IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i3p387-d1359269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Influencing Factors on Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for the Use of Residential Land Based on Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • Jiafang Jin

    (School of Management, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Xinyi Li

    (School of Management, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Guoxiu Liu

    (School of Management, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Xiaowen Dai

    (School of Management, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Ruiping Ran

    (School of Management, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

Abstract

Aimed at advancing the reform of the Paid Use of Residential Land, this study investigates the willingness to pay among farmers and its underlying factors. Based on a Logistic Regression analysis of a micro-survey of 450 pieces of data from the Sichuan Province in 2023, we evaluated the effects of three factors, namely individual, regional and cultural forces. Further, Random Forest analysis and SHAP value interpretation refined our insights into these effects. Firstly, the research reveals a significant willingness to pay, with 83.6% of sample farmers being ready to participate in the reform, and 53.1% of them preferring online payment (the funds are mostly expected to be used for village infrastructure improvements). Secondly, the study implies that Individual Force is the most impactful factor, followed by regional and cultural forces. Thirdly, the three factors show different effects on farmers’ willingness to pay from different income groups, i.e., villagers with poorer infrastructure and lower clarity of homestead policy systems tend to be against the reform, whereas farmers with strong urban identity and collective pride support it. Based on these findings, efforts should be made to increase the publicity of Paid Use of Residential Land. Moreover, we should clarify the reform policies, accelerate the development of the online payment platform, use the funds for village infrastructure improvements, and advocate for care-based fee measures for disadvantaged groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiafang Jin & Xinyi Li & Guoxiu Liu & Xiaowen Dai & Ruiping Ran, 2024. "Analysis of Influencing Factors on Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for the Use of Residential Land Based on Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:3:p:387-:d:1359269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/3/387/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/3/387/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. Yang, Chaoxian & Chen, Rongrong & Zhong, Shouqin & Liu, Weiping & Xin, Guixin, 2023. "How social solidarity affects the outcomes of rural residential land consolidation: Evidence from Yujiang County, South China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Bin Guo & Lei Yuan & Mengyuan Lu, 2023. "Analysis of Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Homestead Revitalization Intention from the Perspective of Social Capital," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Su, Kangchuan & Hu, Baoqing & Shi, Kaifang & Zhang, Zhongxun & Yang, Qingyuan, 2019. "The structural and functional evolution of rural homesteads in mountainous areas: A case study of Sujiaying village in Yunnan province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. François Desmoulins-Lebeault & Jean-François Gajewski & Luc Meunier, 2018. "Personality and Risk Aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 472-489.
    2. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    3. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    4. Jason Aimone & Sheryl Ball & Brooks King-Casas, 2015. "The Betrayal Aversion Elicitation Task: An Individual Level Betrayal Aversion Measure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    5. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    6. Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Mathieu Lefebvre & Sarah Driessche, 2023. "Information disclosure under liability: an experiment on public bads," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(1), pages 155-197, July.
    7. Thomas Buser & Muriel Niederle & Hessel Oosterbeek, 2014. "Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(3), pages 1409-1447.
    8. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    9. Renate Strobl & Conny Wunsch, 2021. "Risky choices and solidarity: disentangling different behavioural channels," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1185-1214, December.
    10. Ye-Feng Chen & Shu-Guang Jiang & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "The Tragedy of Corruption. Corruption as a social dilemma," Working Papers 1531, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    11. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    12. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    15. Sophie Cetre & Max Lobeck & Claudia Senik & Thierry Verdier, 2018. "In search of unanimously preferred income distributions. Evidence from a choice experiment," Working Papers halshs-01863359, HAL.
    16. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jimenez & Luis Miller, 2009. "Are women expected to be more generous?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 93-98, March.
    17. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    19. Sule Alan & Seda Ertac & Elif Kubilay & Gyongyi Loranth, 2020. "Understanding Gender Differences in Leadership," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(626), pages 263-289.
    20. Galanis, S. & Ioannou, C. & Kotronis, S., 2019. "Information Aggregation Under Ambiguity: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 20/05, Department of Economics, City University London.

    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:13:y:2024:i:3:p:387-:d:1359269. 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.