rural Stud. 2001, 17, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edadan, N. Structural Determinants of Unregulated Urban Growth and Residential Land Pricing: Case of Bangalore. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2015, 141, 05014022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaney, P.; Sherwood, K.B. The resale of right to buy dwellings: A case study of migration and social change in rural England. J. Rural Stud. 2000, 16, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, H.; He, Y.; Wang, B.; Qian, F.; Wu, Y. The Influence of Aging Population in Rural Families on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Homesteads in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China. Land 2023, 12, 1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X. Factors of Peasants’ Willingness to Return Residential Lands—An Empirical Study with Survey Data from 1012 Rural Households in the “Two-wing” Area of Chongqing. China Rural Surv. 2012, 33, 26–36+96. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Li, Z.M.; Wang, Y.T. Farmers’ social capital and willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads—Empirical analysis based on the intermediary effect of risk resistance. J. China Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2022, 43, 232–245. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, N.N.; Sun, B.R.; Zhao, Q.R.; Sun, X.L. Future Expectation, Farmers’ Differentiation and Decision of Withdrawing from Rural Homesteads. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2021, 30, 2383–2391. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, F.C. Influencing factors of farmers’ exiting for rural residential land in south Fujian. J. Northwest AF Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2017, 17, 46–52. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, X.H. Effect of household registration system on farmers’ willingness of exiting from rural housing land. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2014, 24, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, F.; Yu, L.W. Analysis on the influence factors of changing rural residential land into housing based on logistic model: Taking Baodi district in Tianjin city as example. Reform Econ. Syst. 2012, 30, 90–94. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.W.; Liu, W.; Gu, H.Y. Building compensation, monetary compensation and the willingness of suburban farmers to exit homestead. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2022, 36, 55–60. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, B.J.; Ye, Q.; Zhu, P.X. Farmers’ Willingness to Exit Homestead and Preference in Context of Rural Households Differentiation: Empirical Analysis Based on Survey Data of 314 Households in Jiangxi. J. Agro-For. Econ. Manag. 2017, 16, 216–223. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, H.Z.; Yin, H.C.; Shi, S.Q. Analysis of influential factors of withdrawing from rural residential land and migrant workers’ urban-rural migration under the perspective of intergenerational differences: An empirical study on the basis of push–pull theory. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2013, 23, 75–80. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.L.; Yuan, K.H.; Chen, Y.R.; Mei, Y.; Wang, Z.W. Effect of farmer differentiation and generational differences on their willingness to exit ruralresidential land: Analysis of intermediary effect based on the cognition of the homestead value. Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 1680–1691. [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, Z.Q.; Huang, S.M. Acquaintance Society, External Market and Imitation Plus Innovation in Rural E-Commerce Entrepreneurship. Sociol. Stud. 2021, 36, 133–158+228–229. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, P.F.; Zhao, K.; Zhou, S.Q.; He, J. Risk expectation, social network and farmers’ behavior of rural residential land exit: Based on 626 rural households’ samples in Jinzhai county, Anhui province. China Land Sci. 2019, 33, 42–50. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, X.Q.; Wu, T.Y.; Xu, G.L.; Wang, Y.; Xie, M.H.; Li, Z.Y. Rural social capital and rural residential land exit: Based on 522 rural households’ samples in Yujiang district, Jiangxi province. China Land Sci. 2020, 34, 26–34. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, P.F.; Zhao, K. Effect of social capital on farmers’ behavior of quitting rural residential land: A case of 606 farmers’ samples in Jinzhai county, Anhui province. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci.) 2020, 20, 128–141. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, Y.F.; Pan, W.G. On the effect of capital endowment on farmers’ homestead withdrawal intention. J. Hebei Norm. Univ. Sci. Technol. (Soc. Sci.) 2021, 20, 25–32,70. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, M.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Zhou, L.P. Social capital of farmers and their willingness to withdraw from homesteads: Analysis of regulatory effects based on government regulation. J. Agro-For. Econ. Manag. 2024; in press. [Google Scholar]
- Putnam, R.D.; Leonardi, R.; Nonetti, R.Y. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1993; pp. 70–95. [Google Scholar]
- Richardson, J.G. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education; Greenwood Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Lu, M. Do social network contribute to higher wages for migrant workers? J. Manag. World 2009, 25, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Rainie, L.; Wellman, B. Networked: The New Social Operating System; The MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 153–162. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Ma, K.W. Influence of social networks on the willingness and behavior of farmers’ homesteads transfer—A study based on intermediary effect of inner cognition. J. Shanxi Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2022, 21, 58–69. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, H.X. An Empirical Study on Consumer Adoption of Innovative Low-Carbon Product. Master’s Thesis, Fuzhou University, Fujian, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Burchardi, K.B.; Hassan, T.A. The Economic Impact of Social Ties: Evidence from German Reunification. Q. J. Econ. 2011, 128, 1219–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, R.Q. Research on the Impact of Peasant Household Family Endowment on the Will of the Withdrawl from Homestead. Master’s Thesis, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Kinnan, C.; Townsend, R. Kinship and financial networks, formal financial access, and risk reduction. Am. Econ. Rev. 2012, 102, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.H.; Lu, S.X. Risk perception, ability of resisting risk and farmer willingness to exit rural housing land. Resour. Sci. 2018, 40, 698–706. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, X.F.; Yang, Y.Y. Research on risk resilience of rural households: Based on a survey in Hubei province. Rural Econ. 2014, 32, 86–90. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Z.T.; Lu, S.G. An empirical study on the influence of family economic resources on college graduates’ employment quality--Based on the employment and entrepreneurship follow-up surrey of college graduates in Shaanxi. J. Beijing Univ. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 21, 127–140. [Google Scholar]
- Du, B.R.; Jia, X.H. Analysis of social network, intermediary effect, and farmers’ commercial insurance consumption behavior. J. Henan Univ. Anim. Husb. Econ. 2017, 30, 7–15. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.M. Internet, social networks and earnings of rural migrant population. J. Dalian Univ. Technol. (Soc. Sci.) 2019, 40, 15–23. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, F.; Chen, Y.Y. Social network and rural credit in China; evidence from CFPS. J. Financ. Res. 2012, 55, 178–192. [Google Scholar]
- Countermeasures to Promote the High-Quality Revitalization of Jiangsu’s Homesteads with Digital Reforms. Available online: https://www.chinalandscience.com.cn/tdkxdt/tdkxdt/article/abstract/20230212?st=article_issue (accessed on 17 April 2024).
- Ju, K.X. Research on the Impact of Urbanized Ability on Farmers’ Homestead Withdrawal. Master’s Thesis, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Fang, J.; Wen, Z.L.; Zhang, M.Q. Mediation analysis of categorical variables. J. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 40, 471–477. [Google Scholar]
- Mackinnon, D.P.; Cox, M.C. Commentary on “Mediation analysis and categorical variables: The final frontier” by Dawn Iacobucci. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 600–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.L.; Guo, G.C.; Tan, L.Y. Farmers’ willingness to homestead withdraw and influencing factors: Based on survey data of 1292 farmers in Suzhou and Suqian. J. Agro-For. Econ. Manag. 2023, 22, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, G.C.; Ge, C.T. Study on exit mechanism of rural housing land under the perspective of push-pull theory—Based on the investigation of farmers’ willingness in Qixia district. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2017, 26, 816–823. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.X.; Chen, X.C.; Wu, C.P. Study on the impacts of farmers’ cognition on property right to homestead quit intention. Territ. Nat. Resour. Study 2018, 40, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, X.Q.; Li, Z.Y.; Xie, M.H. Influence of farmers’ cognitive conflict of property rights on their willingness to withdraw from homestead. Jiangxi Soc. Sci. 2021, 41, 228–239. [Google Scholar]
- Xing, D.W.; Xu, J.H.; Zeng, H.S.; Zhao, D.Y. Risk perception, social trust and willingness of farmers to exit homestead—Based on the data from a survey of 418 rural households in Yangzhou, Jiangsu province. J. China Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2022, 43, 51–60. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, P.F.; Zhang, R.H.; Zhao, K.; Zhou, S.Q. The influence of human capital on farmers’ behavior of quitting rural residential land. Econ. Surv. 2022, 39, 41–50. [Google Scholar]
- Eagle, N.; Macy, M.; Claxton, R. Network diversity and economic development. Science 2010, 328, 1029–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, J.H.; Chen, L.H.; Ying, R.Y. Influence factors analysis of rural labor migration: Based on the perspective of social network. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2010, 29, 73–79. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, F. Research on the Impact of Social Network on the Production Decision of Rural Household. Ph.D. Thesis, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Definition | N | Mean | Std. |
---|---|---|---|---|
Explained variable: | ||||
Will | Willingness to withdraw from the homestead, with 1 indicating willingness and 0 indicating unwillingness | 1971 | 0.098 | 0.297 |
Core explanatory variable: | ||||
Social network | The number of people who can lend you 50,000 yuan when you are in trouble 0 = 0 people; 1 = 1~5 people; 2 = 6~15 persons; 3 = 16 or more persons | 1971 | 0.911 | 0.808 |
Mediating variable: | ||||
Risk resilience | 1 = weak; 2 = weaker; 3 = ordinary; 4 = stronger; 5 = strong | 1971 | 3.178 | 0.873 |
Control variables: | ||||
Gender | Gender of head of household 1 = male; 0 = female | 1971 | 0.918 | 0.274 |
Age | Age of head of household | 1971 | 63.394 | 10.074 |
Engel’s coefficient | Ratio of food expenditure to total household expenditure | 1971 | 0.400 | 0.208 |
Income | Full-year 2019 revenue, taken in logarithms | 1971 | 8.969 | 1.465 |
Number of residential plots | Number of homesteads in the family | 1971 | 1.150 | 0.421 |
Ownership | What do you think about the ownership of the homestead? 1 = individual or state; 0 = village collective | 1971 | 0.915 | 0.279 |
Mortgage | Do you think homesteads can be mortgaged? 1 = yes; 0 = no | 1971 | 0.423 | 0.494 |
Inheritance | Do you think homesteads can be inherited? 1 = yes; 0 = no | 1971 | 0.933 | 0.250 |
Central Jiangsu | 1 = yes; 0 = no | 1971 | 0.223 | 0.417 |
Northern Jiangsu | 1 = yes; 0 = no | 1971 | 0.387 | 0.487 |
Southern Jiangsu | Regional control group, 1 = yes; 0 = no | 1971 | 0.390 | 0.488 |
Social Network | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | 643 | 955 | 278 | 95 | 1971 |
Percentage | 33% | 48% | 14% | 5% | 100% |
Variable | (1) Logit | (2) dy/dx |
---|---|---|
Social network | 0.229 ** (0.094) | 0.019 ** (0.008) |
Gender | 0.517 (0.345) | 0.043 (0.029) |
Age | −0.007 (0.008) | −0.001 (0.001) |
Engel’s coefficient | −1.089 *** (0.421) | −0.090 *** (0.035) |
Income | 0.053 (0.055) | 0.004 (0.005) |
Number of residential plots | 0.065 (0.179) | 0.005 (0.015) |
Ownership | −0.392 (0.250) | −0.032 (0.021) |
Mortgage | 0.050 (0.167) | 0.004 (0.014) |
Inheritance | −0.509 * (0.269) | −0.042 * (0.022) |
Central Jiangsu | 0.594 ** (0.275) | 0.049 ** (0.023) |
Northern Jiangsu | 1.809 *** (0.230) | 0.149 *** (0.019) |
_cons | −2.873 *** (0.935) | |
Wald chi2 | 97.69 *** | |
N | 1971 |
Variable | (1) OLS | (2) Probit | (3) dy/dx |
---|---|---|---|
Social network | 0.019 ** (0.008) | 0.125 ** (0.051) | 0.020 ** (0.008) |
Control variables | √ | √ | √ |
_cons | 0.089 (0.080) | −1.573 *** (0.474) | |
Wald chi2/F | 9.07 *** | 101.95 *** | |
N | 1971 | 1971 |
Variable | (1) Logit | (2) dy/dx |
---|---|---|
Social network | 0.264 *** (0.091) | 0.023 *** (0.008) |
Control variables | √ | √ |
_cons | −2.730 *** (0.920) | |
Wald chi2 | 103.64 *** | |
N | 1981 |
Variable | (1) Logit | (2) dy/dx |
---|---|---|
Social network | 0.294 *** (0.102) | 0.024 *** (0.009) |
Control variables | √ | √ |
_cons | −3.042 *** (1.008) | |
Wald chi2 | 88.29 *** | |
N | 1675 |
Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Developed Regions | Less-Developed Regions | |||
Logit | dy/dx | Logit | dy/dx | |
Social network | 0.419 *** (0.163) | 0.020 ** (0.008) | 0.044 (0.106) | 0.005 (0.013) |
Control variables | √ | √ | √ | √ |
_cons | −2.784 (1.718) | −0.125 (1.034) | ||
Wald chi2 | 13.41 | 26.84 *** | ||
N | 1008 | 963 |
Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full Sample | First Category | Second Category | ||||
Logit | dy/dx | Logit | dy/dx | Logit | dy/dx | |
Social network | 0.221 *** (0.069) | 0.018 *** (0.006) | 0.467 *** (0.133) | 0.038 *** (0.011) | 0.327 ** (0.162) | 0.027 ** (0.014) |
Control variables | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
_cons | −2.930 *** (0.928) | −3.090 *** (1.078) | −3.485 * (1.888) | |||
Wald chi2 | 98.47 *** | 84.73 *** | 24.61 ** | |||
N | 1971 | 1598 | 373 |
Variable | (1) Risk Resilience | (2) Will |
---|---|---|
Ologit | Logit | |
Social network | 0.309 *** (0.058) | 0.206 ** (0.095) |
Risk resilience | 0.192 ** (0.093) | |
Control variables | √ | √ |
_cons | −3.405 *** (0.971) | |
Wald chi2 | 66.05 *** | 98.64 *** |
N | 1971 | 1971 |
95 percent confidence interval for Zβ1 × Zγ2 | [0.0114, 0.1136] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, Y.; Zhang, R. How Social Networks Affect Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Homesteads: Evidence from Jiangsu Province, China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050673
Guo Y, Zhang R. How Social Networks Affect Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Homesteads: Evidence from Jiangsu Province, China. Agriculture. 2024; 14(5):673. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050673
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Youlin, and Rongtian Zhang. 2024. "How Social Networks Affect Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Homesteads: Evidence from Jiangsu Province, China" Agriculture 14, no. 5: 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050673