IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i2p237-d742543.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-Resettlement Support Policies, Psychological Factors, and Farmers’ Homestead Exit Intention and Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Peng Shi

    (College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China
    Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • Frank Vanclay

    (Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • Jin Yu

    (College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Xianyang 712100, China)

Abstract

Ex situ poverty alleviation relocation (ESPAR) is a Chinese government program created to address rural poverty and land management issues. Affecting around 10 million people, the process involves encouraging smallholder farmers to leave their rural homesteads and move to new housing. By consolidating people into medium density accommodation, the amount of land available for other purposes can be increased. However, some farmers were reluctant to move, and many of those who accepted new housing failed to demolish their homestead and rehabilitate the land as required. This paper applies the ‘extended theory of planned behavior’ to examine the factors that influence farmers’ exit intention and behavior. Face-to-face interviews were carried out in Southern Shaanxi Province, China. Data relating to 830 farmers were analyzed using Structural Equation Modelling. Our most important finding is that farmers had a poor perception of the post-relocation support, and this retarded their exit intention and behavior. We conclude that it is essential to improve post-relocation support, enhance the autonomy of farmers, and formulate relocation plans according to people’s age and likely future occupation.

Suggested Citation

  • Peng Shi & Frank Vanclay & Jin Yu, 2022. "Post-Resettlement Support Policies, Psychological Factors, and Farmers’ Homestead Exit Intention and Behavior," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:237-:d:742543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/237/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/237/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tan, Chin-Seang & Ooi, Hooi-Yin & Goh, Yen-Nee, 2017. "A moral extension of the theory of planned behavior to predict consumers’ purchase intention for energy-efficient household appliances in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 459-471.
    2. Quintal, Vanessa Ann & Lee, Julie Anne & Soutar, Geoffrey N., 2010. "Risk, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism example," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 797-805.
    3. Gao, Wenwen & de Vries, Walter Timo & Zhao, Qianyu, 2021. "Understanding rural resettlement paths under the increasing versus decreasing balance land use policy in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Shirley Taylor & Peter A. Todd, 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 144-176, June.
    6. Levinthal, Daniel & March, James G., 1981. "A model of adaptive organizational search," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 307-333, December.
    7. Timothy Besley & Robin Burgess, 2000. "Land Reform, Poverty Reduction, and Growth: Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(2), pages 389-430.
    8. Zhou, Yang & Li, Xunhuan & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Rural land system reforms in China: History, issues, measures and prospects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    9. Cheng, Long & Brown, Gregory & Liu, Yan & Searle, Glen, 2020. "An evaluation of contemporary China’s land use policy – The Link Policy: A case study from Ezhou, Hubei Province," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    10. Oliver, Richard L & Bearden, William O, 1985. "Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(3), pages 324-340, December.
    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. Ying Chen & Xiaolu Ni & Yajia Liang, 2022. "The Influence of External Environment Factors on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Rural Homesteads: Evidence from Wuhan and Suizhou City in Central China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Zehua Wang & Fachao Liang & Sheng-Hau Lin, 2023. "Can socially sustainable development be achieved through homestead withdrawal? A hybrid multiple-attributes decision analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Jing Wang & Kai Zhao & Yue Cui & Hui Cao, 2022. "Formal and Informal Institutions in Farmers’ Withdrawal from Rural Homesteads in China: Heterogeneity Analysis Based on the Village Location," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Ranran Shi & Ling Hou & Binghui Jia & Yaya Jin & Weiwei Zheng & Xiangdong Wang & Xianhui Hou, 2022. "Effect of Policy Cognition on the Intention of Villagers’ Withdrawal from Rural Homesteads," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Xiuling Ding & Qian Lu & Lipeng Li & Apurbo Sarkar & Hua Li, 2023. "Does Labor Transfer Improve Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Farming?—A Bivariate Probit Modeling Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-27, August.
    6. Tao Xia & Elias G. Carayannis & Stavros Sindakis & Saloome Showkat & Nikos Kanellos, 2024. "Technology transfer for sustainable rural development: evidence from homestead withdrawal with compensation in Chengdu–Chongqing," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 303-333, February.
    7. Yao Luo & Yumei Li & Chen Li & Qun Wu, 2023. "Influence of the Kinship Networks on Farmers’ Willingness to Revitalize Idle Houses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Kangchuan Su & Jiang Wu & Yan Yan & Zhongxun Zhang & Qingyuan Yang, 2022. "The Functional Value Evolution of Rural Homesteads in Different Types of Villages: Evidence from a Chinese Traditional Agricultural Village and Homestay Village," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Yuangang Xu & Guoqing Shi & Yingping Dong, 2022. "Effects of the Post-Relocation Support Policy on Livelihood Capital of the Reservoir Resettlers and Its Implications—A Study in Wujiang Sub-Stream of Yangtze River of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, February.

    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. Fernanda Leão Ramos & Jorge Brantes Ferreira & Angilberto Sabino de Freitas & Juliana Werneck Rodrigues, 2018. "The Effect of Trust in the Intention to Use m-banking," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 15(2), pages 175-191, March.
    2. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    3. Daxini, Amar & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2019. "Understanding farmers’ intentions to follow a nutrient management plan using the theory of planned behaviour," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 428-437.
    4. Behzad Ranjbar & Amir Naeimi & Mohammad Badsar, 2022. "Designing an integrated model for strawberry growers’ behavior toward implementation of good agricultural practices in Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 10924-10944, September.
    5. Yang, Kiseol, 2012. "Consumer technology traits in determining mobile shopping adoption: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 484-491.
    6. Marzieh Zendehdel & Laily Hj Paim & Syuhaily Bint Osman, 2015. "Students’ online purchasing behavior in Malaysia: Understanding online shopping attitude," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1078428-107, December.
    7. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    8. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    9. Hasan, Rajibul & Lowe, Ben & Petrovici, Dan, 2020. "Consumer adoption of pro-poor service innovations in subsistence marketplaces," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 461-475.
    10. Bo-Kyeong Kim & Kyoung-Ok Kim, 2020. "Relationship between Viewing Motivation, Presence, Viewing Satisfaction, and Attitude toward Tourism Destinations Based on TV Travel Reality Variety Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-13, June.
    11. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    12. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    13. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Maruping, Likoebe M. & Brown, Susan A., 2006. "Role of time in self-prediction of behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 160-176, July.
    14. Garima Malik & A. Sajeevan Rao, 2019. "Extended expectation-confirmation model to predict continued usage of ODR/ride hailing apps: role of perceived value and self-efficacy," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 461-482, December.
    15. Borhan, Muhamad Nazri & Ibrahim, Ahmad Nazrul Hakimi & Miskeen, Manssour A. Abdulasalm, 2019. "Extending the theory of planned behaviour to predict the intention to take the new high-speed rail for intercity travel in Libya: Assessment of the influence of novelty seeking, trust and external inf," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 373-384.
    16. Muhammad Yaseen Bhutto & Yasir Ali Soomro & Hailan Yang, 2022. "Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting Young Consumer Purchase Behavior of Energy-Efficient Appliances (Evidence From Developing Economy)," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, February.
    17. Petschnig, Martin & Heidenreich, Sven & Spieth, Patrick, 2014. "Innovative alternatives take action – Investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 68-83.
    18. Alfiero, Simona & Battisti, Enrico & Ηadjielias, Elias, 2022. "Black box technology, usage-based insurance, and prediction of purchase behavior: Evidence from the auto insurance sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    19. Cowan, Kelly R. & Daim, Tugrul U., 2011. "Review of technology acquisition and adoption research in the energy sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 183-199.
    20. Chia-Chien Hsu & Brian Sandford & Chia-Ju Ling & Ching-Torng Lin, 2021. "Can the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Help Explain Subjective Well-Being in Senior Citizens due to Gateball Participation?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-15, August.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:237-:d:742543. 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.