Farmers' Satisfaction and Its Influencing Factors in The

sustainability

Article Farmers’ Satisfaction and its Inﬂuencing Factors in the Policy of Economic Compensation for Cultivated Land Protection: A Case Study in Chengdu, China

Dongyang Xiao 1, Haipeng Niu 1,2,*, Liangxin Fan 1,2 , Suxia Zhao 1,2 and Hongxuan Yan 3 1 School of Surveying and Land Information Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China; [email protected] (D.X.); [email protected] (L.F.); [email protected] (S.Z.) 2 The Research Centre of Land Economy and Urban-rural Development, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China 3 School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-391-3987-259

Received: 26 August 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 18 October 2019

Abstract: With the rapid progress of urbanization, the loss of cultivated land has attracted great attention worldwide, and economic compensation is one of the incentives commonly used by the governments to enhance farmers’ enthusiasm in protecting cultivated land. In recent years, although various economic compensation modes have been implemented by the Chinese government, such modes are still experimental and exploratory. Thus, designing and implementing a national economic compensation mode is urgent to effectively protect the quantity and quality of cultivated land. This study focuses on the mode of cultivated land protection fund (CLPF) in Chengdu, which is the earliest mode of the implementation of economic compensation in China in 2008. First, we analyzed the farmers’ satisfaction with the CLPF through a face-to-face interview with 296 farmers in Chengdu. Then, we used the path analysis method to identify the influencing factors of farmers’ satisfaction from the characteristics of farmers and the policy. Results show that the CLPF was generally supported by farmers. Nevertheless, room for improvement still exists. Particularly, farmers’ satisfaction was low in the design of the government’s supervision management of the CLPF. Farmers’ satisfaction with compensation standard, funding use requirement, and the government’s supervision management were remarkably affected by factors, including farmers’ educational level, cultivated land area, total annual agricultural income, farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF, farmers’ recognition of the value of the CLPF, and farmers’ perception of the changes in household economics. Particularly, the direct influence of farmers’ perception of the changes in household economics was the most important. Finally, we proposed the recommendations for constructing a national economic compensation mode for cultivated land protection. Our results have certain guiding significance for promoting the sustainable development of cultivated land protection policies by means of economic incentives in China and other countries.

Keywords: economic compensation; cultivated land protection fund; farmers’ satisfaction; inﬂuencing factor; Chengdu

1. Introduction The urbanization rate will reach 60% by 2030 and 67.2% by 2050 [1]. Rapid urbanization has led to a reduction in the area of cultivated land, and it will result in a 1.8–2.4% loss of farmland worldwide, and 80% of farmland losses will occur in developing countries in Asia and Africa by 2030 [2]. For example, in the rapid urbanization in South Korea from 1986 to 1996, the expansion of residential land caused a large amount of farmland loss [3]. In India, urbanization has rapidly transformed agricultural lands into

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787; doi:10.3390/su11205787 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 2 of 18 non-agricultural ones [4]. Generally, the reduction of cultivated land caused by urbanization has two direct reasons. First, urban boundary expansion encroaches on the farmland around the city. Second, the transfer of rural labor to the city results in the abandonment of farmland. This phenomenon has aroused people’s high attention to cultivated land protection. Governments or organizations in different countries are actively seeking effective ways to protect cultivated land areas from reduction. Economic compensation is an effective incentive that governments usually use to promote farmers’ cultivated land protection behavior. The Conservation Reserve Program in the United States and the Agri-environmental Schemes (AESs) in the European Union (EU) alleviate the rapid loss of cultivated land by transferring public assets to farmers for economic compensation [5–7]. In the 1980s, 20% of the total agricultural area was compensated by the AESs implemented in the EU [8]. The proportion of abandoned land to the total agricultural area was proven not to change after the implementation of AESs, although a significant improvement was observed in grassland management and fertilizer and pesticide use [8]. Moreover, AESs contributed to the promotion of crop diversity because it promoted crop rotation on a small scale [9]. Studying the influence of the implementation of AESs in southern France on the use of herbicides by grape growers indicated that the number of herbicides used by policy participants in 2011 was 38–53% lower than that used by grape growers who did not participate in the policy, and was between 42 and 50% in 2012 [10]. Therefore, the economic compensation of farmers in developed countries aims to protect farmland ecological environment and biodiversity and has achieved good results. The protection of cultivated land in developing countries aims to maintain the quantity and quality of cultivated lands to meet the growing demand for food [1]. At present, although China only has 9% of the world’s cultivated land, it feeds approximately 20% of the world’s population [11]. Hence, the contradiction between population and cultivated land has always been one of the main problems that plague China’s sustainable development. Since 1978, China’s urbanization level has increased dramatically from 17.9% in 1978 to 56.1% in 2015 [1]. China’s urbanization level has been estimated to reach 60.34, 68.38, and 81.63% by 2020, 2030, and 2050, respectively [12]. During the period of 2001–2013, China’s rapid urbanization consumed about 33,080 km2 of farmland, which had already threatened the country’s food security [13]. Furthermore, with the transfer of rural labor to cities, nearly 85% of rural households in China have at least one family member working in the non-agricultural sector [14]. Between 1993 and 2015, approximately 5.62, 5.70, and 4.00% of the cultivated land was reported to be uncultivated in eastern, central, and western China, respectively [15]. The quantity and quality of cultivated land is closely related to food security; thus, the Chinese government is committed to maintaining these aspects free from loss. Since 2008, many local governments have begun to explore how they can motivate farmers to cultivate land through economic compensation. The cultivated land protection fund (CLPF), implemented in Chengdu in 2008, is the first economic compensation mode in China for the protection of cultivated land areas from decreasing. This mode requires farmers who are financially compensated to ensure that the cultivated lands cannot be abandoned or destroyed; otherwise, the subsidy will be stopped, and economic penalties will be implemented. In 2010, the government in Suzhou implemented economic compensation for farmers in rice-growing areas to encourage them to continue to grow rice. Since then, Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Fujian Provinces have made economic compensation for farmland farmers at the provincial level in 2012 and 2016. Particularly, the CLPF in Chengdu was first implemented in China, and its influence on farmers’ enthusiasm in protecting cultivated lands has been a concern. Some scholars believe that it was a failure for effectively increasing the enthusiasm of farmers to participate in farmland protection [16–19]. Therefore, although economic compensation for enhancing farmers’ enthusiasm for farming has been applied in many regions in China, the mode is usually experimental and exploratory, and its effect on cultivated land protection has yet to be fully verified. In summary, the Chinese government must urgently design and apply a national economic compensation mode for farmers to protect the quantity and quality of cultivated lands effectively. Farmers are not only the recipients of economic compensation for cultivated land protection, but also SustainabilitySustainability 20192019, 11, ,11 x ,FOR 5787 PEER REVIEW 3 of3 18 of 18 compensation policy for cultivated land protection are farmers willing to protect cultivated lands. Therefore,the executors a scientific of cultivated method that land measures protection. farmer Onlys’ satisfaction when farmers with arethe policy satisfied should with be the proposed economic aftercompensation the implementation policy for of cultivated economic land compensation protection arefor farmerscultivated willing land toprotection. protect cultivated In addition, lands. factorsTherefore, that may a scientific affect farmers’ method thatsatisfaction measures must farmers’ be studied, satisfaction which with will the not policy only shouldhelp promote be proposed the sustainableafter the implementation development of of relevant economic policies, compensation but also for play cultivated an important land protection. role in promoting In addition, China’s factors nationalthat may economic affect farmers’ compensation satisfaction for must cultivated be studied, land which protection. will not Meanwhile, only help promote it is conducive the sustainable to providedevelopment reference of for relevant other policies,countries but or alsoregions play to an effectively important mobilize role in promoting farmers’ enthusiasm China’s national for protectingeconomic cultivated compensation land. for By cultivated focusing landon the protection. aforementioned Meanwhile, problems, it is conducive the present to provide work aims reference to: (1)for Comprehensively other countries or analyze regions farmers’ to effectively satisfaction mobilize with farmers’ the cultivated enthusiasm land for protection protecting fund cultivated (CLPF), land. takingBy focusing Chengdu, on theChina aforementioned as an example; problems, (2) identi thefy present the influencing work aims factors to: (1) Comprehensivelyof peasant households’ analyze satisfactionfarmers’ satisfactionwith the CLPF with based the cultivated on the characte land protectionristics of fundfarmers (CLPF), and the taking policy; Chengdu, and (3) China promote as an someexample; suggestions (2) identify on the the construction influencing of factors the econ of peasantomic compensation households’ mechanism satisfaction withfor cultivated the CLPF land based protection.on the characteristics of farmers and the policy; and (3) promote some suggestions on the construction of the economic compensation mechanism for cultivated land protection. 2. Materials and Methods 2. Materials and Methods

2.1.2.1. Theoretical Theoretical Basis Basis FarmersFarmers are are the the direct direct beneficiaries beneficiaries of ofcompensati compensationon funds. funds. The The higher higher the the farmers’ farmers’ satisfaction satisfaction withwith the the CLPF, CLPF, the the more more active active the the farmers’ farmers’ cultivat cultivateded land land protection protection behavior behavior will will be. be. The The elements elements thatthat constitute constitute the the economic economic compensation compensation mode mode of ofcultivated cultivated land land protection protection are are similar similar to tothe the componentscomponents of ofa machine, a machine, such such that that the the defect defect of ofany any component component will will affect affect the the operation operation of ofthe the machinemachine to tovarying varying degrees. degrees. That That is, is, farmers farmers may may be be dissatisfied dissatisfied with with the the entire entire compensation compensation mode mode if if theythey are are not satisfied satisfied with one aspect of the mode. Finally, this will also aaffectffect farmers’farmers’ enthusiasmenthusiasm in in protectingprotecting cultivated cultivated lands. lands. A study A study found found that farmers’ that farmers’ satisfaction satisfaction with the accountingwith the accounting transparency, transparency,funding use funding requirement, use requirement, and government’s and govern supervisionment’s supervision management manage transparencyment transparency of the mode of has thebeen mode low has since been the implementationlow since the ofimplementation the CLPF, which of has the led CLPF, to farmers’ which low has satisfaction led to farmers’ with the low entire satisfactionmode [18 ].with However, the entire farmers’ mode satisfaction [18]. However, with the farmers’ policy issatisfaction not only a ffwithected the by policy the characteristics is not only of affectedthe policy, by the but characteristics also by the characteristics of the policy, of but the al farmersso by the and characteristics their families. of For the example,farmers and young their and families.well-educated For example, farmers young can comply and well-educate with the agreementd farmers and can improve comply their with cultivated the agreement land protection and improvebehavior their after cultivated receiving land economic protection compensation behavior [after19,20 ].receiving Farmers’ economic livelihood compensation characteristics, [19,20]. such as Farmers’farmland livelihood size and economiccharacteristics, status, such have considerableas farmland esizeffects and on farmers’economic satisfaction status, have [21]. considerable As mentioned effectsin Section on farmers’ 2.3, the factorssatisfaction affecting [21]. farmers’As mentione satisfactiond in Section can be 2.3, divided the intofactors farmers’ affecting characteristics farmers’ satisfaction(e.g., gender, can age, be educationdivided into level, farmers’ family economiccharacteristics level, (e.g., family gender, size, and age, cultivated education land level, area) family and the economicpolicy’s characteristicslevel, family (e.g.,size, compensationand cultivated objects, land compensationarea) and the standard, policy’s compensationcharacteristics methods, (e.g., compensationcompensation objects, basis, compensation funding allocation standard, ratio, comp fundingensation use methods, requirement, compensation supervision basis, management funding allocationtransparency, ratio, andfunding accounting use requirement, transparency). supe Figurervision1 shows management the theoretical transparency, framework and ofaccounting the impact transparency).mechanism of Figure farmers’ 1 shows satisfaction the theoretical on the CLPF. framework of the impact mechanism of farmers’ satisfaction on the CLPF.

Farmers’ satisfaction

Policy’s characteristics Farmers’ characteristics

FigureFigure 1. 1. InfluenceInﬂuence of of the the policy policy and and farmers’ farmers’ characteristicscharacteristics onon farmers’farmers’ satisfaction satisfaction with with the the cultivated cultivated land protection fund (CLPF). land protection fund (CLPF).

2.2. Study Areas Chengdu is located in the central part of Sichuan Province (102°54′E-104°53′E, 30°05′N-31°26′N; Figure 2). It is an important commodity base in China for oil, vegetables, fruits, and Chinese herbal Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 4 of 18

2.2. Study Areas

Chengdu is located in the central part of Sichuan Province (102◦540E–104◦530E, 30◦050N–31◦260N; Figure2). It is an important commodity base in China for oil, vegetables, fruits, and Chinese herbal medicines.Sustainability According 2019, 11, x FOR to Sichuan PEER REVIEW Statistical Yearbook in 2018, the total land area of Chengdu4 of is 18 1.4 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18 × 104 km2, and it has jurisdiction over 11 districts, 5 county-level cities, and 4 counties. At the end of medicines. According to Sichuan Statistical Yearbook in 2018, the total land area of Chengdu is 1.4 × 2017,medicines. the total According population to ofSichuan household Statistical registration Yearbook was in 2018, 1.4 the10 7total, and land the area rural of populationChengdu is was1.4 × 5.8 104 km2, and it has jurisdiction over 11 districts, 5 county-level× cities, and 4 counties. At the end of × 106.10 In4 2017,km2, and the cultivatedit has jurisdiction land area over was 11 districts, 5.3 103 5km county-level2, and this cities, area alsoand showed4 counties. a slightly At the end decreasing of 2017, the total population of household registration× was 1.4 × 107, and the rural population was 5.8 × trend2017, in 2008–2015the total population (Figure 3of). ho Theusehold main registration crops in Chengdu was 1.4 × 10 are7, and rice, the wheat, rural population and corn. was The 5.8 sowing × 106. In 2017, the cultivated land area was 5.3 × 103 km2, and this area also showed a slightly decreasing 106. In 2017, the cultivated land area was3 5.32 × 103 km2, and this area also showed a slightly decreasing areatrend of the in annual 2008–2015 crop (Figure was 3). 7.3 The10 mainkm cropsand in theChengdu total outputare rice, valuewheat, ofand the corn. primary The sowing industry area (i.e., trend in 2008–2015 (Figure 3). The× main crops in Chengdu are rice, wheat, and corn. The sowing area agriculture,of the annual forestry, crop animal was husbandry,7.3 × 103 km and2 and ﬁshery) the total was output 85.45 billionvalue of RMB the inprimary 2017. Fromindustry 1978 (i.e., to 2017, of the annual crop was 7.3 × 103 km2 and the total output value of the primary industry (i.e., the proportionagriculture, offorestry, employees animal in husbandry, the primary and industry fishery) in was Chengdu 85.45 billion declined RMB from in 2017. 63.4 From to 15.6%. 1978 to agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery) was 85.45 billion RMB in 2017. From 1978 to

Figure 2. Location of the study area and distribution of sample villages. FigureFigure 2. Location 2. Location of theof the study study area area and and distribution distribution of sample villages. villages.

Figure 3. Cultivated area and fertilizer consumption in Chengdu in 2008–2017. Note: A peak of FigureFigure 3. Cultivated3. Cultivated area area and and fertilizerfertilizer consumptionconsumption in in Chengdu Chengdu in in2008–2017. 2008–2017. Note: Note: A peak A peakof of cultivated area was observed in 2016, because in this year, Jianyang was officially administrated by cultivatedcultivated area area was was observed observed in in2016, 2016, becausebecause in in th thisis year, year, Jianyang Jianyang was was officially oﬃcially administrated administrated by by Chengdu. Therefore, the cultivated area of Jianyang is added into Chengdu. Chengdu.Chengdu. Therefore, Therefore, the the cultivated cultivated areaarea of Jianyang is is added added into into Chengdu. Chengdu. The CLPF was implemented in Chengdu in 2008 to maintain the quantity and quality of TheThe CLPF CLPF was was implemented implemented in Chengduin Chengdu in 2008 in 2008 to maintain to maintain the quantitythe quantity and qualityand quality of cultivated of cultivated lands. In this mode, the government must compensate farmers and the village collective cultivated lands. In this mode, the government must compensate farmers and the village collective lands.who In own this mode,the lands the and government bear the responsibility must compensate for cultivated farmers land and protection the village. Table collective 1 shows who the basic own the who own the lands and bear the responsibility for cultivated land protection. Table 1 shows the basic landscharacteristics and bear the responsibilityof the CLPF. Particularly, for cultivated the land compensation protection. funds Table 1comprise shows the four basic sections characteristics as follows: of the characteristics of the CLPF. Particularly, the compensation funds comprise four sections as follows: CLPF.(1) Particularly, 5% of land-transferring the compensation fees of the funds local comprise government; four (2) sections total funds as follows: of the newly (1) 5% added of land-transferring paid land (1) 5% of land-transferring fees of the local government; (2) total funds of the newly added paid land fees ofuse the fee local for the government; construction (2) land total which funds is owned of the newlyby the local added government; paid land (3) use 50% fee of for the the cultivated construction use fee for the construction land which is owned by the local government; (3) 50% of the cultivated land occupation taxes used for non-agricultural usage; and (4) 2% of the initial transfer turnover of landland which occupation is owned taxes by theused local for non-agricultural government; (3) usage; 50% of and the (4) cultivated 2% of the landinitial occupation transfer turnover taxes used of for the collective construction land use rights. The government subsidizes farmers according to the area non-agriculturalthe collective construction usage; and(4) land 2% use of rights. the initial The transfergovernment turnover subsidizes of the farmers collective according construction to the area land use of basic farmland (high-quality farmland) and general farmland. Accordingly, farmers with basic rights.of basic The governmentfarmland (high-quality subsidizes farmersfarmland) according and general to the farmland. area of basic Accordingly, farmland farmers (high-quality with basic farmland) farmland can receive a subsidy of 6000 yuan/ha per year, whereas farmers with general cultivated andfarmland generalfarmland. can receive Accordingly, a subsidy of farmers6000 yuan/ha with basicper year, farmland whereas can farmers receive with a subsidy general of cultivated 6000 yuan/ha land can receive a subsidy of 4500 yuan/ha per year. However, the CLPF stipulates that 10% of the per year,land can whereas receive farmers a subsidy with of general4500 yuan/ha cultivated per year. land However, can receive the aCLPF subsidy stipulates of 4500 that yuan 10%/ha of perthe year. total amount of compensation funds in the current year should be used for cultivated land transfer total amount of compensation funds in the current year should be used for cultivated land transfer guarantee funds and agricultural insurance subsidy, and the remaining 90% should be used for guarantee funds and agricultural insurance subsidy, and the remaining 90% should be used for pension insurance subsidy. The former is deducted uniformly by the government when granting pension insurance subsidy. The former is deducted uniformly by the government when granting Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 5 of 18

However, the CLPF stipulates that 10% of the total amount of compensation funds in the current year should be used for cultivated land transfer guarantee funds and agricultural insurance subsidy, and the remaining 90% should be used for pension insurance subsidy. The former is deducted uniformly by the government when granting subsidies, whereas the latter is issued to specific bank cards of farmers. Particularly, farmers can use the money stored on the specific bank card to purchase pension insurance; however, they do not have the right to withdraw cash unless they meet certain conditions. Farmers receiving compensation must sign a “cultivated land protection contract” with the government and fulfill the relevant provisions in the contract. For instance, after being compensated, farmers are not allowed to build houses, build graves, dig sand, quarry, mine, borrow soil, dig fish ponds, pile up waste, or idle arable lands. The government shall supervise and manage the effect of cultivated land protection through remote sensing monitoring or dynamic inspection. For farmers who violate the regulations of cultivated land protection, the government will take corresponding sanctions, such as deducting subsidized funds and ideological education. In addition, the management department shall uphold the principles of openness, fairness, and transparency and ensure that compensation funds are issued to farmers in full and on time.

Table 1. Mode of the CLPF in Chengdu.

Item Contents Implementation date 2008 Who will pay Municipal and county governments Who will accept Farmers and village collective (1) 5% of land-transferring fees of the local government; (2) total funds of the newly added paid land use fee for the land construction owned by the local government; (3) 50% of the cultivated land Sources of funds occupation taxes used for non-agricultural usage; and (4) 2% of the initial transfer turnover of the collective construction land use rights Compensation standard 6000 yuan/ha to the basic farmland per year; 4500 yuan/ha to the general cultivated land per year Compensation method Cultivated land transfer guarantee funds, agricultural insurance subsidy, and pension insurance subsidy Compensation basis Quality and quantity of cultivated land 10% of the total amount of compensation funds should be used for cultivated land transfer guarantee Funding use requirement funds and agricultural insurance subsidy, and the remaining 90% should be used for pension insurance subsidy Compensation funds and farmers’ farmland protection behaviors should be supervised and managed Supervision and management by the government Accounting transparency The process of fund issuance shall be open to the public

In 2008, approximately 234,000 farmers in 11 counties in Chengdu signed the “cultivated land protection contract”, which involved 191.13 km2 of cultivated land. The total amount of compensation funds raised by the government reached 100 million yuan, of which 443,600 yuan was compensated to farmers. By the end of 2014, 12 billion yuan had been distributed to farmers [18]. According to statistics, 1.83 million farmers in 2661 villages in Chengdu benefited from the CLPF, involving approximately 5100 km2 of farmland [18,22]. Given the diversity of socioeconomic development levels and geographical environment, we selected six counties (or districts) to conduct a questionnaire survey on farmers (Figure2 and Table2). Amongst these counties, Pengzhou has the largest land area (1421 km2), whereas Wenjiang has the smallest (276 km2). Wenjiang, Xindu, and Shuangliu had higher per capita disposable income of rural residents (3847, 3467, and 3747 USD, respectively) than that of Qionglai, Chongzhou, and Pengzhou (2815, 2956, and 2957 USD, respectively) in 2017. In comparison with the Chengdu average (3070 USD), the rural per capita disposable income was higher in the former three regions and was lower in the latter three. Therefore, the sample regions were divided into two types to reflect the differences of economic development: One is the sample regions with higher economic level (i.e., located in Wenjiang, Xindu, and Shuangliu), and the other is the sample regions with lower economic level (i.e., located in Qionglai, Chongzhou, and Pengzhou). A particularly distinct difference is observed among the six counties in terms of topographic features. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Table 2. Characteristics of the study areas. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 6 of 18 Per Capita Disposable Income Sample region Location Topographic Features Land Area (km2) Table 2. Characteristics of the study areas. of Rural Residents (USD) Sample 103°41′E-103°55′E; Land Area Per Capita Disposable Income Wenjiang Location Topographic FeaturesPlain 2 276 3847 Region 30°36′N-30°52′N (km ) of Rural Residents (USD) 103 41 E-103103°5455′E-104°16E; ′E; WenjiangXindu ◦ 0 ◦ 0 PlainPlatform 276496 3847 3467 30◦360N-3030°36◦520′NN-30°52′N 103 54 E-104103°4816′E-104°16E; ′E; XinduShuangliu ◦ 0 ◦ 0 PlatformPlain, mountain, and hill 496 1068 3467 3747 30◦360N-3030°14◦520′NN-30°37′N 103◦480E-104102°54◦16′0E-104°53E; ′E; ShuangliuQionglai Plain, mountain,Plain, mountain, and hill and hill 1068 1377 3747 2815 30◦140N-3030°05◦370′NN-31°26′N 102 54 E-104 53 E; Qionglai ◦ 0 103°07◦ ′0E-103°49Plain,′E; mountain, and hill 1377 2815 Chongzhou 30 05 N-31 26 N Plain and mountain 1089 2956 ◦ 0 30°30◦ 0′N-30°53′N 103 07 E-103 49 E; Chongzhou ◦ 0 103°10◦ ′0E-103°40′E;Plain and mountain 1089 2956 Pengzhou 30◦300N-30◦530N Plain, mountain, and hill 1421 2957 103 10 E-10330°5440′N-31°26E; ′N Pengzhou ◦ 0 ◦ 0 Plain, mountain, and hill 1421 2957 30◦540N-31◦260N Note:Note: All All statistical statistical data data are are from from 2018. 2018. The The exchange exchange rate ofrate CNY of/ USDCNY/USD is calculated is calc accordingulated according to the average to the exchangeaverage rateexchange in 2018 rate (i.e., 1in USD 2018= (i.e.,6.6118 1 CNY).USD = 6.6118 CNY).

FigureFigure4 shows4 shows the the changes changes in in the the total total area area of cultivatedof cultivated land land and and per capitaper capita cultivated cultivated land land in the in sixthe regions six regions from 2008from to2008 2017. to The2017. total The area total of cultivatedarea of cultivated land (left land of Figure (left 4of) wasFigure evidently 4) was higherevidently in Pengzhouhigher in thanPengzhou that in than the otherthat in five the areas, other whereas five areas, it was whereas far lower it was in far Wenjiang lower in than Wenjiang that in thethan other that fivein the areas. other In five 2008–2011, areas. In a 2008–2011, slow decline a slow in the decline area of in cultivated the area of land cultivated was evident land was in the evident six regions. in the However,six regions. after However, 2011, the changeafter 2011, of cultivated the change land areaof cultivated increased inland Pengzhou area increased but decreased in Pengzhou in Shuangliu but (adecreased total of a in 53.46 Shuangliu km2 decrease (a total in of 2008–2017). a 53.46 km In2 decrease the other in four 2008–2017). regions, theIn the change other of four cultivated regions, land the areachange had of a relativelycultivated flat land trend. area Thehad pera relatively capita cultivated flat trend. land The area per (rightcapita of cultivated Figure4) land was significantlyarea (right of higherFigure in 4) Qionglai was significantly than the other higher five in regions, Qionglai whereas than the it other was significantly five regions, lower whereas in Wenjiang it was significantly and Xindu thanlower that in inWenjiang the other and four Xindu areas. than In 2008–2017, that in the the other per four capita areas. cultivated In 2008–2017, land area the of per Qionglai, capita Pengzhou, cultivated andland Chongzhou area of Qionglai, was higher Pengzhou, than that and of Chongzhou Shuangliu, Xindu, was higher and Wenjiang. than that Thisof Shuangliu, variable decreased Xindu, and in PengzhouWenjiang. and This Chongzhou variable decreased before 2009 in but Pengzhou increased an afterd Chongzhou 2009. The per before capita 2009 cultivated but increased land area after showed 2009. aThe significant per capita decrease cultivated trend inland 2008–2017 area showed in Xindu a si andgnificant Wenjiang. decrease Although trend it in was 2008–2017 significantly in Xindu higher and in ShuangliuWenjiang. in Although 2010, the overallit was significantly reduction of thehigher per capitain Shuangliu cultivated in 2010, land areathe overall in this district reduction was of the the most per severecapita in cultivated 2008–2017. land Notably, area in the this per district capita cultivated was the most land areasevere was in significantly2008–2017. Notably, lower in thethe six per regions capita comparedcultivated with land the area national was significantly average (0.097 lower ha in in 2017). the six regions compared with the national average (0.097 ha in 2017).

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Cultivated land area and per capita cultivated land area of the study areas from 2008 to 2017. Figure 4. Cultivated land area and per capita cultivated land area of the study areas from 2008 to 2017. Note: Note: The solid points in sub-figure (a) denote the cultivated land area, and different colors denote The solid points in sub-figure (a) denote the cultivated land area, and different colors denote different sample different sample regions. The solid points in sub-figure (b) denote the per capita cultivated land area, and different colors denote different sample regions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 7 of 18

2.3. Data Sources The investigation was conducted on 17–22 May 2016. We adopted a random sampling method to determine the sample distribution of the survey. According to the Scheaffer sampling formula [23] (sampling error set to 0.06), the appropriate sample size for the survey area was approximately 278 (Table3). We aimed for at least 10 farmers to be surveyed in each village; however, some villages in Chengdu are small and scattered and are thus not suitable for this study. Therefore, we selected the nearest village to supplement the sample size only when we interviewed fewer than 10 farmers. We selected Wenjiang, Shuangliu, Xindu, Qionglai, Chongzhou, and Pengzhou as the main study areas, and we investigated a total of 33 villages. According to the distance of the village distribution, the final sample villages also included Guanlin Village of Xinjin County and Tongxin Village of Dayi County. Each of our questionnaires was conducted for approximately 30 min in the form of face-to-face interviews. All respondents were willing to answer all our questions, and they were given gifts. Finally, we had a total of 135 samples with higher rural per capita disposable income (i.e., located in Wenjiang, Xindu, Shuangliu, and Xinjin) and 161 samples with lower rural per capita disposable income (i.e., located in Qionglai, Chongzhou, Pengzhou, and Dayi). The proportion of samples with higher per capita disposable income is 45.6%, which is slightly lower than that of lower per capita disposable income (54.4%). Therefore, the samples with different disposable income per capita are almost evenly distributed.

Table 3. Survey sites and sample size.

Regional Classiﬁcation Survey Counties Survey Villages Sample Size Wenjiang Tuqiao, Gaoshan, and Hongjiang 33 Sample regions with Jinniu, Guixi, Jiugong, Liangsheng, Xindu 62 higher economic level Shanshui, Yulong, Liyuan, and Tongmeng Kunshan, Wayao, Baiguo, Shilu, Shuangliu 31 and Wenwu Xinjin Guanlin 9 Yinghan, Heishi, Gaohe, Quanshui, Qionglai 46 and Shuangjiang Sample regions with Dayi Tongxin 6 lower economic level Xintao, Chitang, Chongfu, Liba, Gaodun, Chongzhou 60 and Baihe Niuti, Huangzhu, Fengxia, Jingguo, Pengzhou 49 Guangsheng, and Fengquan Total 296

On the basis of the previous literature, the questionnaire contained three aspects of farmers’ satisfaction, awareness, and farmer characteristics (Table4). In these aspects, individual and household characteristics (e.g., gender, age, education level, cultivated land area, family size, agricultural income level, and income source) were confirmed to have considerable influences on the subjective evaluation of farmers [17,24–36]. Farmers’ knowledge of the compensation policy reflected their subjective perception of the policy, as well as the perception of whether the policy was meaningful [16,28]. Furthermore, the previous literature was studied from the perspective of farmers’ satisfaction with the compensation standard, compensation method, compensation basis, funding allocation ratio, funding use requirement, supervision management transparency, and accounting transparency of the CLPF [29,30,37]. The main contents of the questionnaire are shown in Table4. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 8 of 18

Table 4. Description of the main contents of the questionnaire.

Factors Items Description Gender Male = 1, female = 0 Age 35 = 1, (35,45] = 2, (45,60] = 3, >60 = 4 ≤ 0 school years = 1, 1–6 school years = 2, Education level (EL) 7–9 school years = 3, >9 school years = 4 <3 persons = 1, 3 persons = 2, Family size (FS) 4 persons = 3, 5 persons = 4, >5 persons = 5 Farmers’ characteristics <2 persons = 1, 2 persons = 2, Labor force size (LFS) 3 persons = 3, >3 persons = 4 0.067 ha = 1, (0.067,0.133] ha = 2, ≤ Cultivated land area (CLA) (0.133,0.2] ha = 3, (0.2,0.333] ha = 4, >0.333 ha = 5 Flowing out of cultivated land area None = 1, (0,0.133] ha = 2, (0.133,0.267] (FOCLA) ha = 3, others = 4 Total annual agricultural income (TAAI) RMB: 10,000 = 1, >10,000 = 2 ≤ I know about the role of cultivated land Knowledge of the CLPF (KC) protection fund: Know a little = 1, know it very well = 2 I think it is meaningful to implement Value cognition of the CLPF (VC) cultivated land protection fund: No = 1, yes = 2 I think there is a promotion in my Changes in family economic (CFE) family’s economic level: No = 1, a little = 2, much = 3 I am satisfied with the cultivated land protection fund in general: Overall satisfaction (OS) Farmers’ cognitive Dissatisfied = 1, undecided = 2, characteristics of the policy satisfied = 3, strongly satisfied = 4 I am satisfied with the compensation Satisfaction with compensation standard standards: Dissatisfied = 1, (SCS) undecided = 2, satisfied = 3, strongly satisfied = 4 I am satisfied with the funding use Satisfaction with funding use requirement requirements: Dissatisfied = 1, (SFUR) undecided = 2, satisfied = 3, strongly satisfied = 4 I am satisfied with the supervision Satisfaction with supervision management transparency: management transparency (SSMT) Dissatisfied = 1, undecided = 2, satisfied = 3, strongly satisfied = 4

2.4. Methods This study calculated the standard deviation and percentage of the variables in SPSS 22 to compare the sample characteristics of the 296 questionnaires. Thereafter, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to study the interrelationship between farmers’ satisfaction with the CLPF and farmers’ characteristics. Our aim was to study the significant impact of the related factors on farmers’ satisfaction and analyze whether a significant interdependence exists between the related factors. To further quantify the strength of the interaction between the variables, path analysis was set aside for measuring the direct and indirect effects [11,38,39] by using DPS 7.05 software. The preceding analysis, which had enabled us to understand the impact of the relevant factors on the CLPF, was conducive in laying the foundation for further policy recommendations. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18 land areas was 0.2 ha (1.861 ± 1.063). The average total annual agricultural income was 10,000 RMB Sustainability(1.196 ± 0.398).2019, 11, 5787 9 of 18

Table 5. Mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum of the variables in the questionnaire. 3. Results Standard Variable Mean Minimum Maximum 3.1. Descriptive Analysis of Farmers’ Characteristics Deviation Gender 0.497 0.501 0 1 Table5 shows thatAge the samples of males and3.061 females in0.907 the surveyed households1 were4 relatively uniform (0.497 0.501). The age structure of the participants was mainly middle-aged (45 to 60 years ±Education level (EL) 2.389 0.816 1 4 old) and old (overFamily 60 years size old) (FS) (3.061 0.907). 3.436 The average 1.186 education level was1 2.389 50.816, which ± ± corresponded toLabor primary force school size (LFS) and below. The 2.838 majority of the 0.968 participants owned 1 an average 4 of 0.133 to 0.2 ha (3.145 Cultivated1.233) of land the cultivatedarea (CLA) land areas. 3.145 Moreover, the 1.233 flowing out of 1cultivated land 5 areas was Flowing± out of cultivated land area 0.2 ha (1.861 1.063). The average total annual1.861 agricultural income1.063 was 10,000 RMB1 (1.196 4 0.398). ± (FOCLA) ± Total annual agricultural income Table 5. Mean, standard deviation, minimum,1.196 and maximum0.398 of the variables 1in the questionnaire. 2 (TAAI) Variable Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum 3.2. Descriptive AnalysisGender of the Farmers’ Cognitive 0.497 Characteristics 0.501 of the CLPF 0 1 Age 3.061 0.907 1 4 A total ofEducation 47% of farmers level (EL) interviewed had 2.389 limited knowledge 0.816 of the CLPF, whereas 1 53% of 4 them had substantialFamily knowledge size (FS) (left of Figure 5). 3.436 Therefore, the 1.186 propaganda of the 1 CLPF should 5 be strengthenedLabor in the force future size (LFS)to enable more farmers 2.838 to fully understand 0.968 this policy. 1 A total of 95.9% 4 of the farmersCultivated interviewed land area believed (CLA) that implementi 3.145ng the CLPF 1.233 was meaningful, 1 which was a 5 policy thatFlowing benefited out of cultivatedthe country land and area (FOCLA)the people 1.861(left of Figure 1.063 5). Meanwhile, 76.7% 1 of the farmers 4 Total annual agricultural income (TAAI) 1.196 0.398 1 2 considered that their family economic level had increased after the implementation of the CLPF, but this change was relatively minimal. 3.2. DescriptiveOverall, nearly Analysis 80% of of the the Farmers’ farmers Cognitive interviewed Characteristics were satisfied of the with CLPF the CLPF (right of Figure 5). For theA totalpolicy’s of 47% characteristics, of farmers interviewedthe farmers had the limited highest knowledge satisfaction of the (the CLPF, proportions whereas of 53% “very of themsatisfied” had and substantial “satisfactory” knowledge were (left 13.9% of Figureand 61.8%,5). Therefore, respectively) thepropaganda with the compensation of the CLPF standard should be of strengthenedthe CLPF (right in theof Figure future 5). to enableThe sample more distributi farmers toon fully was understandsimilar to the this sati policy.sfaction A totalof farmers of 95.9% with of the farmersfunding intervieweduse requirement believed of the that CLPF. implementing The percentages the CLPF of was the meaningful, respondents which who waswere a policy“very thatsatisfied” beneﬁted and the “satisfied” country and with the government’s people (left of Figuresupervision5). Meanwhile, management 76.7% ofwere the farmers11.5% and considered 34.8%, thatrespectively their family (right economic of Figure level 5). Thus, had increased the satisfaction after the of implementationthis indicator was of the the lowest CLPF, butcompared this change with wasthe satisfaction relatively minimal. of other indicators. This result also implies that the government should further strengthen its work in supervision management.

FigureFigure 5. Distribution 5. Distribution of farmers’ of farmers’ cognition cognition (left) and (left satisfac) and satisfactiontion (right) ( rightof the) ofCLPF. the CLPF. Note: Note:The blue The solid blue circle and solidnumbers circle above and denote numbers the above percentage denote of thethe percentageindicator in ofthe the total indicator sample insize. the KC: total Knowledge sample size. of the KC: CLPF; VC: KnowledgeValue cognition of the of CLPF;the CLPF; VC: CFE: Value Changes cognition in family of the economic; CLPF; CFE: OS: Changes Overall insatisf familyaction; economic; SCS: Satisfaction OS: withOverall compensation satisfaction; standard; SCS: Satisfaction SFUR: Satisfaction with compensation with funding standard; use requ SFUR:irement; Satisfaction SSMT: with Satisfaction funding with supervisionuse requirement; management SSMT: transparency. Satisfaction with supervision management transparency. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 10 of 18

Overall, nearly 80% of the farmers interviewed were satisfied with the CLPF (right of Figure5). For the policy’s characteristics, the farmers had the highest satisfaction (the proportions of “very satisfied” and “satisfactory” were 13.9% and 61.8%, respectively) with the compensation standard of the CLPF (right of Figure5). The sample distribution was similar to the satisfaction of farmers with the funding use requirement of the CLPF. The percentages of the respondents who were “very satisfied” and “satisfied” with government’s supervision management were 11.5% and 34.8%, respectively (right of Figure5). Thus, the satisfaction of this indicator was the lowest compared with the satisfaction of other indicators. This result also implies that the government should further strengthen its work in supervision management.

3.3. Correlation Analysis The correlation between the different factors to farmers’ satisfaction was studied using Pearson correlation analysis. The respondent and policy characteristics were included in these factors. On farmers’ satisfaction with the compensation standard of the CLPF (Table6), education and total annual agriculture income had significant positive impact at the 0.05 level, and the cultivated land area had a significant positive impact at the 0.01 level. Farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF had a significant positive impact at the 0.01 level, and so was their perception of changes in the family economic level. Moreover, farmers’ cognition of the CLPF value had a significant positive impact at the 0.05 level.

Table 6. Correlation between farmers’ satisfaction and the inﬂuencing factors.

Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Satisfaction with Influencing Factors Compensation Funding Use Supervision Management Standard (SCS) Requirement (SFUR) Transparency (SSMT) Gender 0.025 0.019 0.004 − Age 0.055 0.034 0.029 − Education level (EL) 0.120 * 0.107 0.156 ** Family size (FS) 0.099 0.082 0.058 − − − Labor force size (LFS) 0.010 0.095 0.070 Cultivated land area (CLA) 0.302 ** 0.302 ** 0.178 ** Flowing out of cultivated land area (FOCLA) 0.065 0.067 0.033 Total annual agricultural income (TAAI) 0.118 * 0.128 * 0.120 * Knowledge of the CLPF (KC) 0.165 ** 0.220 ** 0.204 ** Value cognition of the CLPF (VC) 0.131 * 0.117 * 0.071 Changes in family economic (CFE) 0.344 ** 0.314 ** 0.386 ** Notes: * Significant at p < 0.05, ** Significant at p < 0.01.

On farmers’ satisfaction with the funding use requirement of the CLPF (Table6), the factors of cultivated land area, farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF, and farmers’ perception of changes in the family economic level had significant positive effects at the 0.01 level. Other factors, such as the total annual agriculture income and farmers’ cognition of the CLPF value, had a significant positive impact at the 0.05 level. On farmers’ satisfaction with the supervision and management transparency of the CLPF (Table6), education, cultivated land area, farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF, and farmers’ perceptions of changes in the family economic level had significant positive effects at the 0.01 level. Lastly, the total annual agricultural income had a significant positive impact at the 0.05 level.

3.4. Path Analysis Path analysis is useful for analyzing the key impact factors in multi-factor systems by directly comparing the direct effects of different factors on the target, which is further deepening of the correlation analysis. All factors should have significant correlation with the farmers’ satisfaction in the path analysis based on the previous relevant analysis. However, to improve the overall significance of the regression equation, the factors that entered the equation were the result selected by the default Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18 by the default methods of the software system. That is, not all the significant variables obtained through correlation analysis may eventually enter the equation. SustainabilityOn farmers’ 2019, 11 ,satisfaction x FOR PEER REVIEW with the compensation standard (SCS) of the CLPF (Figure 6), the 11 direct of 18 Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 11 of 18 effects of CFE and CLA on SCS were 0.277 and 0.224, respectively. These two values were higher than by the default methods of the software system. That is, not all the significant variables obtained the direct path coefficient (DPC) of VC (DPC = 0.087). Conversely, the indirect effect between the through correlation analysis may eventually enter the equation. factorsmethods was of relatively the software weak system. through That the is, indirect not all thepath significant coefficients. variables This result obtained proved through that correlationfarmers’ On farmers’ satisfaction with the compensation standard (SCS) of the CLPF (Figure 6), the direct satisfactionanalysis may with eventually the compensation enter the standard equation. of the CLPF was directly affected by each factor. effects of CFE and CLA on SCS were 0.277 and 0.224, respectively. These two values were higher than OnOn farmers’ farmers’ satisfaction satisfaction with with the the funding compensation use requirement standard (SCS) (SFUR) of theof the CLPF CLPF (Figure (Figure6), the 7), direct the the direct path coefficient (DPC) of VC (DPC = 0.087). Conversely, the indirect effect between the directeffects effect of CFE of CLA and was CLA the on largest SCS were (DPC 0.277 = 0.230), and 0.224, followed respectively. by the direct These effect two valuesof CFE were (DPC higher = 0.219), than factors was relatively weak through the indirect path coefficients. This result proved that farmers’ andthe the direct direct path effect coe offfi VCcient was (DPC) relatively of VC small (DPC (DPC= 0.087). = 0.132). Conversely, the indirect effect between the satisfaction with the compensation standard of the CLPF was directly affected by each factor. factorsOn farmers’ was relatively satisfaction weak with through the thesupervision indirect path and coemanagementfficients. This transparency result proved (SSMT) that farmers’of the On farmers’ satisfaction with the funding use requirement (SFUR) of the CLPF (Figure 7), the CLPFsatisfaction (Figure with8), the the direct compensation effect of CFE standard was the of larg the CLPFest (DPC was = directly0.368) and affected the direct by each effects factor. of TAAI direct effect of CLA was the largest (DPC = 0.230), followed by the direct effect of CFE (DPC = 0.219), and EL were relatively small (DPCs are 0.113 and 0.108, respectively). and the direct effect of VC was relatively small (DPC = 0.132). On farmers’ satisfaction with the supervision and management transparency (SSMT) of the CLPF (Figure 8), the direct effect of CFE was the largSCSest (DPC = 0.368) and the direct effects of TAAI and EL were relatively small (DPCs are 0.113 and 0.108, respectively).

0.224 0.087 0.277 SCS 0.006 CLA VC 0.224 0.015 0.087 0.277

0.006 CLA0.058 0.071 0.009 VC 0.015 CFE 0.028

0.058 0.071 0.009 FigureFigure 6. 6.PathPath analysis analysis of ofthe the factors factors affecting affecting farmers’ farmers’ satisfaction satisfaction with with the the compensation compensation standard standard 0.028 of ofthe the CLPF. CLPF. Note: Note: The The solid solid arrows arrows and and numbers numbersCFE ab aboveove denote denote the the direct direct effects effects and and direct direct path path coefficients.coefficients. The The dotted dotted arrowsarrows and and numbers numbers above above denote denote indirect indirect effects effects and indirect and pathindirect coe ffipathcients. coefficients.SCS: Satisfaction SCS: Satisfaction with compensation with compensation standard; CLA: standard; Cultivated CLA: landCultivated area; VC: land Value area; cognition; VC: Value CFE: Figure 6. Path analysis of the factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction with the compensation standard cognition;Changes CFE: in family Change economic.s in family economic. of the CLPF. Note: The solid arrows and numbers above denote the direct effects and direct path coefficients.On farmers’ The satisfaction dotted arrows with theand funding numbers use above requirement denote (SFUR)indirect ofeffects the CLPF and (Figureindirect7 ),path the direct effectcoefficients. of CLA wasSCS: the Satisfaction largest (DPC with= compensation0.230), followed standard; by the CLA: direct Cultivated effect of CFEland (DPCarea; VC:= 0.219), Value and the directcognition; effect ofCFE: VC Change was relativelys in family small economic. (DPC = 0.132).SFUR

0.230 0.132 0.219 SFUR 0.016 CLA VC 0.230 0.028 0.132 0.219

0.016 CLA0.059 0.056 0.036 VC 0.028 CFE 0.060

0.059 0.056 0.036

Figure 7. Path analysis of the factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction with the funding use requirement 0.060 of the CLPF. Note: The solid arrows and numbersCFE above denote the direct effects and direct path coefficients. The dotted arrows and numbers above denote the indirect effects and indirect path coefficients. SFUR: Satisfaction with funding use requirement; CLA: Cultivated land area; VC: Value FigureFigure 7. 7.PathPath analysis analysis of ofthe the factors factors affecting affecting farmers’ farmers’ satisfaction satisfaction with with the the funding funding use use requirement requirement cognition; CFE: Changes in family economic. of ofthe the CLPF. CLPF. Note: Note: The The solid solid arrows arrows and and numbers numbers ab aboveove denote denote the the direct direct effects effects and and direct direct path path coefficients. The dotted arrows and numbers above denote the indirect effects and indirect path coefficients. The dotted arrows and numbers above denote the indirect effects and indirect path coefficients. SFUR: Satisfaction with funding use requirement; CLA: Cultivated land area; VC: Value coefficients. SFUR: Satisfaction with funding use requirement; CLA: Cultivated land area; VC: Value cognition; CFE: Changes in family economic. cognition; CFE: Changes in family economic. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 12 of 18

On farmers’ satisfaction with the supervision and management transparency (SSMT) of the CLPF (Figure8), the direct e ﬀect of CFE was the largest (DPC = 0.368) and the direct eﬀects of TAAI and EL Sustainabilitywere relatively 2019, 11, small x FOR (DPCsPEER REVIEW are 0.113 and 0.108, respectively). 12 of 18

SSMT

0.108 0.113 0.368

-0.003 EL TAAI -0.003

0.015 0.051 0.003

CFE 0.010

Figure 8. Path analysis of factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction with the supervision management Figure 8. Path analysis of factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction with the supervision management transparency of the CLPF. Note: The solid arrows and numbers above denote the direct effects and transparency of the CLPF. Note: The solid arrows and numbers above denote the direct effects and direct path coefficients. The dotted arrows and numbers above denote the indirect effects and indirect direct path coefficients. The dotted arrows and numbers above denote the indirect effects and indirect path coefficients. SSMT: Satisfaction with supervision management transparency; EL: Education level; path coefficients. SSMT: Satisfaction with supervision management transparency; EL: Education TAAI: Total annual agricultural income; CFE: Changes in family economic. level; TAAI: Total annual agricultural income; CFE: Changes in family economic. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion In terms of the overall satisfaction, nearly 80% of the surveyed households from 296 samples were satisfiedIn terms (contains of the theoverall two satisfaction, levels of “satisfied” nearly 80 and% of “strongly the surveyed satisfied”) households with the from implementation 296 samples of werethe CLPF.satisfied Among (contains them, somethe two farmers levels believed of “s thatatisfied” farming and was “strongly their job andsatisfied”) they were with willing the to implementationplant land, even of if the the CLPF. country Among did not them, compensate some fa them.rmers Meanwhile,believed that other farming farmers was believed their job that and the theyCLPF were was willing considered to plant “additional land, even wealth”, if the which country was did a welfare not compensate subsidy of thethem. government Meanwhile, for farmers.other farmersEvidently, believed these that two the ideas CLPF were was not considered the real reasons“additional for thewealth”, implementation which was a of welfare the CLPF, subsidy but theyof thewere government still conducive for infarmers. the increased Evidently, enthusiasm these two of the ideas farmers. were However, not the only real 18.2% reasons of the for farmers the implementationsurveyed were of generally the CLPF, “very but they satisfied” were still with cond the CLPF.ucive in This the resultincreased indicates enthusiasm that the of policy the farmers. failed to However,fully meet only the 18.2% psychological of the farmers needs ofsurveyed farmers were and that generally optimization “very satisfied” can still be with pursued. the CLPF. This result indicatesFarmers canthat obtain the policy money failed free ofto chargefully meet but only the ifpsychological they ensure thatneeds the of cultivated farmers landand that is not optimizationabandoned can or destroyed. still be pursued. Therefore, farmers were satisfied with the current compensation standards. Nevertheless,Farmers can accompanied obtain money by free the of improvement charge but only of consumption if they ensure level, that the the cultivated money had land little is enotffect abandonedon improving or destroyed. the economic Therefore, level farmers of farmer were households satisfied with with the the current current compensation compensation standards. standards. Nevertheless,In particular, accompanied the economic by incentive the improvement effect of the of CLPF consumption in underdeveloped level, the areasmoney was had significantly little effect lower on improvingthan that inthe developed economicregions level of [ 16farmer]. Therefore, households we propose with the the current following compensation two suggestions standards. to improve In particular,the CLPF: the (1) economic We argue incentive that the current effect of compensation the CLPF in underdeveloped of the CLPF with areas reference was tosignificantly the basic farmland lower thanand that general in developed cultivated regions land is [16]. relatively Therefore, simple. we Thus,propose the the compensation following two standard suggestions is unfair to improve to farmers thewho CLPF: have (1) the We same argue quality that of the cultivated current land compensa but aretion paid of di fftheerent CLPF compensation with reference funds. to We the agree basic that farmlandthe cultivated and general land would cultivated be classified land is relatively into superior simple. (1st Thus, to 4th), the advanced compensation (5th to standard 8th), medium is unfair (9th toto12th), farmers and who low have (13th the to same 15th) qual gradesity of on cultivated the basis ofland the but national are paid standards different for compensation cultivated land funds. quality

We(the agree quality that ofthe cultivated cultivated land land in wo Chinauld be is assessedclassified as into 15 grades,superior 1st (1st gradeto 4th), cultivated advanced land (5th has to the 8th), best mediumquality and(9th 15thto12th), grade and is thelow worst). (13th Thereafter,to 15th) grades diﬀerentiated on the basis compensation of the national would bestandards implemented for cultivatedin accordance land quality with the (the preceding quality of criteria. cultivated (2) Inland combination in China is with assessed the level as 15 of grades, regional 1st economic grade cultivateddevelopment, land compensatedhas the best regions quality should and be15th divided grade into is high-,the worst). medium-, Thereafter, and low-developing differentiated areas compensationto divide the would high-, medium-,be implemented and low-compensation in accordance with areas the for preceding cultivated criteria. land compensation. (2) In combination with the level of regional economic development, compensated regions should be divided into high- , medium-, and low-developing areas to divide the high-, medium-, and low-compensation areas for cultivated land compensation. Only a few farmers were strongly satisfied with the funding use requirement of the CLPF. The main reason was that the diversification of households’ livelihoods had led to differences in farmers’ demand, and not just for the pension insurance. We reiterate that the CLPF should take diversified Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 13 of 18

Only a few farmers were strongly satisfied with the funding use requirement of the CLPF. The main reason was that the diversification of households’ livelihoods had led to differences in farmers’ demand, and not just for the pension insurance. We reiterate that the CLPF should take diversified measures to realize the diversification of capital use requirement to satisfy the differentiated demands of farmers. Examples of these measures are providing cash subsidy to impoverished households, implementing in-kind subsidies (e.g., crop seeds, pesticides, fertilizers) for farmers who depend on cultivated land for their livelihood, or offering technical subsidies (providing consultation and training on agricultural production, management, services, etc.) [27,40] for large-scale grain-production households or agricultural cooperatives. Moreover, a farmer’s evening school and other agricultural planting training organizations may also be established, in combination with local conditions, to provide specialized training for farmers to develop new peasants. Farmers’ participation in the protection of cultivated land will only have a positive impact when they trust the government [41]. Such a trust can also effectively reduce the cost of the supervision management transparency of the government [42,43]. However, our research shows very low farmers’ satisfaction with the government’s supervision management. We found that some farmers received more compensation from the government even though they had poor quality cultivated land. Moreover, some village cadres were dishonest in counting farmers’ information on cultivated land, which had caused losses to the interests of farmers. Consequently, farmers had already lost trust in the government, which had affected their satisfaction with the government’ supervision management. Our results are consistent with that of Cai and Yu [18]. In our study, a five-tiered supervision system was proposed with “government supervision–village collective supervision–villager supervision–society supervision–technology supervision” (Figure9). In this system, the government can encourage the responsible persons to fulfill their responsibility of effectively protecting cultivated land by establishing incentive and accountability mechanisms. Given that village cadres are the primary management and accepting subjects of the CLPF, they can effectively track the implementation of this program. Therefore, the village collective supervision system mainly relies on the village cadres to establish tracking and feedback mechanisms to relay the relevant issues to the higher government in time. Meanwhile, the peasant households are the main recipients of the CLPF and concrete implementers of cultivated land protection. Thus, the government can establish an effective reporting mechanism to facilitate peasant households to report and expose violations of relevant provisions of the CLPF in a timely manner. In addition, media and social organizations are the main body of social supervision system, which can ensure the sunshine operation of the CLPF through public opinion supervision. With the development of remote sensing and GIS technology, a “one map” management database of the CLPF should be established to unify the farmers’ household situation (e.g., population information, economic level, cultivated land management status, rights, and responsibilities) and the characteristics of the CLPF. Doing so will realize the dynamic inspection and information change of cultivated land protection. A significant correlation exists between farmers’ satisfaction with compensation standard and farmers’ education level, as well as the satisfaction with the supervision management of the government. That is, the higher the education level of the farmers, the higher their satisfaction in these two aspects. We infer that the higher the level of education, the more profound the farmers’ perceptions of the policy. This result is also consistent with that of Zhu et al. [19]. However, it is generally low of the current education level of rural labor in China, with an average education period of approximately 8.37 years [44]. We assert the benefits of building a new generation of literate peasants in China to enable farmers to realize the importance of ideologically protecting cultivated land. The government could improve the peasants’ cultural level through farmers’ night schools and agricultural science and technology training, while fully promoting compulsory education. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 14 of 18 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18

Five-tiered Supervision System Five-tiered Establish an incentive mechanism Government supervision Establish an accountability mechanism Feedback mechanism

Establish a tracking and feedback Village collective supervision mechanism

Villager supervision Establish a reporting mechanism

Establish a public opinion Society supervision supervision mechanism

Establish "one map" management Technology supervision database of the CLPF

Figure 9. Five-tiered supervision system of the CLPF. Previous studies have confirmed that the more cultivated land farmers own, the higher their Previous studies have confirmed that the more cultivated land farmers own, the higher their satisfaction with the CLPF. At present, the “three rights separation system”, which has been promoted satisfaction with the CLPF. At present, the “three rights separation system”, which has been in the rural areas of China, is a new land reform [45]. Under this system, farmers can transfer their promoted in the rural areas of China, is a new land reform [45]. Under this system, farmers can cultivated land to others while they continue receiving compensation. Thus, the scale of the farmland transfer their cultivated land to others while they continue receiving compensation. Thus, the scale operated by a peasant increases. Therefore, we recommend that China should implement differentiated of the farmland operated by a peasant increases. Therefore, we recommend that China should compensation standards for different types of farmers to balance their interests. We conclude that implement differentiated compensation standards for different types of farmers to balance their all compensation funds should be owed to the peasants, only if they do not transfer their farmlands interests. We conclude that all compensation funds should be owed to the peasants, only if they do to others. If a farmer rents large cultivated land from other farmers, then the government should not transfer their farmlands to others. If a farmer rents large cultivated land from other farmers, then increase the funds for the farmer who is the actual user, without reducing the funds for farmers who the government should increase the funds for the farmer who is the actual user, without reducing the originally owned the land. If the scale of the land transferred between the two farmers is small, then funds for farmers who originally owned the land. If the scale of the land transferred between the two the ownership of the compensation funds should be negotiated by the two farmers. farmers is small, then the ownership of the compensation funds should be negotiated by the two Among the three aspects of policy characteristics studied in this research, farmers’ satisfaction with farmers. the government’s supervision management was most affected by the total annual agriculture income Among the three aspects of policy characteristics studied in this research, farmers' satisfaction based on the path analysis. That is, the higher the total annual income of agriculture, the more satisfied with the government’s supervision management was most affected by the total annual agriculture farmers are with the government’s supervision management work. This result may be caused by the income based on the path analysis. That is, the higher the total annual income of agriculture, the more fact that the service system provided by the government satisfies the farmers’ demand for large-scale satisfied farmers are with the government's supervision management work. This result may be farmland management and is conducive to raising agricultural income. However, household income caused by the fact that the service system provided by the government satisfies the farmers' demand from agriculture is lower than that from other sources (i.e., working part-time and doing business) for large-scale farmland management and is conducive to raising agricultural income. However, in rural China. Our results also indicate that 80.41% of the farmer households interviewed had a household income from agriculture is lower than that from other sources (i.e., working part-time and generally low total annual agricultural income, which was below 10,000 yuan. Therefore, we hold that doing business) in rural China. Our results also indicate that 80.41% of the farmer households raising agricultural income is conducive to raising farmers’ satisfaction with the three aspects of policy interviewed had a generally low total annual agricultural income, which was below 10,000 yuan. characteristics of the CLPF. Therefore, we hold that raising agricultural income is conducive to raising farmers’ satisfaction with Farmers’ knowledge of the policy significantly affected their satisfaction with the CLPF. the three aspects of policy characteristics of the CLPF. Hence, strengthening farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF is conducive to promoting their interpretation Farmers’ knowledge of the policy significantly affected their satisfaction with the CLPF. Hence, of the policy, which is instrumental in enhancing farmers’ enthusiasm for participating in farmland strengthening farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF is conducive to promoting their interpretation of the protection [29]. In this view, suggestions for strengthening farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF have policy, which is instrumental in enhancing farmers’ enthusiasm for participating in farmland been proposed in three aspects: (1) Focus part of the financial effort toward publicity courses of the protection [29]. In this view, suggestions for strengthening farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF have CLPF to increase farmers’ comprehensive understanding of this policy [46]. This educational effort been proposed in three aspects: (1) Focus part of the financial effort toward publicity courses of the should aim to deepen farmers’ understanding of the purpose, meaning, and program of the CLPF, CLPF to increase farmers' comprehensive understanding of this policy [46]. This educational effort as well as their obligations and responsibilities. (2) Encourage farmers to participate in local planning should aim to deepen farmers’ understanding of the purpose, meaning, and program of the CLPF, as and land management. Effective engagement between farmers and the government can facilitate the well as their obligations and responsibilities. (2) Encourage farmers to participate in local planning development of interest, responsibility, and a social norm, thereby enhancing their deep understanding and land management. Effective engagement between farmers and the government can facilitate the of policies [46,47]. (3) Strengthen local tradition and culture aiming to make policies considerably development of interest, responsibility, and a social norm, thereby enhancing their deep acceptable to farmers [46]. The socio-cultural identity of farmers has an important influence on their understanding of policies [46,47]. (3) Strengthen local tradition and culture aiming to make policies considerably acceptable to farmers [46]. The socio-cultural identity of farmers has an important Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 15 of 18 values and policy awareness. Thus, the manager should exert immense effort to eliminate the potential long-standing antipathy existing among farmers toward the CLPF [48]. Although the majority of farmers no longer rely solely on agricultural income to maintain their lives, strengthening their awareness of the value of cultivated land conservation is conducive to their long-term consideration for the sustainable development of future generations [49]. Our research also confirms this point. That is, farmers’ awareness of the value of the CLPF significantly affected their satisfaction with the policy. Compared with non-agricultural income, the economic benefits of farmland are relatively low, which has led low-income farmers to be unwilling to participate in farmland protection [50]. Among the influencing factors selected in this study, the farmers’ perception of changes in the family’s economy was the only factor that had a strong positive and direct impact on the satisfaction of farmers. Thus, the economic effect of the CLPF was the decisive factor in improving the farmers’ satisfaction.

5. Conclusions A national economic compensation mechanism for cultivated land protection in China should be established by evaluating farmers’ satisfaction with the policies that have been implemented in pilot areas. Moreover, such a mechanism also has certain guiding significance for countries and regions that encourage farmers to protect cultivated land through economic compensation. This study presents a concise and systematic description of the CLPF, which is the earliest mode in China, and evaluates farmers’ satisfaction with this policy. Thereafter, we propose some suggestions to ensure the sustainability of the CLPF. The main conclusions and recommendations are as follows: (1) Farmers are generally satisfied with the CLPF, but this policy can still be optimized, particularly in the government’s supervision management; (2) among the significant factors of education level, cultivated land area, total annual agriculture income, farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF, farmers’ value cognition of the CLPF, and the changes in the family’s economy that significantly affect their satisfaction, the impact of the last factor is the most important; (3) compulsory education, peasant night school, and agricultural science and technology training should be strengthened to motivate the farmers to protect cultivated land from passive incentive to active, spontaneous behavior; (4) the diversity of livelihood should be considered to meet the differentiated needs of farmers when formulating the national economic compensation mechanism for cultivated land protection; and lastly (5) the five-tiered supervision system of “government supervision–village collective supervision–villager supervision–society supervision–technology supervision” should be established to enhance the trust between farmers and the government.

Author Contributions: D.X. designed the questionnaire, analyzed the data, and drafted the paper; H.N. provided the important suggestion for the methodology and drafted the paper; L.F. and S.Z. reviewed the literature of the subject; H.Y. contributed to the visualization. Funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 18BJY126). Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the farmers for accepting our interviews and the authors of the references cited in this article. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest.

References

1. Wu, Y.Z.; Shan, L.P.; Guo, Z.; Peng, Y. Cultivated land protection policies in China facing 2030: Dynamic balance system versus basic farmland zoning. Habitat Int. 2017, 69, 126–138. [CrossRef] 2. D’Amour, C.B.; Reitsma, F.; Baiocchi, G.; Barthel, S.; Güneralp, B.; Erb, K.H.; Haberl, H.; Creutzig, F.; Seto, K.C. Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 8939–8944. [CrossRef][PubMed] 3. Kim, D.S.; Mizuno, K.; Kobayashi, S. Analysis of urbanization characteristics causing farmland loss in a rapid growth area using GIS and RS. Paddy Water Environ. 2003, 1, 189–199. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 16 of 18

4. Fazal, S. Urban expansion and loss of agricultural land-a GIS based study of Saharanpur City, India. Environ. Urban. 2000, 12, 133–149. [CrossRef] 5. Baylis, K.; Peplow, S.; Rausser, G.; Simon, L. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 753–764. [CrossRef] 6. Tanner, E.P.; Fuhlendorf, S.D. Impact of an agri-environmental scheme on landscape patterns. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 956–965. [CrossRef] 7. Burton, R.J.F.; Schwarz, G. Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 628–641. [CrossRef] 8. Primdahl, J.; Peco, B.; Schramek, J.; Andersen, E.; Onate, J.J. Environmental effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 67, 129–138. [CrossRef] 9. Ferret, S.C.; Subervie, J. How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2013, 65, 12–27. [CrossRef] 10. Kuhfuss, L.; Subervie, J. Do European agri-environment measures help reduce herbicide use? Evidence from viticulture in France. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 149, 202–211. [CrossRef] 11. Tong, Y.; Niu, H.P.; Fan, L.X. Willingness of farmers to transform vacant rural residential land into cultivated land in a major grain-producing area of central China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1192. [CrossRef] 12. Gao, C.L.; Wei, H.K. Prediction study on the urbanization trends of China. Mod. Econ. Sci. 2013, 35, 85–90. (In Chinese) 13. Shi, K.F.; Chen, Y.; Yu, B.L.; Xu, T.B.; Li, L.Y.; Huang, C.; Liu, R.; Chen, Z.Q.; Wu, J.P. Urban expansion and agricultural land loss in China: A multiscale perspective. Sustainability 2016, 8, 790. [CrossRef] 14. Liu, G.S.; Wang, H.M.; Cheng, Y.X.; Zheng, B.; Lu, Z.L. The impact of rural out-migration on arable land use intensity: Evidence from mountain areas in Guangdong, China. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 569–579. [CrossRef] 15. Yan, J.Z.; Yang, Z.Y.; Li, Z.H.; Xin, L.J.; Sun, L.X. Drivers of cropland abandonment in mountainous areas: A household decision model on farming scale in Southwest China. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 459–469. [CrossRef] 16. Zhu, L.L.; Cai, Y.Y. Heterogeneous implementation effects of the economic compensation policy for farmland conservation: Based on difference-in-difference dynamic estimates. J. Nat. Resour. 2017, 32, 727–741. (In Chinese) 17. Yu, L.L.; Cai, Y.Y. Assessing the effect of economic compensation for farmland protection policy: An empirical research and comparison of the eastern and western regions of China. China Land Sci. 2014, 28, 16–23. (In Chinese) 18. Cai, Y.Y.; Yu, L.L. Rural household participation in and satisfaction with compensation programs targeting farmland preservation in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 1148–1161. [CrossRef] 19. Zhu, L.L.; Zhang, C.M.; Cai, Y.Y. Varieties of agri-environmental schemes in China: A quantitative assessment. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 505–517. [CrossRef] 20. Vanslembrouck, I.; Huylenbroeck, G.V.; Verbeke, W. Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 53, 489–511. [CrossRef] 21. Konyar, K.; Osborn, C.T. A national-level economic analysis of conservation reserve program participation: A discrete choice approach. J. Agric. Econ. Res. 1990, 42, 5–12. 22. Chen, J.W.; Gao, W.; Dai, B. Discussion on the construction of economic compensation mechanism of cultivated land protection in Shanghai. Sci. Dev. 2017, 2, 44–49. (In Chinese) 23. Scheaffer, R.L.; Mendenhall, W., III; Ott, R.L.; Gerow, K.G. Elementary Survey Sampling, 7th ed.; Cengage Learning: Stamford, CT, USA, 2011; pp. 37–60. 24. Defrancesco, E.; Gatto, P.; Runge, F.; Trestini, S. Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: A Northern Italian perspective. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 59, 114–131. [CrossRef] 25. Burton, R.J.F. The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 135, 19–26. [CrossRef][PubMed] 26. Villanueva, A.J.; Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Arriaza, M.; Rodríguez-Entrena, M. The design of agri-environmental schemes: Farmers’ preferences in southern Spain. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 142–154. [CrossRef] 27. Lastra-Bravo, X.B.; Hubbard, C.; Garrod, G.; Tolón-Becerra, A. What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes? Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 1–9. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 17 of 18

28. Van Dijk, W.F.A.; Lokhorst, A.M.; Berendse, F.; de Snoo, G.R. Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers’ intentions for agri-environment schemes? Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 759–766. [CrossRef] 29. Liu, X.Q.; Cai, Y.Y. Analysis of farmers’ satisfaction on the implementation of cultivated land protection fund and influencing factors: A case study of Yongan Town, Jinqiao Town and Jiangyuan Town in Chengdu City. J. China Agric. Univ. 2014, 19, 216–223. (In Chinese) 30. Yu, L.L.; Cai, Y.Y. The effect of policy expectation for economic compensation for farmland protection policy based on farmers’ satisfaction: A case study of cultivated land protection fund in Chengdu. China Land Sci. 2015, 29, 33–40. (In Chinese) 31. Yu, L.L.; Cai, Y.Y. Subsidy flow and economic compensation for farmland protection policy based on farmers’ satisfaction: A case study of cultivated land protection fund in Chengdu. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2016, 25, 106–112. (In Chinese) 32. Sulemana, I.; James, H.S., Jr. Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 98, 49–61. [CrossRef] 33. Pavlis, E.S.; Terkenli, T.S.; Kristensen, S.B.P.; Busck, A.G.; Cosor, G.L. Patterns of agri-environmental scheme participation in Europe: Indicative trends from selected case studies. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 800–812. [CrossRef] 34. Mutenje, M.J.; Ortmann, G.F.; Ferrer, S.R.D.; Darroch, M.A.G. Rural livelihood diversity to manage economic shocks: Evidence from south-east Zimbabwe. Agrekon 2010, 49, 338–357. [CrossRef] 35. Li, G.D.; Qiu, D.C.; Wang, L.P.; Luo, D.Q. Impacts of difference among livelihood assets on the choice of economic compensation pattern for farmer households farmland protection in Chongqing City. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2012, 67, 504–515. (In Chinese) 36. Zhu, L.L.; Cai, Y.Y. Influence of economic compensation on farmer’s perception in farmland conservation policy implementation—A case study in Sichuan, Hubei, Shanghai and Jiangsu. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2016, 122, 96–103. (In Chinese) 37. Yu, L.L.; Cai, Y.Y. Performance evaluation and obstacle indicator diagnoses of economic compensation for farmland protection policy based on farmers’ satisfaction. J. Nat. Resour. 2015, 30, 1092–1103. (In Chinese) 38. Wardell, J.D.; Read, J.P.; Colder, C.R.; Merrill, J.E. Positive alcohol expectancies mediate the influence of the behavioral activation system on alcohol use: A prospective path analysis. Addict. Behav. 2012, 37, 435–443. [CrossRef] 39. Fan, L.X.; Niu, H.P.; Yang, X.M.; Qin, W.; Bento, C.P.M.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Factors affecting farmers’ behaviour in pesticide use: Insights from a field study in northern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 537, 360–368. [CrossRef] 40. Van Herzele, A.; Gobin, A.; Van Gossum, P.; Acosta, L.; Waas, T.; Dendoncker, N.; de Frahan, B.H. Effort for money? Farmers’ rationale for participation in agri-environment measures with different implementation complexity. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 131, 110–120. [CrossRef] 41. Peerlings, J.; Polman, N. Farm choice between agri-environmental contracts in the European Union. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 593–612. [CrossRef] 42. Sutherland, L.A.; Mills, J.; Ingram, J.; Burton, R.J.F.; Dwyer, J.; Blackstock, K. Considering the source: Commercialisation and trust in agri-environmental information and advisory services in England. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 118, 96–105. [CrossRef][PubMed] 43. Mettepenningen, E.; Vandermeulen, V.; Delaet, K.; Huylenbroeck, G.V.; Wailes, E.J. Investigating the influence of the institutional organisation of agri-environmental schemes on scheme adoption. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 20–30. [CrossRef] 44. Cai, H. Labor employment. In Report on China Labor Force Dynamic Survey (2017); Social Sciences Academic Press (China): Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 66–98. (In Chinese) 45. Wang, Q.; Zhang, X.L. Three rights separation: China’s proposed rural land rights reform and four types of local trials. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 111–121. [CrossRef] 46. Cortignani, R.; Gobattoni, F.; Pelorosso, R.; Ripa, M.N. Green Payment and Perceived Rural Landscape Quality: A Cost-Benefit Analysis in Central Italy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2910. [CrossRef] 47. Mills, J.; Gaskell, P.; Ingram, J.; Dwyer, J.; Reed, M.; Short, C. Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour. Agric. Human Values 2017, 34, 283–299. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 5787 18 of 18

48. Warren, C.R.; Burton, R.; Buchanan, O.; Birnie, R.V. Limited adoption of short rotation coppice: The role of farmers’ socio-cultural identity in influencing practice. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 45, 175–183. [CrossRef] 49. Nong, Y.X. Study on the Protection will and Influence Factors of Farmers’ Cultivated Land in the Pearl River Delta Region. Master’s Thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, 2018. (In Chinese). 50. Cai, Y.Y.; Zhu, L.L. Analysis on the implementation effects and influencing factors of farmland conservation compensation policy: Cases in Minhang district, Zhangjiagang and Chengdu city. J. Nat. Resour. 2014, 29, 1310–1322. (In Chinese)

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).