IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i7p646-d591528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Zhongqiong Qu

    (College of Public Administration, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Yongxin Wei

    (College of Public Administration, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Xun Li

    (College of Public Administration, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

Abstract

The reform of rural land supply market has a profound impact on the rural management and agricultural development. In this article, we want to explore risk perception of multi-subject land supply reform in China. The perception of potential risks from the perspective of stakeholders can evaluate the effect of a certain behavioral decision and provide a convincing explanation for further risk control. Based on theoretical analysis and practical investigation, we define the five stakeholders, namely collective economic organizations, farmers, local government, banks and land users, as the respondents of our questionnaire survey. Through in-depth interviews and literature review, we obtained the categories of risks with stakeholders. Data were obtained through questionnaire survey, a total of 307 surveys were conducted to analyze the probability of risk occurrence and the severity of consequences. Frequency analysis, risk matrix method, and Borda count method were used to analyze the survey results in order to determine the risk level and key risk. The research finds that the information asymmetry risk perceived by farmers and the market risk perceived by banks are key risks. In terms of stakeholders, famers and banks perceived the highest overall risks. It implies that the information-disadvantaged stakeholder is usually the one with a strong sense of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhongqiong Qu & Yongxin Wei & Xun Li, 2021. "Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:7:p:646-:d:591528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/7/646/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/7/646/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nadja El Benni & Robert Finger & Miranda P.M. Meuwissen, 2016. "Potential effects of the income stabilisation tool (IST) in Swiss agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(3), pages 475-502.
    2. Jing Wang & Yurui Li & Qianyi Wang & Kee Cheok Cheong, 2019. "Urban–Rural Construction Land Replacement for More Sustainable Land Use and Regional Development in China: Policies and Practices," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Matthias Sutter & Martin G. Kocher & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents' Field Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 510-531, February.
    4. Wojciech Sroka & Dariusz Żmija, 2021. "Farming Systems Changes in the Urban Shadow: A Mixed Approach Based on Statistical Analysis and Expert Surveys," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-29, May.
    5. Moon, Won-Ki & Kahlor, Lee Ann & Olson, Hilary Clement, 2020. "Understanding public support for carbon capture and storage policy: The roles of social capital, stakeholder perceptions, and perceived risk/benefit of technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    6. Poorvi Iyer & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Manuela Meraner & Robert Finger, 2020. "Measuring Farmer Risk Preferences in Europe: A Systematic Review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 3-26, February.
    7. Pinillos, Daniel & Poccard-Chapuis, René & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A. & Corbeels, Marc & Timler, Carl J. & Tittonell, Pablo & R. Ballester, Maria Victoria & Schulte, Rogier P., 2021. "Landholders' perceptions on legal reserves and agricultural intensification: Diversity and implications for forest conservation in the eastern Brazilian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    8. Khwaja, Ahmed & Sloan, Frank & Salm, Martin, 2006. "Evidence on preferences and subjective beliefs of risk takers: The case of smokers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 667-682, July.
    9. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    10. Bekiros, Stelios & Jlassi, Mouna & Naoui, Kamel & Uddin, Gazi Salah, 2018. "Risk perception in financial markets: On the flip side," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 184-206.
    11. Ahmed, Zobaer & Guha, Gauri S. & Shew, Aaron M. & Alam, G.M. Monirul, 2021. "Climate change risk perceptions and agricultural adaptation strategies in vulnerable riverine char islands of Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. Felix Holzmeister & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel & Stefan Zeisberger, 2020. "What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Laypeople," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3977-4002, September.
    13. Hoang Linh Nguyen & Jin Duan & Guo Qin Zhang, 2018. "Land Politics under Market Socialism: The State, Land Policies, and Rural–Urban Land Conversion in China and Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Poku-Boansi, Michael, 2021. "Multi-stakeholder involvement in urban land use planning in the Ejisu Municipality, Ghana: An application of the social complexities’ theory," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    15. Zhongqiong Qu & Yiming Lu & Zhiqiu Jiang & Ellen Bassett & Tao Tan, 2018. "A Psychological Approach to ‘Public Perception’ of Land-Use Planning: A Case Study of Jiangsu Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Sulewski, Piotr & Kłoczko-Gajewska, Anna, 2014. "Farmers’ risk perception, risk aversion and strategies to cope with production risk: an empirical study from Poland," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 116(3), pages 1-8, December.
    17. Luciana S. Soler & Peter H. Verburg & Diógenes S. Alves, 2014. "Evolution of Land Use in the Brazilian Amazon: From Frontier Expansion to Market Chain Dynamics," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-34, August.
    18. Tan, Rong & Wang, Rongyu & Heerink, Nico, 2020. "Liberalizing rural-to-urban construction land transfers in China: Distribution effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    19. Shahriar Mustafiz & Akira Nakayasu & Mamoru Itabashi, 2021. "Marketing of Vegetable Seeds: Practice and Behavioral Inclinations of Vegetable Seed Sellers and Farmers in Selected Areas of Bangladesh," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Weiming Tong & Kevin Lo & Pingyu Zhang, 2020. "Land Consolidation in Rural China: Life Satisfaction among Resettlers and Its Determinants," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, April.
    21. Giampietri, Elisa & Yu, Xiaohua & Trestini, Samuele, 2020. "The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(1), April.
    22. Burt, George & Mackay, David & Mendibil, Kepa, 2021. "Overcoming multi-stakeholder fragmented narratives in land use, woodland and forestry policy: The role scenario planning and ‘dissociative jolts’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    23. Maria Bampasidou & Michael D. Kaller & Shaun M. Tanger, 2021. "Stakeholder’s Risk Perceptions of Wild Pigs: Is There a Gender Difference?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    24. Liao, Huchang & Wu, Xingli & Mi, Xiaomei & Herrera, Francisco, 2020. "An integrated method for cognitive complex multiple experts multiple criteria decision making based on ELECTRE III with weighted Borda rule," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jing Gong & Hongyan Du & Zhi Wang, 2022. "Analysis of the Influences of Ecological Compensation Projects on Transfer Employment of Rural Labor from the Perspective of Capability," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Kevan W. Lamm & Alyssa Powell & Abigail Borron & Keith Atkins & Stephanie Hollifield, 2022. "Insights into Rural Stress: Using the Community Capitals Framework to Help Inform Rural Policies and Interventions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-12, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simone Severini & Cinzia Zinnanti & Valeria Borsellino & Emanuele Schimmenti, 2021. "EU income stabilization tool: potential impacts, financial sustainability and farmer’s risk aversion," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Giuseppe Timpanaro & Gaetano Chinnici & Roberta Selvaggi & Giulio Cascone & Vera Teresa Foti & Alessandro Scuderi, 2023. "Farmer?s adoption of agricultural insurance for Mediterranean crops as an innovative behavior," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 25(2), pages 155-188.
    3. Martina Bozzola & Robert Finger, 2021. "Stability of risk attitude, agricultural policies and production shocks: evidence from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(3), pages 477-501.
    4. Wang, Mei & Rieger, Marc Oliver & Hens, Thorsten, 2016. "How time preferences differ: Evidence from 53 countries," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 115-135.
    5. Detlefsen, Lena & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina & Schmidt, Ulrich & Sutter, Matthias, 2018. "Are Economic Preferences Shaped by the Family Context? The Impact of Birth Order and Siblings' Sex Composition on Economic Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 11949, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Lena Detlefsen & Andreas Friedl & Katharina Lima Miranda & Ulrich Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2024. "Are economic preferences shaped by the family context? The relation of birth order and siblings’ gender composition to economic preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 1-31, August.
    7. Andreoni, James & Di Girolamo, Amalia & List, John A. & Mackevicius, Claire & Samek, Anya, 2020. "Risk preferences of children and adolescents in relation to gender, cognitive skills, soft skills, and executive functions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 729-742.
    8. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    9. Felix Holzmeister & Christoph Huber & Stefan Palan, 2022. "A critical perspective on the conceptualization of risk in behavioral and experimental finance," Chapters, in: Sascha Füllbrunn & Ernan Haruvy (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Finance, chapter 30, pages 408-413, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Li, Lingfang (Ivy) & Wu, Yuting & Zhu, Xun & Chu, Rongwei & Hung, Iris, 2022. "Job Changing Frequency and Experimental Decisions: A Field Study of Migrant Workers in the Manufacturing Industry," MPRA Paper 115472, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Marius Eisele & Christian Troost & Thomas Berger, 2021. "How Bayesian Are Farmers When Making Climate Adaptation Decisions? A Computer Laboratory Experiment for Parameterising Models of Expectation Formation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 805-828, September.
    12. Simone Severini & Giuliano Di Tommaso & Robert Finger, 2019. "Effects of the Income Stabilization Tool on farm income level, variability and concentration in Italian agriculture," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, December.
    13. Giampietri, Elisa & Yu, Xiaohua & Trestini, Samuele, 2020. "The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(1), April.
    14. Datar, Ashlesha & Nicosia, Nancy & Samek, Anya, 2023. "Heterogeneity in place effects on health: The case of time preferences and adolescent obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    15. repec:grz:wpsses:2021-06 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Möhring, Niklas & Dalhaus, Tobias & Enjolras, Geoffroy & Finger, Robert, 2020. "Crop insurance and pesticide use in European agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    17. Andreoni, James & Kuhn, Michael A. & List, John A. & Samek, Anya & Sokal, Kevin & Sprenger, Charles, 2019. "Toward an understanding of the development of time preferences: Evidence from field experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Kamel Louhichi & Daël Merisier, 2024. "Potential impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy's Income Stabilisation Tool on farmers' incomes and crop diversity: A French case study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 716-739, June.
    19. Ashlesha Datar & Nancy Nicosia & Anya Samek, 2022. "Heterogeneity in Place Effects on Health: The Case of Time Preferences and Adolescent Obesity," NBER Working Papers 29935, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Vigani, Mauro & Khafagy, Amr & Berry, Robert, 2024. "Public spending for agricultural risk management: Land use, regional welfare and intra-subsidy substitution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    21. Conell-Price, Lynn & Jamison, Julian, 2015. "Predicting health behaviors with economic preferences & locus of control," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-9.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:7:p:646-:d:591528. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.