农户退出宅基地的补偿标准估算与政策偏好检验——基于湖南浏阳、衡山和中方三地农户的调研

江西财经大学学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (6): 83-94.

农户退出宅基地的补偿标准估算与政策偏好检验——基于湖南浏阳、衡山和中方三地农户的调研

陈鸣, 邓荣荣

南华大学经济管理与法学学院,湖南衡阳 421001

收稿日期:2022-05-17 出版日期:2022-11-25 发布日期:2022-12-08
作者简介:陈鸣（通讯作者）,南华大学副教授,博士,主要从事农村资源经济与管理研究,联系方式15166828@qq.com;邓荣荣,南华大学教授,博士,主要从事农业农村低碳经济研究。
基金资助:
国家社会科学基金一般项目“乡村振兴战略背景下农户宅基地退出的成本测度与补偿政策优化研究”（20BJY121）

Estimation of Compensation Standard and Test of Policy Preference for Farmers Withdrawing from Homestead: Based on a Survey of Farmers in Liuyang, Hengshan and Zhongfang of Hunan Province

CHEN Ming, DENG Rong-rong

University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China

Received:2022-05-17 Online:2022-11-25 Published:2022-12-08

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 推进农村宅基地退出是破解中国农村土地利用率低下的重要举措。这一制度的核心在于提供有吸引力的补偿方案,确定农户可接受和财政可负担的合理补偿标准,促进宅基地户主自发参与宅基地退出。通过演化博弈模型分析,设计了一个包括基础补偿和增值补偿组合,并基于对湖南省三地宅基地户主的抽样调查数据,借助条件价值评估法和选择实验法估算宅基地退出补偿标准。研究发现,被调研户主退地补偿的平均受偿标准是3450元/平方米,大幅高于调研地区现行标准,采用生计改善类补偿可以适度降低财政补偿成本,但不能完全替代货币补偿。年龄、收入水平、受教育程度、距离县城远近以及认知水平等因素直接影响农户选择偏好与补偿政策组合。研究结论表明,充分考虑农户需求,设计多元化补偿方案并提高补偿标准,是未来推进宅基地退出,提升农村土地利用率的关键。

关键词: 宅基地退出, 补偿标准, 演化博弈, 选择实验

Abstract: Promoting the withdrawal of rural homesteads is an important measure to solve the low utilization rate of rural land in China. The core of this system is to provide attractive compensation schemes, to determine reasonable compensation standardsfinancially affordableand acceptable to farmers, so as to promote the spontaneous participation of homestead owners in the withdrawal of homesteads. Through an analysis based on an evolutionary game model, this paper designs a combination of basic compensation and value-added compensation. Then based on the sample survey data of the homestead owners in the three places in Hunan Province, it estimates the compensation standard for homestead withdrawalwith the help of the conditional value evaluation method and the selection experiment method. The findings show that the average standard of compensation for the heads of the surveyed households is 3,450 yuan/square meter, which is significantly higher than the current standard in the surveyed area. The use of livelihood improvement compensation can moderately reduce the cost of financial compensation, but it cannot completely replace monetary compensation. Factors such as age, income, education level, distance from the county seat, cognitive level, etc., can directly affect farmers' choice preference and the compensation policy mix. The research conclusion shows that taking full consideration of the needs of farmers, designing diversified compensation schemes and improving compensation standards are the keys to promoting the withdrawal of homesteads and improving the utilization rate of rural land in the future.

Key words: homestead withdrawal, compensation standard, evolutionary game, selective experiment

中图分类号:

F301

陈鸣, 邓荣荣. 农户退出宅基地的补偿标准估算与政策偏好检验——基于湖南浏阳、衡山和中方三地农户的调研[J]. 江西财经大学学报, 2022, 0(6): 83-94.

CHEN Ming, DENG Rong-rong. Estimation of Compensation Standard and Test of Policy Preference for Farmers Withdrawing from Homestead: Based on a Survey of Farmers in Liuyang, Hengshan and Zhongfang of Hunan Province[J]. Journal of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, 2022, 0(6): 83-94.

参考文献

[1] 梁发超,林彩云. 经济发达地区宅基地有偿退出的运行机制、模式比较与路径优化[J]. 中国农村观察,2021,(3):34-47.
[2] 上官彩霞,冯淑怡,陆华良,曲福田. 不同模式下宅基地置换对农民福利的影响研究——以江苏省“万顷良田建设”为例[J]. 中国软科学,2017,(12):87-99.
[3] 吴郁玲,于亿亿,洪建国. 产权让渡、价值实现与宅基地退出收益分享——基于金寨、余江的实地调查[J]. 中国农村经济,2022,(4):42-63.
[4] 朱新华,陆思璇. 风险认知、抗险能力与农户宅基地退出[J]. 资源科学,2018,(4):698-706.
[5] 郭贯成,李学增,王茜月. 新中国成立70年宅基地制度变迁、困境与展望:一个分析框架[J]. 中国土地科学,2019,(12):1-9.
[6] 芦千文,苑鹏. 农业农村现代化中的小农户发展动态与衔接机制研究[J]. 江淮论坛,2021,(4):60-67.
[7] Anka L., Miran F., Ranc L.Modeling the Rural Land Transaction Procedure[J]. Land Use Policy, 2004, (7): 20-25.
[8] John T., Samuel K.Dynamics of Community Perceptions, Common Resources and Compensation Practices in Mining: The Case of Newmont Ghana Gold Ltd at Ahafo[J]. International Journal of the Commons, 2018, 12(1): 1-24.
[9] Ishibai N., Fukamachi K., Oku H., et al.Residents’ Perception and Measures for Conservation of Homestead Woodlands in the Tonami Plain, Japan[J]. Journal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 2018, 81(5): 549-552.
[10] Subedi Y.R., Kristiansen P., Cacho O., et al. Agricultural Land Abandonment in the Hill Agro-ecological Region of Nepal: Analysis of Extent, Drivers and Impact of Change[J]. Environmental Management, 2021, 67(6): 1100-1118.
[11] 苑韶峰,李威,彭文敏. 宅基地退出收益测算及分配策略研究综述[J]. 贵州大学学报(社会科学版),2020,(2):43-52.
[12] 敖长林,袁伟,王锦茜,高琴. 零支付对条件价值法评估结果的影响——以三江平原湿地生态保护价值为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2019,(8):42-48.
[13] 廉欢,王尔大,陈哲昂,张冠宇,刘轶芳. 基于随机效用最大化的连续型条件价值评估[J]. 系统工程理论与实践,2020,(12):3259-3269.
[14] 韩喜艳,刘伟,高志峰. 小农户参与农业全产业链的选择偏好及其异质性来源——基于选择实验法的分析[J]. 中国农村观察,2020,(2):81-99.
[15] 徐涛,倪琪,乔丹,姚柳杨,赵敏娟. 农村居民流域生态治理参与意愿的距离效应——以石羊河流域为例[J]. 资源科学,2020,(7):1395-1404.
[16] 马文博,李世平. 基于CE模型的河南省耕地生态补偿额度研究[J]. 中国农业资源与区划,2020,(3):189-195.
[17] 赵旭,池辰,何伟军. 基于选择实验法的三峡屏障区居民生态补偿支付意愿研究[J]. 长江流域资源与环境,2020,(1):101-112.
[18] 贾亚娟,赵敏娟. 生活垃圾分类治理:基于选择实验法的阳光堆肥房农户合作偏好[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境,2021,(4):108-117.
[19] 朱战国,董鑫,张彤. 农产品生态系统价值的标签化策略——基于选择实验法的实证分析[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2022,(1):160-171.
[20] 杨照东,任义科,杜海峰. 确权、多种补偿与农民工退出农村意愿[J]. 中国农村观察,2019,(2):93-109.
[21] 韩文龙,刘璐. 权属意识、资源禀赋与宅基地退出意愿[J]. 农业经济问题,2020,(3):31-39.
[22] 胡银根,余依云,王聪,吴欣. 基于成本收益理论的宅基地自愿有偿退出有效阈值——以改革试点区宜城市为例[J]. 自然资源学报,2019,(6):1317-1330.
[23] 张宇,孙萌,靳晓雯. 基于禀赋效应与棘轮效应的农户宅基地退出行为影响因素研究——以浙江省为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2021,(9):53-59.
[24] 蔡银莺,张小珲,杨青. 城中村更新住房补偿基底选取及村民政策满意度研究[J]. 华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2021,(5):138-146+198.
[25] 王兆林,杨庆媛,骆东奇. 农民宅基地退出差异性受偿意愿及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国土地科学,2018,(9):28-34.
[26] 蔡俊,章磊,袁宏伟,徐玲慧,陈笑雨. 基于改进TAM框架的农户宅基地退出行为意愿影响因素研究[J]. 资源科学,2022,(5):899-912.
[27] Carson R.T. Resources and Environment: Contingent Valuation[J]. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001, 14(2): 13272-13275.
[28] Jeanne D.B., Rambonilaza T. Choice Experiment, Multiple Programmes Contingent Valuation and Landscape Preferences: How Can We Support the Land Use Decision Making Process?[J]. Land Use Policy, 2012, 29(4): 846-854.
[29] Hensher D.A., Greene W. H. The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice[J]. Transportation, 2003, 30(2): 133-176.