IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i5p134-d351690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Functions, Rural Space Governance, and Farmers’ Environmental Perceptions: A Case Study from the Huanjiang Karst Mountain Area, China

Author

Listed:
  • Jiangjun Wan

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Du Jiangyan, Chengdu 611830, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.)

  • Yi Su

    (Rural Development Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Social Science, Chengdu 610041, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.)

  • Huanglin Zan

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Du Jiangyan, Chengdu 611830, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.)

  • Yutong Zhao

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Du Jiangyan, Chengdu 611830, China)

  • Lingqing Zhang

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Du Jiangyan, Chengdu 611830, China)

  • Shaoyao Zhang

    (College of Geography and Resources Science, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China)

  • Xiangyu Dong

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Sichuan Agricultural University, Du Jiangyan, Chengdu 611830, China)

  • Wei Deng

    (College of Geography and Resources Science, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China)

Abstract

Residents of rural areas live and depend on the land; hence, rural land plays a central role in the human–land relationship. The environment has the greatest direct impact on farmers’ lives and productivity. In recent years, the Chinese government carried out vigorous rural construction under a socialist framework and implemented a rural revitalization strategy. This study was performed in a rural area of Huanjiang County, Guangxi Province, China. We designed a survey to measure rural households’ perceptions of three types of rural spaces: ecological, living, and production spaces. The survey was administered to 379 farmers, and their perceptions and satisfaction with Ecological–Living–Productive spaces were evaluated with the use of structural equation modeling. Analysis of latent and observed variables indicates that: (1) Farmers’ overall satisfaction with Ecological–Living–Productive spaces was moderate. The average satisfaction score for production spaces was lowest (2.881) while that for living spaces was highest (3.468) and that for ecological spaces was in between (3.351). (2) The three most important exogenous observed variables associated with living space satisfaction were house comfort > domestic water supply > domestic sewage treatment. The three most important exogenous observed variables associated with production space satisfaction were irrigation water > cultivated land quantity > cultivated land fertility. The three most important exogenous observed variables associated with ecological space satisfaction were garbage disposal > vegetation cover > flood and waterlogging. Based on the requirements of the rural revitalization strategy and the results of our analyses of rural households’ spatial perceptions, we propose corresponding countermeasures and suggestions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiangjun Wan & Yi Su & Huanglin Zan & Yutong Zhao & Lingqing Zhang & Shaoyao Zhang & Xiangyu Dong & Wei Deng, 2020. "Land Functions, Rural Space Governance, and Farmers’ Environmental Perceptions: A Case Study from the Huanjiang Karst Mountain Area, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:5:p:134-:d:351690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/134/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/5/134/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiangjun Wan & Xueqian Song & Yi Su & Li Peng & Shanta Paudel Khatiwada & Yawen Zhou & Wei Deng, 2019. "Water Resource Utilization and Livelihood Adaptations under the Background of Climate Change: A Case Study of Rural Households in the Koshi River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Kristensen, Søren Bech Pilgaard & Busck, Anne Gravsholt & van der Sluis, Theo & Gaube, Veronika, 2016. "Patterns and drivers of farm-level land use change in selected European rural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 786-799.
    3. Matthew Bunce & Sergio Rosendo & Katrina Brown, 2010. "Perceptions of climate change, multiple stressors and livelihoods on marginal African coasts," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 407-440, June.
    4. Melanie Feurer & Andreas Heinimann & Flurina Schneider & Christine Jurt & Win Myint & Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer, 2019. "Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Gascoigne, William R. & Hoag, Dana & Koontz, Lynne & Tangen, Brian A. & Shaffer, Terry L. & Gleason, Robert A., 2011. "Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1715-1725, August.
    6. Zhang, Zhaohui & Paudel, Krishna P., 2019. "Policy improvements and farmers' willingness to participate: Insights from the new round of China's Sloping Land Conversion Program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 121-132.
    7. Andrew K. Marondedze & Brigitta Schütt, 2019. "Dynamics of Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Harare, Zimbabwe: A Case Study on the Linkage between Drivers and the Axis of Urban Expansion," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Ben Zhe Wang & Zhiming Cheng, 2017. "Environmental Perceptions, Happiness and Pro-environmental Actions in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 357-375, May.
    9. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
    10. Cheng Chen & Shin-Yi Chou & Robert J. Thornton, 2015. "The Effect of Household Technology on Weight and Health Outcomes among Chinese Adults: Evidence from China's "Home Appliances Going to the Countryside" Policy," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(3), pages 364-401.
    11. Nusair, Khaldoon & Hua, Nan, 2010. "Comparative assessment of structural equation modeling and multiple regression research methodologies: E-commerce context," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 314-324.
    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. Rui Bai & Ying Shi & Ying Pan, 2022. "Land-Use Classifying and Identification of the Production-Living-Ecological Space of Island Villages—A Case Study of Islands in the Western Sea Area of Guangdong Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Yongliang Yang & Liwen Shen & Yuwen Li & Yi Li, 2022. "The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on Environmental Governance Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-21, June.
    3. Xuesong Zhang & Zijin Xu, 2021. "Functional Coupling Degree and Human Activity Intensity of Production–Living–Ecological Space in Underdeveloped Regions in China: Case Study of Guizhou Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Fang Shi & Mingshi Li, 2021. "Assessing Land Cover and Ecological Quality Changes under the New-Type Urbanization from Multi-Source Remote Sensing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Oscar Meza Palma & José M. Díaz-Puente & José L. Yagüe, 2020. "The Role of Coffee Organizations as Agents of Rural Governance: Evidence from Western Honduras," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Qi Wen & Caiting Shen & Siyou Xia & Yongsheng Wang, 2022. "Analysis of spatiotemporal variations and effects of regional functions in rural China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 1414-1435, September.
    7. Yang Yu & Jesús Rodrigo-Comino, 2021. "Analyzing Regional Geographic Challenges: The Resilience of Chinese Vineyards to Land Degradation Using a Societal and Biophysical Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    8. Xiaoqing Zhao & Yifei Xu & Qian Wang & Junwei Pu & Xiaoqian Shi & Pei Huang & Zexian Gu, 2022. "Sustainable Agricultural Development Models of the Ecologically Vulnerable Karst Areas in Southeast Yunnan from the Perspective of Human–Earth Areal System," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Dongqi Sun & Dazhuan Ge, 2022. "The interaction mechanism of rural housing land transition and rural development: A spatial governance perspective," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 1190-1209, September.
    10. Robert A. Marchant & Aida Cuni-Sanchez, 2022. "Special Issue Editorial: Mountains under Pressure," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-5, August.

    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. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Asci, Serhat & Borisova, Tatiana & VanSickle, John J., 2015. "Role of economics in developing fertilizer best management practices," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 251-261.
    3. Pan Zhang & Zhiguo Wang, 2019. "PM 2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    5. Bishu, Kinfe & O'Reilly, Seamus & Lahiff, Edward & Steiner, Bodo, 2016. "Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies," MPRA Paper 74954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Luqi Qin & Erbao Cao, 2024. "Decision-making and performance of the agricultural supply chain: risk-neutral farmer vs target-oriented farmer," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 340(2), pages 961-980, September.
    8. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    9. Yanping Li & Lawrence Jun Zhang & Naashia Mohamed, 2024. "The influence of mentorship and working environments on foreign language teachers’ research motivation in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Pacheco de Castro Flores Ribeiro, Paulo & Osório de Barros de Lima e Santos, José Manuel & Prudêncio Rafael Canadas, Maria João & Contente de Vinha Novais, Ana Maria & Ribeiro Ferraria Moreira, Franci, 2021. "Explaining farming systems spatial patterns: A farm-level choice model based on socioeconomic and biophysical drivers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    11. Cheryll C. Launio & Constancio A. Asis, Jr. & Rowena G. Manalili & Evelyn F. Javier, 2013. "Economic Analysis of Rice Straw Management Alternatives and Understanding Farmers' Choices," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013031, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    12. Tiantian Ma & Qingbai Hu & Changle Wang & Jungang Lv & Changhong Mi & Rongguang Shi & Xiaoli Wang & Yanying Yang & Wenhao Wu, 2022. "Exploring the Relationship between Ecosystem Services under Different Socio-Economic Driving Degrees," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Syed Aflatun Kabir Hemel & Mohammad Kamrul Hasan & Md. Abdul Wadud & Rojina Akter & Nasima Akther Roshni & Md. Tariqul Islam & Afsana Yasmin & Keya Akter, 2022. "Improvement of Farmers’ Livelihood through Choi Jhal ( Piper chaba )-Based Agroforestry System: Instance from the Northern Region of Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    15. Cameira, M.R. & Rolim, João & Valente, Fernanda & Faro, Afonso & Dragosits, Ulrike & Cordovil, Cláudia M.d.S., 2019. "Spatial distribution and uncertainties of nitrogen budgets for agriculture in the Tagus river basin in Portugal – Implications for effectiveness of mitigation measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 278-293.
    16. Turkcan, Hulya & Imamoglu, Salih Zeki & Ince, Huseyin, 2022. "To be more innovative and more competitive in dynamic environments: The role of additive manufacturing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    17. Guoqiang Qiu & Yinghong Wang & Shanshan Guo & Qian Niu & Lin Qin & Di Zhu & Yunlong Gong, 2022. "Assessment and Spatial-Temporal Evolution Analysis of Land Use Conflict within Urban Spatial Zoning: Case of the Su-Xi-Chang Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    18. Fatima Akhtar & K. S. Thyagaraj & Niladri Das, 2018. "Perceived Investment Performance of Individual Investors is Related to the Big-Five and the General Factor of Personality (GPF)," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 19(2), pages 342-356, April.
    19. Nyaupane, Narayan & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Ken, McMillin, 2014. "Goal Structure of U.S. Meat Goat Producers: Is Farm Performance Consistent with the Goals?," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Johnson, Kris A. & Dalzell, Brent J. & Donahue, Marie & Gourevitch, Jesse & Johnson, Dennis L. & Karlovits, Greg S. & Keeler, Bonnie & Smith, Jason T., 2016. "Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 175-185.

    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:9:y:2020:i:5:p:134-:d:351690. 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.