Characterization of the differences between farmers' intentionfor farmland transfer and their circulation behavior
CHENZhen1,, GUOJie1,2,, OUMinghao1,2 1. College of Land Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China2. Center of Urban-rural Joint Development and Land Management Innovation, Nanjing 210095, China 通讯作者:通讯作者:郭杰,E-mail: guojie@njau.edu.cn 收稿日期:2018-04-28 修回日期:2018-07-22 网络出版日期:2018-10-25 版权声明:2018《资源科学》编辑部《资源科学》编辑部 基金资助:国家自然科学基金(71774086)江苏高校哲学社会科学优秀创新团队(2015ZSTD004)江苏省研究生科研创新计划项目(KYCX18_0728) 作者简介: -->作者简介:陈振,男,安徽宣城人,博士生,主要研究方向为土地经济、规划与管理。E-mail: 2016209009@njau.edu.cn
关键词:农地转出意愿;农地转出行为;计划行为理论;风险预期;安徽省郎溪县 Abstract Since the reform and opening-up, China's rural land system reform has transformed farmers from a simple “laborer” to a dual identity of “producer” and “operator”, which greatly mobilizes the enthusiasm of farmers for production and improving the efficiency of agricultural operations. However, with the rapid advancement of China's agricultural modernization process, under the background of the household contract responsibility system, the defects of small-scale operation, small division of land, and low efficiency of resource allocation have begun to become prominent. Farmland transfer has emerged as an effective way to solve the problem of land fragmentation, scale operation, and efficiency of resource allocation. The aim of this study was to provide a reference for improving the efficiency of farmland transfer. Based on the improved planning behavior theory, coupled with the survey data of Langxi in Anhui Province, the current study characterized the differences between farmers' intention for farmland transfer and their transfer behavior. The results showed that: ① The farmers' intention for farmland transfer was an ideal choice, which was mainly influenced by behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptual control. The transfer behavior was a decision in the actual state, which was mainly influenced by behavioral attitude and perception control. ② The risk was the key factor that led to the separation of intention and behavior. These risks include destroy the farmland, overuse the farmland, and waste the farmland. Therefore, if we want to effectively improve the efficiency of farmland transfer, we should provide an employment training for older farmers and increase their non-agricultural employment opportunities; strengthen the promotion and guidance of relevant policies and increase farmers' awareness of circulation; take care farmland transfer risks, prevent the destroy, waste of farmland, and unreasonable land use behaviors.
Keywords:farmland transfer intention;farmland transfer behavior;theory of planned behavior;risk expectation;Langxi in Anhui Province -->0 PDF (2702KB)元数据多维度评价相关文章收藏文章 本文引用格式导出EndNoteRisBibtex收藏本文--> 陈振, 郭杰, 欧名豪. 农户农地转出意愿与转出行为的差异分析[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(10): 2039-2047 https://doi.org/10.18402/resci.2018.10.12 CHENZhen, GUOJie, OUMinghao. Characterization of the differences between farmers' intentionfor farmland transfer and their circulation behavior[J]. RESOURCES SCIENCE, 2018, 40(10): 2039-2047 https://doi.org/10.18402/resci.2018.10.12
计划行为理论(Theory of Planned Behavior,TPB)是由美国心理学家IcekAjzen于20世纪80年代末至90年代初提出的社会心理学领域经典理论[18]。该理论认为,个体行为决策主要由意愿决定,而个体行为意愿主要受三方面因素影响,即:行为态度、主观规范和知觉控制(见图1)。其中,行为态度(Behavior Attitude,BA)是指个体对采取某项行为自身所持有的正面或负面的态度,态度越正面,行为意愿越强;主观规范(Subjective Norms,SN)是指个人对于是否采取某项行为所感受到的社会压力,受到的社会支持越大,行为意愿越强;知觉控制(Perceived Control,PC)是指个体依据自身经验感知到执行某项行为的难易程度,预期阻碍越少,行为意愿越强,另外通过知觉控制往往可以间接预测行为决策。 显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT 图1计划行为理论经典框架 -->Figure 1The classic framework of theory of plan behavior -->
目前,计划行为理论在行为决策领域(如网络消费、二孩生育、自主创业等)已得到广泛运用[19,20,21],近年来在农地流转行为[17]、宅基地退出行为[22]等方面也得到初步运用,证明了其良好的适应性和解释能力。但相关研究一般都以“个体意愿直接决定行为决策”为假设前提,或者通过知觉控制预测行为决策发生的可能性,有****指出,这种假设并不符合现实中个体意愿向行为决策的转化过程,个体行为的发生一般要经历“动机”和“执行”两个阶段,动机阶段个体往往只是基于理想状态的考量、形成初步行为意愿,并受行为态度、主观规范和知觉控制影响;而执行阶段个体则会更多地考虑现实情形、评估行为风险,再制定具体的执行计划,同样也会受行为态度、主观规范和知觉控制三者直接影响[23]。另外,计划行为理论最新研究表明,意愿和行为之间可能存在某种中间变量,而这个中间变量可能就是导致最终意愿和行为相悖离的重要因素[24]。 综上所述,本文对计划行为理论进行有效改进,同时引入“损失厌恶理论”中“风险”的概念,提出如下假设:行为态度、主观规范和知觉控制不仅决定了农户农地转出意愿,同时也直接影响农户农地转出行为;此外,农户对农地流转过程中可能发生的各类风险的预期是导致其意愿与行为相悖离的主导因素(见图2)。具体如下: 显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT 图2改进的计划行为理论分析框架 -->Figure 2The improved framework of theory of plan behavior -->
农地流转是推动中国农业规模化和现代化发展的必然要求,推进农地流转不仅需要农户积极的参与意愿,更需要将参与意愿顺利转化为参与行为。本文在对社会心理学领域经典理论——“计划行为理论”进行有效改进的基础上,结合安徽省郎溪县的实地调查数据,实证分析了农地流转中农户农地转出意愿和转出行为的差异及其原因,得出如下结论和启示: (1)改进的计划行为理论对农户农地转出意愿和转出行为均具备较强的解释能力。农户农地转出意愿是理想状态下的选择,主要受行为态度(流转收益)、主观规范(政府和村委会规范作用)和知觉控制(家庭劳动力短缺)影响;而转出行为是现实状态下的决定,主要受行为态度(流转收益)和知觉控制(家庭劳动力短缺、非农就业机会、政策了解程度)影响,主观规范对其影响不显著。因此,要想切实提高农地流转效率,首先必须为年龄偏大的农户提供就业培训,提高其非农就业能力,同时为其增加稳定的非农就业机会,弱化其对农地的依赖程度;其次要加强农地流转相关政策的宣传和引导,消除传统观念对农地流转的抑制,增强农户流转意识。 (2)风险预期是导致农户农地转出意愿与转出行为相悖离的关键因素。研究区农户农地转出意愿明显高出转出行为,本文通过引入“损失厌恶理论”中“风险”的概念,分析了农户对农地流转过程中可能发生的各类风险的预期,对转出意愿向转出行为转化的影响。实证结果表明,农地流转后转入户毁约弃耕、承包地被过度利用或者撂荒等风险严重阻滞了农户农地转出意愿向转出行为顺利转化,是导致意愿与行为相悖离的关键因素。因此,应该慎重对待农地流转可能带来的各类隐性风险,通过构建规模经营资格准入机制和流转保障金制度等有效措施,严防“毁约弃耕”现象发生;同时加强对农地流转后土地利用状况的监管,严格禁止不合理的土地利用行为及大规模囤地、撂荒等现象。 The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[National People's Representative Meeting. Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1982)[M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1982. ] [本文引用: 1]
[National People's Representative Meeting. Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1988)[M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1988. ] [本文引用: 1]
[National People's Representative Meeting. Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (1988)[EB/OL]. (1988-12-29)[2018-04-28]. URL [本文引用: 1]
[National People's Representative Meeting. Rural Land Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (2002) [EB/OL]. (2002-08-29)[2018-04-28]. ]URL [本文引用: 1]
[ChenL, GanC L, MeiJ, et al. Analysis on influential factors of farmers’ satisfaction with land transfer based on the CSI theory: a case study of Wuhan metropolitan area [J]. China Land Sciences, 2017, 31(2): 67-76. ] [本文引用: 1]
[QianZ H, JiX Q.Circulation of farmland in China and policy improvement-based on survey data of four provinces (areas) in Jiangsu, Guangxi, Hubei and Heilongjiang Provinces [J]. Management World, 2016, (2): 71-81. ] [本文引用: 1]
[BianQ J, ZhouS D, YiX Y, et al. Analysis on status, characteristics and regional variation of farmland transfer: an example of Zhejiang Province [J]. Resources Science, 2011, 33(2): 308-314. ] [本文引用: 1]
[XiaoYi, WeiZ F, YiK, et al. Comparison and analysis of two typical farmland transfer models in Chongqing City [J]. China Rural Survey, 2009, (3): 19-25. ] [本文引用: 1]
[XuH Z, ShiS Q.A study on the influence of farmers' differentiation on farmers' farmland's willingness to transfer [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2012, 22(9): 90-96. ] [本文引用: 2]
[ZhongZ B, KouY L, WeiH Y.On part-time farmers' intention to transfer agricultural land from the perspective of labor allocation and security replacement [J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Science Edition), 2016, 16(2): 84-92. ] [本文引用: 2]
[AyitursunS, JinX B, ZhouY K.Factors influencing Uighur farmer willingness towards agricultural land transmission: based on the investigation data of Kuala City in Xinjiang [J]. Resources Science, 2013, 35(1): 225-231. ] [本文引用: 2]
[MaX L, QiuT W, QianZ H.Farmland property security and farmers' participation in agricultural land transfer market: an empirical analysis based on the survey of four provinces (regions) in Jiangsu, Hubei, Guangxi and Heilongjiang Provinces [J]. China Rural Economy, 2015, (2): 22-37. ] [本文引用: 2]
[ZhangG Y, LvD H.Rural social embedding and farmers' farmland transfer behavior: an empirical analysis based on survey data of 936 households in Jilin Province [J]. Agricultural Technology Economy, 2017, (8): 57-66. ] [本文引用: 2]
[JiX Q, QianZ H, GeY F.Transaction cost, farmland transfer and new round of agricultural land system reform-based on the survey data of farmers in four provinces of Jiangsu, Guangxi, Hubei and Heilongjiang [J]. Jianghai Journal, 2015, (2): 83-89. ] [本文引用: 2]
[MaX L, QiuT W, QianZ H.The role of government in farmland transfer: Referee or player?Empirical evidence from households’satisfaction about farmlandtransfer in Jiangsu, Hubei, Guangxi and Heilongjiang Provinces [J]. Economist, 2016, (11): 83-89. ] [本文引用: 1]
[ZhongX L, LiJ T, FengY F, et al. Farmland transfer willingness and behavior in the perspective of farm household cognition in Guangdong province [J]. Resources Science, 2013, 35(10): 2082-2093. ] [本文引用: 1]
[ChengJ, ChengJ M, FeiL C, et al. Modeling of farmer household psychological decision-making in farmland transfer [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(5): 818-826. ] [本文引用: 2]
[18]
AjzenI.The theory of planned behavior [J]. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, 50(2): 179-211. [本文引用: 1]
[MaoZ Y, LuoH.Difference between fertility intentionand fertility behavior for women subject to the two-childrenpolicy an empirical study based on the theory of planned behavior [J]. Population Research, 2013, 37(1): 84-93. ] [本文引用: 1]
[ZhaoB, LuanH, LiX J, et al. The study of generating mechanism of scientific and technical personnel innovation behavior based on theory of planned behavior [J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2013, 31(2): 286-297. ] [本文引用: 1]
[WanY S, ChengJ M, WuJ X, et al. Differences between rural homestead exit intention and exit behavior based on theory of planned behavior [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(7): 1281-1290. ] [本文引用: 1]
[ZhaoW, ZhouH, YangG Q, et al. Farmers' transformation between willingness and behavior of post land consolidation supervision and maintenance: a case study of Dengzhou, Henan Province [J]. China Land Sciences, 2016, 30(3): 55-62. ] [本文引用: 1]
[YanY.The generation, development and review of planned behavior theory [J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, 2014, 36(7): 113-129. ] [本文引用: 1]
[25]
CialdiniR B, KallgrenC A, RenoR R.A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior [J]. Advances in Experi-mental Social Psychology, 1991, 24(1): 201-234. [本文引用: 1]
[26]
KraftP, RiseJ, SuttonS, et al. Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behavior: perceived behavioral control or affective attitude? [J]. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2005, 44(3): 479-496. [本文引用: 1]
[MaL C.Rational small farmers or surviving small farmers-criticism and rethinking of formal small-scale schools [J]. Social Science Front, 2014, (4): 165-172. ] [本文引用: 1]
[29]
BinswangerH P.Attitudes toward risk: theoretical implicationsof an experiment in rural India [J]. TheEconomic Journal, 1981, 91(364): 867-890. [本文引用: 1]