Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Zhou, X.; Tong, C.; Nian, S.;
Yan, J. Realization Mechanism of
Farmers’ Rights and Interests Protection
in the Paid Withdrawal of Rural
Homesteads in China—Empirical
Analysis Based on Judicial Verdicts.
Land 2024,13, 1180. https://doi.org/
10.3390/land13081180
Academic Editor: Dingde Xu
Received: 25 June 2024
Revised: 24 July 2024
Accepted: 29 July 2024
Published: 31 July 2024
Copyright: © 2024 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 (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
land
Article
Realization Mechanism of Farmers’ Rights and Interests
Protection in the Paid Withdrawal of Rural Homesteads in
China—Empirical Analysis Based on Judicial Verdicts
Xuemei Zhou 1, Chuanyu Tong 2,*, Sifeng Nian 3and Jia Yan 4
1Postdoctoral Research Station of Theoretical Economics, School of Economics, Anhui University,
Hefei 230601, China; 22755@ahu.edu.cn
2School of Law, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China
3School of Business, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China; 19133@ahu.edu.cn
4School of Urban Design, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China; jiayan@whu.edu.cn
*Correspondence: k22101003@stu.ahu.edu.cn
Abstract: In recent years, the paid withdrawal of rural homesteads has become a widely discussed
topic within the academic community. However, from the perspective of protecting farmers’ rights
and interests, literature exploring the impact of this policy’s implementation remains scarce. As
the reform of the separation of the three rights of the homestead deepens, disputes related to paid
withdrawal of homesteads have escalated rapidly. This study aims to highlight the importance of
protecting farmers’ rights and interests, seeking to enhance their property rights and revitalize unused
rural resources. Employing a case study methodology, this study systematically examines the issue of
farmers’ rights and interests protection during homestead withdrawal. This analysis is based on the
survey, collection, and evaluation of 324 judicial cases. The findings reveal the following: (1) Disputes
involving paid withdrawal of homesteads encompass the entire withdrawal process, with the majority
of conflicts arising during the withdrawal stage. (2) Prior to withdrawal, farmers express heightened
concern regarding their political rights, particularly the right to be informed and to participate
in withdrawal decisions. (3) During the withdrawal process, farmers prioritize resettlement and
compensation rights. Additionally, novel issues such as the allocation of withdrawal compensation
surface after farmers receive resettlement and compensation benefits. (4) After withdrawal, farmers
anticipate more suitable “alternative” social rights and remedies. Based on these findings, this
study presents policy recommendations for realizing farmers’ rights and interests in the context of
paid withdrawal of rural homesteads. These suggestions include consistently respecting farmers’
autonomy and preserving their political rights throughout the withdrawal procedure. During
the withdrawal stage, emphasis should be placed on the comprehensive value of resettlement
compensation, encompassing both the residential and social security aspects of rural homesteads.
Post-withdrawal, farmers’ social rights and the development rights of their homesteads ought to
be fully guaranteed, ensuring a harmonious balance between farmers’ immediate and long-term
interests. Furthermore, optimizing the dispute resolution mechanism stands as a pivotal aspect of
safeguarding farmers’ rights and interests through legal recourse.
Keywords: paid withdrawal of rural homesteads; farmers’ rights and interests; judicial verdicts;
realization mechanism
1. Introduction
The ubiquitous and increasingly serious nature of human–land conflicts represents
a significant and urgent global concern [
1
,
2
]. Addressing the conflict between urban
and rural population growth and land utilization constitutes the fundamental objective
of integrated land management. In pursuit of these goals, countries worldwide have
implemented, or are currently implementing, varying degrees of comprehensive land
Land 2024,13, 1180. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081180 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land 2024,13, 1180 2 of 28
governance strategies [
3
–
5
]. The reform of the rural homestead system stands as a crucial
component of this governance, primarily focused on the revitalization of unused land
resources in rural areas. Many developed nations, including the United States, Slovenia,
Cyprus, the Netherlands, and Germany, have accumulated valuable practical experience in
the organization and optimization of rural homesteads [
6
–
10
]. However, certain challenges
still merit our attention. Specifically, the problem of land grabbing in post-socialist countries
such as Poland and Hungary [
11
], as well as the prevalent issue of excessively fragmented
and dispersed land parcels, demand urgent consideration [
12
]. Furthermore, the lack
of a comprehensive framework for sustainable rural development in the context of land
consolidation projects, along with inadequate financing strategies [
13
], poses significant
hurdles. To surmount these obstacles, it is beneficial to draw from experiences that prioritize
ecological environmental protection and sustainable development [
3
,
14
], while endeavoring
to strike a harmonious balance between land consolidation and fragmentation. However,
given the unique collective ownership structure of rural land in China, coupled with the
social reality where rural homestead is granted to farmers free of charge, fulfilling both
residential and social security functions [
15
,
16
], the reform of rural homesteads in China
poses a more specific and intricate challenge [16].
As China’s urbanization momentum intensifies, the migration of farmers to cities and
towns may be the largest globally [
15
]. The 2023 Government Work Report of the State
Council of the People’s Republic of China (the State Council, PRCChina) states that “China
remains in the midst of urbanization, witnessing an annual influx of tens of millions of rural
inhabitants into cities and towns”.
1
Paradoxically, despite the decline in the rural populace,
there has been a notable surge in the quantity of rural residential units [
17
,
18
] With the per-
sistent exodus of surplus rural labor, issues such as extensive land utilization, idleness, and
even abandonment of residential plots have gained prominence [
19
]. Partial statistics from
the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China (Ministry of Natural
Resources, PRC) indicate that China’s rural areas harbor at least 70 million unused houses,
with vacant and unutilized land in rural settlements spanning approximately 30 million
mu. In certain regions, the vacancy rate of rural houses exceeds 35%.
2
Consequently, the
rejuvenation and effective utilization of idle rural homesteads have emerged as pressing
issues that require urgent scholarly attention and resolution. To address these challenges,
the National Land Planning Outline (2016–2030), formulated by the State Council, PRC,
emphasizes the need for strengthened rural land use planning and oversight. It aims to
comprehensively enhance the efficiency of various agricultural land types, and adjust
and optimize the spatial layout of rural settlements. Additionally, it seeks to expedite the
revitalization of “hollow villages”, renovate dilapidated structures, and augment rural
infrastructure and public amenities. Furthermore, the Guidelines on Land Use Policies
for Rural Revitalization (2023), issued by the General Office of the Ministry of Natural
Resources, PRC, underscores the imperative of rigorously adhering to the “one household,
one residence” principle. Furthermore, it emphasizes guiding the centralized planning of
rural homestead areas.
The paid withdrawal of rural homesteads (PWRH) constitutes a fundamental approach
to revitalizing unused homesteads in rural settings. Specifically, it involves members of a
collective economic organization voluntarily relinquishing their rights to use and eligibility
for their rural homesteads, adhering to the principles of compensation and diversified
reparations. This process is executed in accordance with established conditions, procedures,
compensation scopes, and safeguard mechanisms, ensuring that members receive appro-
priate compensation for their withdrawal. Implementing this paid withdrawal system
holds significant importance for both farmers and rural advancement. On one hand, this
system offers economic benefits to farmers, helping alleviate rural poverty and facilitating
income growth. On the other hand, the PWRH can effectively revitalize the resources
of rural homesteads, improve the efficiency of land use, and promote sustainable social
development [
20
]. Previous studies have delved into relevant policy frameworks for rural
homestead system reforms, exploring farmers’ willingness to withdraw and influencing
Land 2024,13, 1180 3 of 28
factors such as policy awareness, benefit perception, living environment insights, and famil-
ial characteristics [
17
,
21
–
26
]. These studies have also examined the evolving functions of
rural homesteads [
16
,
27
–
29
] and the distribution of homestead value-added income [
30
,
31
].
With the increasing prominence of aging, research has begun to shift towards its impact
on withdrawal willingness [
32
]. However, the majority of research remains focused on
empirical aspects like driving factors for homestead withdrawal, withdrawal willingness,
and compensation programs. Limited attention has been given to farmers’ satisfaction
and sense of access within the compensated withdrawal system. The satisfaction level of
farmers plays a pivotal role in the effectiveness of this system. Although some studies have
indeed addressed this issue, they primarily approach it from perspectives like resettlement
compensation [
33
,
34
], settlement communities [
35
], living environments [
36
], and family
resource endowment [
37
,
38
]. These studies merely scratch the surface of influencing factors,
without directly reflecting farmers’ satisfaction and its details. The PWRH profoundly
impacts farmers’ legitimate rights and interests in land. A systematic analysis of the pro-
tection of farmers’ rights and interests during the PWRH holds significant importance in
promoting the efficient utilization of unused rural homesteads and enhancing farmers’
satisfaction and perception of gain. Nevertheless, research on the theoretical and institu-
tional framework for protecting farmers’ rights and interests during the PWRH remains
limited. Exploring the institutional response to safeguard farmers’ rights and interests in
the homestead withdrawal process has emerged as a pressing and unavoidable issue.
Rigorous judicial practice serves as a mirror reflecting the actual state of farmers’
rights and interests protection, offering the most tangible proof of farmers’ satisfaction with
the PWRH policy. Through an examination of judicial precedents, this study delves into
the realistic state of farmers’ rights and interests protection within the PWRH context. It
outlines the genuine challenges encountered by farmers in legal proceedings and proposes
effective countermeasures. Focusing on the safeguarding of farmers’ rights and interests in
the PWRH, this research systematically catalogs the distribution of PWRH-related disputes
in China based on temporal, categorical, and geographical dimensions. It further explores
the underlying causes of these cases and the primary points of contention. Moreover,
it highlights the necessity to prioritize farmers’ rights to information and participation,
relocation and compensation benefits, as well as alternative social securities like pension in-
surance following the PWRH. Additionally, the study formulates a mechanism for realizing
the protection of farmers’ rights and interests within the PWRH framework. The findings
of this research offer valuable policy insights for advancing reforms in China’s homestead
system, and the associated experiences can serve as a guide for other developing nations in
crafting their rural land policies.
The contribution of this study centers on three primary aspects: (1) Unlike prior re-
search, this paper explores farmers’ satisfaction and perception of access within the PWRH
context, primarily through the perspective of farmers’ rights and interests protection. This
approach augments the existing scholarship on farmers’ satisfaction and access. (2) Our
study extends the discussion on protecting farmers’ rights and interests in the PWRH
process, adopting a holistic and systematic view. Through the analysis of judicial cases,
we uncover distinct stages in farmers’ rights and interests during this process. Although
farmers are naturally apprehensive about resettlement compensation, they also prioritize
their rights to information and participation before withdrawal, as well as post-withdrawal
social security benefits, such as pension insurance. Moreover, apart from resettlement
compensation, our research underscores new concerns regarding the allocation of with-
drawal compensation payments after the receipt of resettlement benefits. (3) This study
considers the institutional aspect of safeguarding farmers’ rights and interests during the
PWRH. Based on judicial practices related to PWRH, we propose a framework aimed at
the protection of farmers’ rights and interests. This comprehensive framework includes
political rights, resettlement and compensation entitlements, social rights, homestead-
related development rights, and legal remedy rights. Our proposed framework suggests
Land 2024,13, 1180 4 of 28
novel approaches to advance the efficient utilization of homesteads and enhance farmers’
satisfaction and perception of gain.
The remaining sections of this paper are structured as follows: Section 2introduces a
theoretical analysis framework, which is established upon a concise overview of the histori-
cal development of China’s compensated withdrawal policy from homesteads.
Section 3
details the research methods adopted, outlines the sample selection criteria, and provides
an analysis of the chosen samples. Section 4reveals the findings derived from the judicial
cases studied. In Section 5, we delve into the research findings, building an institutional
framework aimed at safeguarding farmers’ rights and interests during the PWRH. Ad-
ditionally, this section offers pertinent policy suggestions. Finally, Section 6concludes
the paper, highlighting key remarks, acknowledging research limitations, and outlining
potential directions for future investigations.
2. Institutional Context and Theoretical Analytical Framework
2.1. Evolution of the Policy on the PWRH
From the perspective of evolving characteristics within the homestead system, China’s
homestead system has progressed through five significant stages. These stages include free
circulation, prohibited circulation, relaxed circulation, restricted circulation, and the “three-
rights separation” to revitalize circulation. Across these various stages, the homestead
system has consistently aligned with the concurrent rural development strategy. Since
the initiation of the first round of homestead pilot work in 2015, there have been two
subsequent rounds of pilot reforms within the homestead system. The Chinese government
has frequently referenced PWRH in various documents, such as the Central No. 1 Document
and the Circular on Further Strengthening the Management of Homesteads (Table 1). This
provides the policy backdrop for this study.
Table 1. Sorting out policies for the PWRH.
Year Name of Document Core Content
2014
Opinions on the Pilot Reform of Rural Land
Acquisition, Market Entry of Collective Operational
Building Land, and Rural Homesteads System
Exploring the voluntary and paid withdrawal or transfer
of homesteads by farmers who have settled in cities
within their own collective economic organizations.
2015
Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China and the State Council on Increasing
Reform and Innovation to Accelerate the
Modernization of Agriculture
Pilot reforms of the homestead system are being
implemented in an orderly manner.
2016
Summary of the Reply to the Proposal of the Ministry
of Land and Resources of the People’s Republic of
China on Exploring the Transfer and Paid Withdrawal
of Rural Homesteads on a Pilot Basis in Areas with
Mature Conditions
Farmers’ homesteads may be voluntarily transferred or
leased within collective economic organizations, subject
to remuneration.
2017
Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China and the State Council on Further
Promoting Structural Reform of the Agricultural
Supply Side and Accelerating the Cultivation of New
Dynamics of Agricultural and Rural Development
(Central Document No. 1)
Exploring the utilization of vacant farm buildings and
homesteads by rural collective organizations through
leasing and cooperation arrangements, aiming to augment
the property income of farmers.
2018
Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China and the State Council on the
Implementation of the Rural Revitalization Strategy
(Central Document No. 1)
Improving policies pertaining to unused rural homesteads
and farm buildings, as well as exploring the
“three-rights separation”.
Land 2024,13, 1180 5 of 28
Table 1. Cont.
Year Name of Document Core Content
2019
Circular of the Office of the Central Leading Group for
Rural Work and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development on Further Strengthening the
Management of Rural Homesteads
For rural villagers who have relocated to cities, local
authorities can mobilize funds through diverse channels.
Additionally, they can investigate multiple methods to
incentivize their voluntary withdrawal of homesteads
with appropriate compensation.
2020 Pilot Program for Deepening the Reform of the Rural
Homesteads System
Establishing a market pricing mechanism for the
withdrawal and transfer of rural homesteads.
2021
Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China and the State Council on
Comprehensively Promoting Rural Revitalization and
Accelerating the Modernization of Agriculture and
Rural Areas (Central Document No. 1)
Exploring effective forms of implementing the
“three-rights separation” of rural homesteads: ensuring
the right to use homesteads for urban-settled farmers.
Furthermore, it is essential to develop specific legal
measures for voluntary and compensated transfer of
rural homesteads.
2022
Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China and the State Council on Doing a Good
Job in Comprehensively Promoting the Key Work of
Rural Revitalization in 2022 (Central Document No. 1)
Steadily advancing the pilot reform of the rural
homestead system.
2023
Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China and the State Council on Doing a Good
Job in Comprehensively Promoting the Key Work of
Rural Revitalization in 2023 (Central Document No. 1)
Promoting voluntary land transfers with compensation in
accordance with legal provisions. Exploring the
implementation of an efficient mechanism to regulate land
appreciation gains, considering the interests of the State,
rural collective economic organizations, and farmers.
2024
Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China and the State Council on Learning and
Applying the Experience of the “Thousand Villages
Demonstration, Ten Thousand Villages Improvement”
Project to Powerfully and Effectively Promote
Comprehensive Revitalization of Rural Areas (Central
Document No. 1)
Revitalizing idle land and enhancing standardized
management by confirming rights, registering, and
issuing certificates. Exploring avenues to refine the
components of collective ownership rights, farmers’
eligibility rights, homestead usage rights, and other
associated rights, as well as determining methods for
their allocation.
In 2015, China implemented the first round of its homestead pilot program in 33 coun-
ties nationwide. Based on the insights gained from this pilot practice, Central Document
No. 1 of 2018 introduced the reform concept of exploring the “three-rights separation” of
homesteads. Specifically, this involves the separation of ownership, eligibility, and use
rights, consequently supporting farmers willing to transfer their homesteads for a fee. In
September 2020, 104 counties (cities and districts) and three prefecture-level cities across the
country initiated the second round of pilot reform for the rural homesteads system. This
reform explores voluntary and PWRH, as well as the revitalization and utilization of un-
used homesteads and residences as key aspects. Regarding the withdrawal of homesteads,
pilot areas adhere to the principle of voluntary compensation in accordance with the law.
This is combined with practical implementation, legally acquiring homesteads through
paid withdrawal, while illegally occupied homesteads are withdrawn without compensa-
tion. Various withdrawal methods have been explored, including permanent withdrawal,
temporary withdrawal, property rights replacement, and monetary compensation.
2.2. Theoretical Analysis Framework
Under the “three-rights separation” theory, the homestead’s rights structure comprises
ownership, eligibility rights, and use rights. Ownership of the homestead rests with the
farmers’ collective, while farmers hold the eligibility and use rights. The eligibility right,
characterized by its identity attributes, cannot be purchased, transferred, inherited, or
gifted; however, it may be revoked under specific conditions. In contrast, the use right
constitutes a property interest, falling under the usufruct category, and is transferable within
certain limits. The PWRH involves both eligibility and use rights. This withdrawal can be
Land 2024,13, 1180 6 of 28
categorized as complete or partial, depending on whether the eligibility right is retained
(Table 2). In a complete withdrawal scenario, farmers relinquish both their eligibility
and use rights, forfeiting their entitlement to apply for the use right of the homestead.
Consequently, they qualify for full compensation. Conversely, illegally over-occupied or
unlawfully occupied homesteads are typically withdrawn without any compensation. In
a partial withdrawal situation, farmers surrender only their use rights while maintaining
their eligibility rights, thus receiving reduced compensation.
Table 2. Circumstances of PWRH and their legal consequences.
Types of Rural Homesteads Situations of Withdrawal Legal Consequences Access to Compensation
Legal Homestead
Complete withdrawal
Farmers no longer retain
eligibility to apply for homestead
use rights.
Full Compensation
Partial withdrawal
Farmers may continue to retain
their eligibility to apply for the
right to use the homestead and
reapply within an agreed period
of time.
Less compensation
Illegal Homestead
Complete withdrawal
(illegally over-occupied or
unlawfully occupied
homesteads)
Farmers can no longer apply for
homesteads.
Uncompensated
predominantly
Based on stakeholder theory, reform constitutes a set of multilateral agreements among
various stakeholders. In these agreements, each party contributes unique resources and
is entitled to equal rights and interests. The process of withdrawing from homestead
necessarily involves multiple stakeholders. These stakeholders include farmers, village
collective economic organizations, the central government, local governments, and the
market and society. Village collective economic organizations are represented by the
cadres of village “two committees”. Local governments are represented by county and
township officials, while the market and society are represented by third-party professional
institutions. Each stakeholder holds distinct interests. By examining the interest demands
of these various stakeholders, it becomes possible to implement targeted measures to
fulfill their respective expectations (Table 3). For withdrawing farmers, the anticipated
benefits encompass several aspects. Firstly, they can expect economic gains through fair
and equitable compensation. Secondly, there exists the potential for land appreciation.
Finally, additional advantages include access to information, participation opportunities,
and remedial measures for rights protection. However, in reality, the allocation of benefits
is often influenced by the status and influence of the stakeholders. Farmers, despite being
key players, sometimes occupy a disadvantaged position due to their limited bargaining
power. This imbalance can lead to farmers receiving fewer benefits compared to other
stakeholders. This becomes particularly evident when compared to local governments,
who frequently possess greater resources and influence [
39
]. To mitigate this, transparent
and inclusive decision-making processes, along with independent third-party mediation,
can help ensure a more equitable distribution of benefits. Furthermore, numerous studies
have indicated that when farmers perceive that their interests are not fully represented
or safeguarded, resistance towards homestead reforms may arise [
23
,
40
,
41
]. Hence, it is
crucial for all stakeholders, especially governments, to prioritize the interests and concerns
of farmers to ensure smooth and sustainable homestead reforms.
Defining the primary components of farmers’ rights and interests constitutes the
essence of the homestead system reform in the contemporary era. By referencing Table 3,
we have condensed the rights and interests of farmers pertaining to the PWRH into five
categories (Figure 1). These categories encompass political rights and interests, resettle-
Land 2024,13, 1180 7 of 28
ment compensation rights and interests, social security rights and interests, homestead
development rights and interests, and legal redress rights and interests.
Table 3. The interests of different stakeholders in PWRH.
Interests Withdrawing
Farmers
Farmers’
Collective
Economic
Organizations
Local Government
Central
Government Market Players
Economic Interests
Receive fair and
equitable
compensation, and
participate in the
sharing of profits
derived from land
appreciation.
Receive fair and
equitable
compensation, and
participate in the
sharing of profits
derived from land
appreciation.
Obtain land
premiums to
bolster local
economic
development.
Urbanization
development, rural
revitalization, etc.
Profit from the
development of
saved construction
land.
Other
interests
Information,
participation,
social security,
legal remedies.
Gaining political
achievements and
promotion.
National food
security, social
stability, etc.
Land 2024, 13, 1180 7 of 29
safeguarded, resistance towards homestead reforms may arise [23,40,41]. Hence, it is cru-
cial for all stakeholders, especially governments, to prioritize the interests and concerns
of farmers to ensure smooth and sustainable homestead reforms.
Table 3. The interests of different stakeholders in PWRH.
Interests Withdrawing Farmers Farme
r
s’ Collective
Economic Organizations
Local Government Central Government Market Players
Economic
Interests
Receive fair and equitable
compensation, and
participate in the sharing
of profits derived from
land appreciation.
Receive fair and equitable
compensation, and
participate in the sharing
of profits derived from
land appreciation.
Obtain land
premiums to bolster
local economic
development.
Urbanization
development, rural
revitalization, etc.
Profit from the
development of
saved construction
land.
Other
&&&&interes
ts
Information,
participation, social
security, legal remedies.
Gaining political
achievements and
promotion.
National food security,
social stability, etc.
Defining the primary components of farmers’ rights and interests constitutes the es-
sence of the homestead system reform in the contemporary era. By referencing Table 3,
we have condensed the rights and interests of farmers pertaining to the PWRH into five
categories (Figure 1). These categories encompass political rights and interests, resettle-
ment compensation rights and interests, social security rights and interests, homestead
development rights and interests, and legal redress rights and interests.
Partial
withdrawal
Complete
withdrawal
Withdrawal of homestead
eligibility rights
Withdrawal from
homestead use rights
Retaining homestead
eligibility rights
Withdrawal from
homestead use rights
Paid withdrawal
of rural
homesteads
Guarantee of
residential benefits,
Distribution of
collective interests
During
Withdrawal
Post-withdrawal
Political rights and
benefits
Resettlement
compensation rights and
interests
Social security rights and
benefits
“Three-rights separation” for rural homesteads
Activation of property values
Rural
homesteads
Farmers
Rights
Activation
of property
values
Pre-withdrawal
Guarantee of residential value
Rights and
interests
Homestead development
rights
Right to legal remedy
Guarantee of
residential
value
Figure 1. A theoretical analytical framework for the protection of farmers’ rights and interests in the
PWRH.
In the pre-withdrawal phase, farmers prioritize political interests, which occupy a
prominent position within their rights and interests framework. These interests encom-
pass the rights to information, supervision, and expression of will concerning decisions
made by the collective economic organization regarding the withdrawal of homesteads.
Given the unique context in rural China, where numerous migrant workers relocate to
cities for extended periods [16], the importance of timely access to decisions becomes par-
amount. This holds especially true for decisions pertaining to the PWRH. Effective farmer
participation not only mitigates policy risks but also enhances the efficiency of project
implementation [42,43]. It is imperative for local governments to introduce pertinent pol-
icies. Meanwhile, village collectives should devise implementation guidelines that clarify
Figure 1. A theoretical analytical framework for the protection of farmers’ rights and interests in
the PWRH.
In the pre-withdrawal phase, farmers prioritize political interests, which occupy a
prominent position within their rights and interests framework. These interests encom-
pass the rights to information, supervision, and expression of will concerning decisions
made by the collective economic organization regarding the withdrawal of homesteads.
Given the unique context in rural China, where numerous migrant workers relocate to
cities for extended periods [
16
], the importance of timely access to decisions becomes
paramount. This holds especially true for decisions pertaining to the PWRH. Effective
farmer participation not only mitigates policy risks but also enhances the efficiency of
project implementation [
42
,
43
]. It is imperative for local governments to introduce per-
tinent policies. Meanwhile, village collectives should devise implementation guidelines
that clarify farmers’ participation methods and their entitlements during program execu-
tion. Furthermore, withdrawing farmers must be provided with relevant information in a
prompt manner.
Land 2024,13, 1180 8 of 28
During the withdrawal process, farmers are primarily concerned about resettlement
and compensation benefits. The rights and interests of farmers in resettlement compensa-
tion primarily encompass the following: (1) Rights pertaining to the utilization of home-
stead. Within the theory of the “three-rights separation”, the property value inherent in
the right to use homesteads has gained prominence. By relinquishing idle homesteads,
farmers become eligible to reap the economic benefits associated with the utilization of said
homesteads. (2) Rights and interests related to farmers’ housing ownership. Farmers’ hous-
ing fulfills a crucial role in securing their basic production, livelihood, and development.
During the withdrawal process from the homestead, this should be appropriately reflected
in the withdrawal compensation standards, methods, and procedures. Consequently, upon
the transfer of the right to use the homestead, compensation should simultaneously encom-
pass the value of both the farmers’ housing property and the corresponding homestead.
Regarding compensation for the expropriation of rural homesteads, both the Civil Code
(Article 243) and the Land Administration Law (Article 48) clearly stipulate compensation
principles and items. These laws emphasize the importance of providing “fair and rea-
sonable” compensation. Notably, the 2019 amendment to the Land Administration Law
specifically underscores “protecting the right of rural villagers to live. Additionally, it
emphasizes protecting their legitimate housing and property rights and interests”. This
provision reflects comprehensive safeguards for farmers’ property rights, particularly their
usufruct rights to rural homesteads. PWRH in China typically includes monetary com-
pensation, replacement compensation, compensation for reapplying for homestead rights,
and compensation for commercial housing. However, considering factors like rising prices,
monetary compensation often proves insufficient [
44
–
46
]. Consequently, disputes over
resettlement compensation frequently end up in court, with the farmers’ core demand
typically centering on higher resettlement compensation standards.
After withdrawal, farmers retain social rights and interests derived from the home-
stead’s social security function [
16
]. These rights and interests serve to ensure their pro-
ductive livelihoods and long-term development, essentially functioning as safeguards and
welfare provisions. In recognition of this, pilot areas have explored incentives tied to endur-
ing forms of compensation, including provisions for old age, medical care, and employment.
Additionally, Transferable Development Rights (TDR) represent a hypothetical land use
policy instrument aimed at addressing the “windfall-wipeout” challenge and rectifying
economic distortions caused by conventional zoning practices [
47
]. The PWRH by farmers
in pilot areas also entails the right to homestead development. Essentially, the withdrawal
process from rural homestead foundations constitutes a trade of TDRs. This right relates
to the distribution of naturally value-added components of the homestead. Based on
TDRs, withdrawing farmers retain comprehensive usufructuary rights. Specifically, this
includes the right to compensation for economic benefits lost upon withdrawal and the
entitlement to future value-added proceeds from the homestead. Finally, farmers who have
withdrawn from their homesteads also retain the right to seek legal remedies. If farmers
disagree with the guidance provided by relevant government departments, or believe
that the implementation rules of village collectives infringe upon their legitimate rights
and interests, they should have access to redress channels. Moreover, if farmers contest
the determination of their rights and interests regarding compensation and resettlement,
dispute resolution mechanisms should be available to them. Additionally, in case farmers
encounter issues even after their houses have been vacated, they must be able to uphold
their rights and interests through seamless access to these redress channel and related dis-
pute resolution mechanisms.. Specific provisions include the following: (1) Entitlement to
judicial protection in the event of homestead withdrawal. Concerning judicial adjudication
procedures for disputes, it is imperative to clarify the boundaries between the exercise of
administrative and judicial powers. Clarification of this point holds utmost importance in
ensuring farmers’ entitlement to judicial relief and protection pertaining to their homestead
withdrawal rights. (2) Voluntary selection of legal dispute resolution mechanisms. Diverse
legal dispute settlement mechanisms must be premised on respecting the will of the parties
Land 2024,13, 1180 9 of 28
involved. Specifically, farmers withdrawing from their land should have the liberty to
choose mediation, arbitration, or litigation, in accordance with the law, to preserve their
legitimate rights and interests.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Description of the Methodology and Sample Selection
The case study approach serves as an optimal methodology for exploring land con-
solidation research. Given that the current policy of compensated withdrawal of rural
homesteads remains in its pilot phase, quantitative analyses, such as regression analysis,
are not suitable at this time [
16
]. Consequently, this study employs the case study method
to comprehensively observe judicial rulings related to the preservation of farmers’ rights
and interests in the context of PWRH. By scrutinizing specific case examples, this approach
enables a nuanced understanding of the judicial system’s response to conflicts arising be-
tween farmers and other pertinent stakeholders. Furthermore, this methodology facilitates
a detailed examination of the court’s adjudication attitudes, thereby providing valuable
insights into the intricacies and complexities surrounding homestead withdrawal disputes.
The protection of farmers’ rights and interests during the PWRH must be firmly
grounded in judicial practice, with the logic of such practice serving as both the starting
and ending points. This approach acknowledges and reflects practical realities, informs
and revises practices, and ultimately responds to them. To this end, this article employs
the “China Judgments Online” as the primary search tool, complemented by “PKULAW”,
“JUFA Cases”, and other case search engines. By examining disputes related to the PWRH
in China from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2023,
3
we aim to precisely illuminate the
protections afforded to farmers’ rights and interests during the PWRH. In selecting and
analyzing our samples, we used the keywords “paid withdrawal of rural homesteads” and
“withdrawal of rural homesteads” to search within the “full text” field. As of 31 December
2023, our search yielded a total of 394 cases. After eliminating duplicates, obviously
unrelated cases, and withdrawn cases, we arrived at a final count of 324 valid cases, which
form the analytical sample for this study. For these 324 cases, we first present an overview of
judicial practice patterns through an analysis of time trends and geographical distributions
related to compensated withdrawal of rural homesteads. Then, we analyze the types of
disputes encountered in the actual operation of the PWRH and the strength of the court’s
support. This analysis reveals the problems in the protection of farmers’ rights and interests
in the actual operation of the PWRH.
3.2. Judicial Forms and Adjudications of Disputes over the PWRH under the Case Study Approach
As shown in Figure 2, prior to 2020, cases pertaining to the PWRH exhibited a pro-
nounced upward trajectory. Notably, in 2020, the case count almost matched the cumulative
total of previous cases, constituting 38.58% of the overall sample. However, since 2020, the
number of cases has demonstrated a distinct downward trend. This trend can potentially
be attributed to the fact that, prior to 2020, several regions had just initiated a series of
measures aimed at revitalizing unused rural homesteads and advancing rural urbanization.
The PWRH, as a pivotal approach to revitalize these properties and facilitate land supply
for urbanization, was frequently implemented in practice, leading to an escalation in related
disputes. Since 2020, local governments have implemented more flexible approaches to
tackle land supply issues. Specifically, they have capitalized on the “three-rights separa-
tion” policy and eased restrictions on the market entry of homesteads. Such measures are
beneficial for preserving the rights and interests of farmers.
Land 2024,13, 1180 10 of 28
Land 2024, 13, 1180 10 of 29
Figure 2. Number of disputes over PWRH in different years.
3.2.1. Different Types of Disputes Arising from PWRH
The “China Judgments Online” categorizes cases into five types: civil, criminal, ad-
ministrative, compensation, and enforcement. Cases related to the PWRH exclude state
compensation cases. Within our sample of 324 cases, we identified 116 civil cases, consti-
tuting 35.80% of the total, 6 criminal cases (1.85%), 200 administrative cases (61.73%), and
2 enforcement cases (0.62%) (Figure 3). The predominance of civil and administrative
cases indicates that farmers were not fully satisfied with the withdrawal policy arrange-
ments.
Figure 3. Different types of disputes arising from PWRH.
3.2.2. Regional Distribution of Disputes Related to PWRH
Disputes concerning the PWRH are primarily spread across 21 provinces, autono-
mous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government (Figures 4 and 5),
with notable geographical disparities in case counts. Specifically, Anhui Province and
Chongqing Municipality stand out, recording 122 and 51 disputes, respectively, which
account for 37.65% and 15.74% of the total disputes. These figures are significantly higher
compared to other administrative divisions. This disparity could be attributed to Anhui’s
status as a major agricultural province with a heavy reliance on homesteads. Additionally,
a considerable number of cases are undergoing second-instance proceedings, thus increas-
ing the overall dispute count. On the other hand, Chongqing’s approach to PWRH is char-
acterized by its “land ticket” system. Given the cyclical nature of land ticket generation
137
20 14
81
125
33 24 16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
35.80%
1.85%
61.73%
0.62%
Civil cases
Criminal cases
Administrative cases
Enforcement cases
Figure 2. Number of disputes over PWRH in different years.
3.2.1. Different Types of Disputes Arising from PWRH
The “China Judgments Online” categorizes cases into five types: civil, criminal, ad-
ministrative, compensation, and enforcement. Cases related to the PWRH exclude state
compensation cases. Within our sample of 324 cases, we identified 116 civil cases, consti-
tuting 35.80% of the total, 6 criminal cases (1.85%), 200 administrative cases (61.73%), and
2 enforcement cases (0.62%) (Figure 3). The predominance of civil and administrative cases
indicates that farmers were not fully satisfied with the withdrawal policy arrangements.
Land 2024, 13, 1180 10 of 29
Figure 2. Number of disputes over PWRH in different years.
3.2.1. Different Types of Disputes Arising from PWRH
The “China Judgments Online” categorizes cases into five types: civil, criminal, ad-
ministrative, compensation, and enforcement. Cases related to the PWRH exclude state
compensation cases. Within our sample of 324 cases, we identified 116 civil cases, consti-
tuting 35.80% of the total, 6 criminal cases (1.85%), 200 administrative cases (61.73%), and
2 enforcement cases (0.62%) (Figure 3). The predominance of civil and administrative
cases indicates that farmers were not fully satisfied with the withdrawal policy arrange-
ments.
Figure 3. Different types of disputes arising from PWRH.
3.2.2. Regional Distribution of Disputes Related to PWRH
Disputes concerning the PWRH are primarily spread across 21 provinces, autono-
mous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government (Figures 4 and 5),
with notable geographical disparities in case counts. Specifically, Anhui Province and
Chongqing Municipality stand out, recording 122 and 51 disputes, respectively, which
account for 37.65% and 15.74% of the total disputes. These figures are significantly higher
compared to other administrative divisions. This disparity could be attributed to Anhui’s
status as a major agricultural province with a heavy reliance on homesteads. Additionally,
a considerable number of cases are undergoing second-instance proceedings, thus increas-
ing the overall dispute count. On the other hand, Chongqing’s approach to PWRH is char-
acterized by its “land ticket” system. Given the cyclical nature of land ticket generation
137
20 14
81
125
33 24 16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
35.80%
1.85%
61.73%
0.62%
Civil cases
Criminal cases
Administrative cases
Enforcement cases
Figure 3. Different types of disputes arising from PWRH.
3.2.2. Regional Distribution of Disputes Related to PWRH
Disputes concerning the PWRH are primarily spread across 21 provinces, autonomous
regions, and municipalities directly under the central government (Figures 4and 5), with
notable geographical disparities in case counts. Specifically, Anhui Province and Chongqing
Municipality stand out, recording 122 and 51 disputes, respectively, which account for
37.65% and 15.74% of the total disputes. These figures are significantly higher compared to
other administrative divisions. This disparity could be attributed to Anhui’s status as a ma-
jor agricultural province with a heavy reliance on homesteads. Additionally, a considerable
number of cases are undergoing second-instance proceedings, thus increasing the overall
dispute count. On the other hand, Chongqing’s approach to PWRH is characterized by its
“land ticket” system. Given the cyclical nature of land ticket generation and transactions,
Land 2024,13, 1180 11 of 28
farmers who have withdrawn and reclaimed their original homesteads can only receive the
full transaction price upon the realization of the land ticket deal. This process has been a
source of numerous disputes.
Land 2024, 13, 1180 11 of 29
and transactions, farmers who have withdrawn and reclaimed their original homesteads
can only receive the full transaction price upon the realization of the land ticket deal. This
process has been a source of numerous disputes.
Figure 4. Regional distribution of disputes related to PWRH.
Figure 5. The regional distribution of disputes related to PWRH is shown on the map (Note: this
map has been created using standard maps downloaded from the Ministry of Natural Resources
Standard Map Service website, bearing the review number GS (2024) 0650, without any alterations
made to the base map).
122
12 3114
14
222
34 29
111
12 12
1
14 5
51
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Anhui
Beijing
Gansu
Guangdong
Guangxi
Hebei
Henan
Hubei
Hunan
Jilin
Jiangsu
Jiangxi
Ningxia
Shandong
Shaanxi
Shanghai
Sichuan
Tianjin
Yunnan
Zhejiang
Chongqing
Figure 4. Regional distribution of disputes related to PWRH.
Land 2024, 13, 1180 11 of 29
and transactions, farmers who have withdrawn and reclaimed their original homesteads
can only receive the full transaction price upon the realization of the land ticket deal. This
process has been a source of numerous disputes.
Figure 4. Regional distribution of disputes related to PWRH.
Figure 5. The regional distribution of disputes related to PWRH is shown on the map (Note: this
map has been created using standard maps downloaded from the Ministry of Natural Resources
Standard Map Service website, bearing the review number GS (2024) 0650, without any alterations
made to the base map).
122
12 3114
14
222
34 29
111
12 12
1
14 5
51
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Anhui
Beijing
Gansu
Guangdong
Guangxi
Hebei
Henan
Hubei
Hunan
Jilin
Jiangsu
Jiangxi
Ningxia
Shandong
Shaanxi
Shanghai
Sichuan
Tianjin
Yunnan
Zhejiang
Chongqing
Figure 5. The regional distribution of disputes related to PWRH is shown on the map (Note: this map
has been created using standard maps downloaded from the Ministry of Natural Resources Standard
Map Service website, bearing the review number GS (2024) 0650, without any alterations made to the
base map).
Land 2024,13, 1180 12 of 28
3.2.3. Subjects Involved in Disputes over PWRH
Disputes related to the PWRH typically involve multiple stakeholders, including
farmers, developers, villagers’ (or community) committees, villagers’ groups, and local
governments. Among these, civil disputes between farmers and local governments, as well
as villagers’ (or community) committees, predominate. As demonstrated in Figure 6, out
of 318 cases (excluding criminal cases), 203 cases involve disputes between farmers and
local governments, constituting 63.84% of the total. Fifty-four cases, representing 16.98%
of the total, concern disputes between farmers and villagers’ (or community) committees
or villagers’ groups. Five cases, accounting for 1.57% of the total, pertain to disputes
between farmers and developers. Sixty-one cases, comprising 19.18% of the total, relate
to disputes between farmers and other individuals. Evidently, during the withdrawal
process, farmers expressed dissatisfaction with the local government’s withdrawal and
resettlement compensation program and its specifics, subsequently triggering disputes
among individual farmers after the withdrawal.
Land 2024, 13, 1180 12 of 29
3.2.3. Subjects Involved in Disputes over PWRH
Disputes related to the PWRH typically involve multiple stakeholders, including
farmers, developers, villagers’ (or community) committees, villagers’ groups, and local
governments. Among these, civil disputes between farmers and local governments, as
well as villagers’ (or community) committees, predominate. As demonstrated in Figure 6,
out of 318 cases (excluding criminal cases), 203 cases involve disputes between farmers
and local governments, constituting 63.84% of the total. Fifty-four cases, representing
16.98% of the total, concern disputes between farmers and villagers’ (or community) com-
mittees or villagers’ groups. Five cases, accounting for 1.57% of the total, pertain to dis-
putes between farmers and developers. Sixty-one cases, comprising 19.18% of the total,
relate to disputes between farmers and other individuals. Evidently, during the with-
drawal process, farmers expressed dissatisfaction with the local government’s withdrawal
and resettlement compensation program and its specifics, subsequently triggering dis-
putes among individual farmers after the withdrawal.
Figure 6. Distribution of subjects in disputes related to the PWRH (Note: five cases involved both
village councils and local governments; hence, the aggregate figure in this context exceeds the over-
all count of cases).
3.2.4. Matters Involved in Disputes over the PWRH
The distribution of disputes related to the PWRH, categorized by type, geography,
and subject, reveals its current status in judicial practice. This study aims to delve deeper
into the primary disputes and controversies surrounding the compensated withdrawal of
homesteads. By doing so, we aim to highlight the intricate web of interests involved and
enable more precise protection of farmers’ legitimate rights and interests.
Disputes arising from the PWRH exhibit variation depending on the parties involved
(Figure 7). Specifically, conflicts between farmers and local governments predominantly
revolve around issues such as withdrawal agreements, procedural matters, approval pro-
cesses, resettlement compensation, and the disclosure of withdrawal-related information.
Meanwhile, disputes between farmers and villagers’ (or community) committees or vil-
lagers’ groups primarily concern withdrawal resolutions, house vacations, resettlement
compensation, and the demolition of existing structures for new construction. Conflicts
between farmers and other individuals primarily focus on the allocation of resettlement
compensation (including inheritance-related distributions) and the repayment of improp-
erly obtained resettlement compensation. Additionally, disputes between farmers and de-
203
54
5
61
0
50
100
150
200
250
Local governments Villagers' (or
community)
committees, villagers'
groups
Developers Other individuals
Figure 6. Distribution of subjects in disputes related to the PWRH (Note: five cases involved both
village councils and local governments; hence, the aggregate figure in this context exceeds the overall
count of cases).
3.2.4. Matters Involved in Disputes over the PWRH
The distribution of disputes related to the PWRH, categorized by type, geography,
and subject, reveals its current status in judicial practice. This study aims to delve deeper
into the primary disputes and controversies surrounding the compensated withdrawal of
homesteads. By doing so, we aim to highlight the intricate web of interests involved and
enable more precise protection of farmers’ legitimate rights and interests.
Disputes arising from the PWRH exhibit variation depending on the parties involved
(Figure 7). Specifically, conflicts between farmers and local governments predominantly
revolve around issues such as withdrawal agreements, procedural matters, approval pro-
cesses, resettlement compensation, and the disclosure of withdrawal-related information.
Meanwhile, disputes between farmers and villagers’ (or community) committees or vil-
lagers’ groups primarily concern withdrawal resolutions, house vacations, resettlement
compensation, and the demolition of existing structures for new construction. Conflicts
between farmers and other individuals primarily focus on the allocation of resettlement
compensation (including inheritance-related distributions) and the repayment of improp-
erly obtained resettlement compensation. Additionally, disputes between farmers and
developers primarily pertain to the methodologies employed for resettlement compensa-
Land 2024,13, 1180 13 of 28
tion. In summary, the majority of disputes between farmers and various entities center on
issues related to resettlement compensation.
Land 2024, 13, 1180 13 of 29
velopers primarily pertain to the methodologies employed for resettlement compensa-
tion. In summary, the majority of disputes between farmers and various entities center on
issues related to resettlement compensation.
Figure 7. Matters involved in disputes between farmers and different stakeholders over the PWRH
(Note: five cases encompassed both village councils and local governments, while one case encom-
passed two separate disputes. Therefore, the cumulative number for this particular aspect surpasses
the overall count of cases).
3.2.5. Attitudes of the Courts
Among the 318 cases analyzed (excluding criminal cases), a notable proportion pro-
gressed to second-instance trial proceedings, and a handful even underwent trial super-
vision procedures. This trend suggests that farmers retain considerable disagreement with
the verdicts or rulings handed down by people’s courts after the first instance. Conse-
quently, they are prepared to incur additional expenses to pursue appeals and seek trial
supervision as a means of defending their rights (Table 4).
Table 4. Decisions of courts at different trial stages.
Trial Proceedings Numbers Supported Not Supported
First instance 172 74, 43.02% 98, 56.98%
Second instance 132 5
,
3.79% 127
,
96.21%
Trial supervision proceedings 14 2, 14.29% 12, 85.71%
As demonstrated in Table 4, even after progressing through the first, second, and
retrial stages, the courts have upheld farmers’ claims in relatively few cases. Specifically,
at the first instance stage, 56.98% of cases did not receive court support, with 78.57% being
rejected and 21.43% not being filed. At the second-instance stage, courts upheld the orig-
inal verdict and dismissed appeals in 96.21% of cases. Furthermore, at the trial supervision
stage, the court rejected retrial applications in 85.71% of cases. Among the unsupported
cases, court decisions primarily resulted in dismissals or non-filing. The primary reasons
for court rejection included farmers misidentifying the defendant and disputes lacking
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Withdrawal policies/programmes/agreements/resolutions,
etc.
Procedural matters
Approval processes
Withdrawal information disclosure
Housing vacations
Resettlement compensation
Demolition of existing structures for new construction
Disputes with the local governments
Disputes with villagers' (or community) committees, villagers' groups
Disputes with individuals
Disputes with developers
Figure 7. Matters involved in disputes between farmers and different stakeholders over the PWRH
(Note: five cases encompassed both village councils and local governments, while one case encom-
passed two separate disputes. Therefore, the cumulative number for this particular aspect surpasses
the overall count of cases).
3.2.5. Attitudes of the Courts
Among the 318 cases analyzed (excluding criminal cases), a notable proportion pro-
gressed to second-instance trial proceedings, and a handful even underwent trial supervi-
sion procedures. This trend suggests that farmers retain considerable disagreement with the
verdicts or rulings handed down by people’s courts after the first instance. Consequently,
they are prepared to incur additional expenses to pursue appeals and seek trial supervision
as a means of defending their rights (Table 4).
Table 4. Decisions of courts at different trial stages.
Trial Proceedings Numbers Supported Not Supported
First instance 172 74, 43.02% 98, 56.98%
Second instance 132 5, 3.79% 127, 96.21%
Trial supervision proceedings 14 2, 14.29% 12, 85.71%
As demonstrated in Table 4, even after progressing through the first, second, and
retrial stages, the courts have upheld farmers’ claims in relatively few cases. Specifically, at
the first instance stage, 56.98% of cases did not receive court support, with 78.57% being
rejected and 21.43% not being filed. At the second-instance stage, courts upheld the original
verdict and dismissed appeals in 96.21% of cases. Furthermore, at the trial supervision
stage, the court rejected retrial applications in 85.71% of cases. Among the unsupported
cases, court decisions primarily resulted in dismissals or non-filing. The primary reasons
for court rejection included farmers misidentifying the defendant and disputes lacking
Land 2024,13, 1180 14 of 28
factual and legal merit. Cases that were not filed often involved farmers petitioning the
court to rescind government withdrawal policies or village collective resolutions. Typically,
the court viewed locally formulated and issued binding decisions and orders as normative
documents. These documents are applicable to unspecified recipients and are repeatable.
Alternatively, the court considered relevant policy decisions to have been made by the
local government’s Standing Committee of the People’s Congress. Consequently, these
matters fell outside the jurisdiction of People’s Courts. Additionally, resolutions from
villagers’ (representative) meetings are considered part of village self-government and also
fall outside the court’s scope.
4. Results
4.1. The Challenge of Protecting Farmers’ Rights and Interests during the PWRH Presents Distinct
Focal Points throughout Various Stages of the Process
Combined with Figure 7, it becomes evident that disputes stemming from the PWRH
span the entire pre-withdrawal, during-withdrawal, and post-withdrawal phases. Prior
to withdrawal, the primary disputes center around verifying the legality of withdrawal
compensation agreements or programs, as well as the legality of resettlement compensa-
tion agreements or programs. Additionally, disputes arise over farmers’ applications for
withdrawal, and the withdrawal procedures themselves. During the withdrawal stage,
controversies primarily focus on vacating the withdrawn properties, assessing the eligibility
of the individuals subject to resettlement, and determining the specifics of resettlement
compensation including its method and content. Furthermore, controversies arise over
allocating withdrawal compensation payments (or inheritance distribution), and ensur-
ing transparency in the disclosure of withdrawal-related information. Post-withdrawal
conflicts mainly emerge in issues related to alternative social security provisions, such
as basic pension insurance, and the construction of new dwellings for farmers after their
withdrawal (Table 5). Notably, disputes are most common during the mid-withdrawal
phase, primarily regarding the qualification of resettlement candidates and the benefits tied
to resettlement compensation.
Table 5. Types of disputes over the PWRH at different stages.
Withdrawal Stage Subject Matter of Dispute Number of Cases Rate
Pre-withdrawal
Withdrawal agreements/resolutions/programs 8 2.52%
Settlement compensation agreement/program 60 18.87%
Withdrawal Procedures 1 0.31%
Withdrawal Approval 2 0.63%
During withdrawal
Vacation of Housing 17 5.35%
Qualification of resettlement subject 95 29.87%
Rehousing Compensation Methods 4 1.26%
Rehousing Compensation Benefits 112 35.22%
Disclosure of Information on Withdrawal Matters 4 1.26%
Post-withdrawal Alternative Social Security 11 3.46%
Demolition of the old and construction of the new 5 1.57%
Note: The total number of types of disputes exceeds the number of cases, as multiple disputes may be involved in
the same case at the same time.
4.1.1. Pre-Withdrawal: Insufficient Attention to the Political Rights of Farmers
In order to delve into the central problems related to homestead disputes, it is crucial to
examine the need for a forward-thinking political discourse tightly linked to the homestead
land policy. Furthermore, it is essential to consider the litigation instances that have
emerged as a direct outcome of this policy [
30
]. These disputes deeply reflect farmers’
aspirations for fairness, justice, and the protection of their rights and interests. In the
context of disputes related to the PWRH, farmers’ interest in demanding participation
rights and the right to be informed about relevant policies becomes apparent.
Land 2024,13, 1180 15 of 28
From a legal perspective, the withdrawal of farmers from rural homesteads primarily
concerns the relinquishment of homestead usage rights. According to Article 25(3) of
the Regulations on the Implementation of the Land Administration Law of the People’s
Republic of China, the land administration department of the municipal or county people’s
government must devise a compensation and resettlement scheme for the expropriated
land. This scheme should be aligned with the approved land expropriation plan and
developed in collaboration with relevant departments. They are also required to make
an announcement in the townships and villages where the expropriated land is located
and take into account the opinions of rural collective economic organizations and affected
farmers. Furthermore, as per Article 24 of the Organic Law of the Villagers’ Committees,
matters pertaining to PWRH should be addressed following discussion and decision by
the villagers’ assembly. However, practical implementation has given rise to disputes. In
the case of Anhui Province Fengyang County People’s Court (2019) Anhui 1126 Xing Chu
No. 27, the farmers involved contended that the township government acted unlawfully
by issuing the Land Expropriation Compensation Program Announcement and its Supple-
mentary Announcement during the land expropriation process.
4
Similarly, in Nanchang
Railway Transportation Court (2019) Gan 7101 Xing Chu No. 257, farmers argued that
the withdrawal resolution was not properly convened or voted on in accordance with the
Organic Law of the Villagers’ Committees. They claimed ignorance of and disagreement
with the villagers’ assembly resolution, alleging violations of their right to know and vote,
and subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking to confirm the Township People’s Government’s
failure to fulfill its supervisory duties.
5
Government actions significantly impact the prac-
tice of homestead withdrawal [48]. Farmers’ interest in demanding the right to know and
participate in PWRH extends beyond the withdrawal process itself. They are also concerned
about the transparency of information related to compensated withdrawal. For instance,
in the case of Jiangsu Province’s Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court (2017) Su 03 Xing
Chu No. 268, farmers requested the court to compel the county government to disclose
the legal basis of the “villagers’ rural homesteads voluntary withdrawal compensation
agreement”, the list of registrants for voluntary withdrawal, the area of the withdrawn
rural homesteads, and other pertinent details.6
4.1.2. During Withdrawal: Irregularities in the Mechanism for Protecting the Rights and
Interests of Farmers in Resettlement and Compensation
Given the intricate nature of property rights pertaining to rural homesteads and
farmhouses, the compensation and resettlement process upon withdrawal frequently
involves determining the resettlement population, the scope and criteria for compensation,
as well as the format of such compensation. Neither the district government’s guidelines
nor the township government’s implementation program can comprehensively cover all
possible scenarios, leaving considerable flexibility in the execution of these measures.
Firstly, the criteria for determining the subjects of resettlement and compensation
exhibit significant variations across regions. In multiple cases heard by the Anhui Higher
People’s Court—including (2020) Anhui Xing Zhong No. 1232, No. 1233, No. 1234, No. 1247,
No. 1248, and No. 1250—as well as those heard by the Anhui Intermediate People’s Court of
Anqing Municipality, such as (2019) Anhui 08 Xing Chu No. 147 and (2019) Anhui 08 Xing
Chu No. 158, the court primarily considered whether individuals had maintained long-term
residency in the local area.
7
This approach was consistent with the guidelines outlined in the
“Interim Measures for Rural Homesteads Withdrawal Reward for Households Expropriated
from the Collective Land in the Planning Area of County Town of Wangjiang County” and
the “Implementing Rules for the Certification of Households Resettled”. Alternatively, in
the case heard by the Intermediate People’s Court of Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province—
specifically, (2019) Zhe 05 Xing Zhong No. 138—the court determined the resettlement
subject based on membership in a collective economic organization.8
Secondly, regarding the scope of compensation, the current compensation framework
for homestead withdrawal is limited, only compensating for the area occupied by the house
Land 2024,13, 1180 16 of 28
on the homestead, excluding the area taken up by the courtyard and other ancillary facilities.
For instance, a key dispute in the case heard by the Chongqing Third Intermediate People’s
Court (2020) Yu 03 Xing Pei No. 10 revolves around whether ancillary facilities should
be encompassed within the reclaimed area.
9
Farmers often demand a reconsideration
of the reclaimed area, as exemplified in the case of Chongqing Banan District People’s
Court (2015) Yu 0113 Xing Chu No. 23.
10
Similarly, in the case of Anhui Province Jinzhai
County People’s Court (2018) Anhui 1524 Xing Chu No. 25, farmers seeking withdrawal
included compensation for fruit trees outside their homes in their claims.
11
While PWRH
can potentially boost farmers’ property income and enhance their living standards, the full
implementation of usufructuary property rights associated with the homestead remains
incomplete. Consequently, during the withdrawal process, farmers’ autonomy, rights,
and interests—especially their entitlement to fair compensation—have not been fully
honored [
49
]. The compensation received by farmers through PWRH often falls short
of their expectations [
50
]. For instance, in the case heard by the Huai’an Intermediate
People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (2019) Su 08 Xing Chu No. 65, farmers withdrawing
from the land contended that compensation standards were developed without consulting
villagers. They also argued that the relocation compensation was insufficient to cover
losses, including the loss of land, ensuring that the farmers’ original standard of living was
not compromised. They petitioned the local government to address and coordinate the
compensation standards.12
Thirdly, regarding the form of resettlement compensation, Articles 13 and 14 of the
Administrative Measures for the Demolition and Relocation of Housing on Collective Land
in Beijing stipulate that rural homesteads projects undergoing demolition and relocation
can opt for either monetary compensation or housing resettlement. It is important to note
that individuals who receive monetary compensation are not eligible for further housing
resettlement. However, the current compensation programs leave room for improvement.
For instance, in the case heard by the Beijing Daxing District People’s Court (2021) Jing
0115 Min Chu No. 25870, a farmer who had already received monetary compensation still
demanded a detached house of at least 200 square meters and a centralized house as part
of the resettlement package.
Finally, there are cases of unjust enrichment related to resettlement compensation.
This situation mainly occurs in two scenarios: (1) The village committee entrusts other
villagers to receive the compensation on their behalf. For instance, in the case of Sichuan
Lu County People’s Court (2020) Chuan 0521 Min Chu No. 883, a dispute arose when the
village committee paid the compensation for the withdrawal of rural homesteads to other
villagers in the form of proxy collection.
13
(2) Government operational mistakes. In another
example, the Anhui Jinzhai County People’s Court (2019) Wan 1524 Min Chu No. 2854 case
involved a dispute over the return of unjust enrichment due to an operational error that
resulted in overpayment of compensation by the local government.14
Through analyzing relevant cases, this study also found that the allocation of compen-
sation payments often leads to disputes. These disputes typically arise after the farmers
receive resettlement compensation, particularly regarding the inheritance of compensation.
Cases such as the Jiangsu Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court (2022) Su 02 Min Zhong No.
7829, Henan Xuchang Intermediate People’s Court (2022) Yu 10 Min Zhong No. 1055,
Jiangsu Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court (2021) Su 02 Min Zhong No. 935, Shanghai Jin-
shan District People’s Court (2023) Hu 0116 Min Chu No. 7064, and Guangdong Meizhou
Meijiang District People’s Court (2020) Yue 1402 Min Chu No. 1622 all involve issues of
compensation allocation or inheritance distribution.
4.1.3. Post-Withdrawal: Social Rights and Benefits of Farmers Are Not Fully Realized
Rural homesteads embody the social security functions inherent in farmers’ rights
to subsistence and housing rights. When a farmer withdraws from their homestead,
they simultaneously forfeit the various protections tied to it. This forfeiture is particularly
significant when farmers are encouraged to relinquish their right to use the rural homestead
Land 2024,13, 1180 17 of 28
in favor of becoming an urban resident. To address the dual challenge of “loss of land
and loss of security” confronting farmers, an “alternative” social security mechanism must
accompany the PWRH, thus ensuring the long-term interests of farmers. To incentivize
farmers to withdraw from their homesteads, certain pilot regions have implemented
a policy. This policy allows that farmers who withdraw from their homesteads in the
context of “transitioning from agriculture to non-agriculture” may apply for basic old-age
pension insurance and receive the associated benefits. However, in practice, numerous
disputes have arisen between farmers withdrawing from their rural homesteads and local
governments implementing the “agriculture to non-agriculture” transition. For instance,
in cases heard by the Chongqing Yunyang County People’s Court, such as (2019) Yu 0235
Xing Chu No. 79, No. 80, No. 89, No. 90, No. 94, and No. 95, farmers petitioned the court
to affirm their eligibility to participate in pension insurance based on their residency. They
also requested the Social Insurance Service Center to continue disbursing pension insurance
benefits. Similarly, in cases heard by the Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People’s Court (2016)
Yu 05 Xing Zhong No. 507 and the Chongqing Higher People’s Court (2017) Yu Xing Shen
No. 303, farmers who had withdrawn from their homesteads petitioned the court to compel
the Social Insurance Service Center to continue fulfilling the application requirements for
basic pension insurance for those transitioning from farming to urban living.
4.2. Reflection on Disputes: The Core Issues Lie in Insufficient Effective Participation of Farmers
and Incomplete Compensation for the Value of Rural Homesteads
4.2.1. Insufficient Effective Participation of Farmers
Farmers should be the primary actors in the reform initiative, as their engagement in
rural land consolidation efforts enhances the overall performance of the reform [
43
]. In
the PWRH, a higher level of farmer participation directly correlates with more effective
implementation of the withdrawal policy. Long-term rural residents, especially older farm-
ers with limited skill sets, often struggle to adjust to the urban lifestyle and its associated
higher cost of living [
51
–
54
]. Consequently, greater farmer participation tends to correlate
with a stronger willingness to withdraw their homesteads. Additionally, broader farmer
involvement leads to greater acceptance of relevant policies, thereby facilitating smoother
implementation of the PWRH policy. However, in practice, the central role of farmers
has often been overlooked [
55
]. Pilot practices can be categorized into four distinct mod-
els based on the leadership entity involved: (1) homestead withdrawal led by collective
economic organizations, (2) homestead withdrawal led by local governments, (3) a joint
model led by both local governments and village collectives, and (4) a market-driven model
(Table 6).
Table 6. Comparison of different models of the PWRH.
Withdraw Models Collective Economic
Organizations Lead
Local Government-Led
Local Government and
Village Collectives
Jointly Lead
Market-Driven Model
Pilot region Yicheng in Hubei,
Jinjiang in Fujian, etc.
Sichuan Lu Xian,
Anhui Jinzhai, etc. Yujiang, Jiangxi, etc. Zhejiang Yiwu,
Chongqing, etc.
Model Characteristics Intra-village mobility Government behavior
instead of market Land transfer Market mechanism to
allocate resources
Transaction Scope Village area Provincial/county
(city)/town area Village area Provincial/county
(city)
Funding Sources Farmers Fiscal funding Financial resources,
farmers Market main body
Replicability Very weak Weaker Stronger Very strong
In reality, the PWRH is predominantly executed under the direction of the govern-
ment [
56
]. Combined with Table 3, it becomes evident that local governments’ interests
Land 2024,13, 1180 18 of 28
in the PWRH primarily stem from obtaining the land price difference, bolstering local
economic development to attain political achievements, and seeking promotion. Con-
sequently, under the local government-led model, the subjective position of farmers is
often underestimated. For instance, the circular issued by the People’s Government of Yeji
District, Luan City, regarding the “Implementation Measures for Steadily Promoting the
Paid Withdrawal of Rural Homesteads in Combination with Comprehensive Regional Land
Improvement (Trial)” solely outlines the responsibilities of local government departments,
while neglecting the involvement and rights of farmers in the program’s execution. The
absence of explicit provisions regarding farmers’ participation in the pertinent withdrawal
policy is a precursor to potential disputes. For example, among the 318 cases examined
(excluding criminal cases), there were 122 and 12 disputes under the local government-led
model in Anhui and Sichuan, respectively, constituting a combined 42.14%. Conversely,
under models led by collective economic organizations or co-led by local governments
and village collectives, farmers’ engagement is more prominent, thereby minimizing con-
flicts. Specifically, among the 318 cases (excluding criminal cases), 29 disputes arose in
Jiangxi Province, accounting for 9.12%. In Hubei Province, only two disputes occurred,
pertaining to the revocation of resettlement and compensation agreements, withdrawal
agreements, and controversies surrounding the allocation of compensation inheritance.
The market-driven mode promises to enhance farmers’ property income and ease the
integration of the agricultural transfer population into urban environments. Most conflicts
in this model center around resettlement compensation payments and the implementation
of the “agricultural to non-permanent resident” policy. For example, in Chongqing and
Zhejiang, 56 disputes arose, with 44 of them (78.57%) related to resettlement compensation
and the enforcement of the “transferring agriculture to non-permanent ownership” policy.
Participation capacity is a significant determinant that influences the effective engage-
ment of farmers [
43
]. Given the unique political and ecological context of rural environ-
ments, coupled with considerations regarding farmers’ literacy skills, it is evident that the
general level of farmers’ professional education remains low. Consequently, they often lack
comprehensive knowledge about their legally granted rights, as well as the necessary skills
to uphold these rights. As clearly demonstrated in Table 4, despite farmers’ keen awareness
of their rights, they often find that their claims are unsupported by judicial authorities.
4.2.2. Incomplete Compensation for the Value of Rural Homesteads
Combined with Figure 6and Table 5, it becomes evident that farmers’ interests in
the PWRH encompass both resettlement compensation rights and interests, as well as
social security rights and interests. This indicates that the full value of the homestead
in China’s homestead withdrawal system is not accurately reflected in the compensation
provided. Referring to Table 6, it is apparent that the pilot practice of PWRH faces a
widespread issue of low compensation standards due to a significant funding gap for
homestead withdrawal compensation. Despite attempts by some localities to innovate
various methods of compensating farmers for withdrawal, such as the providing village
collective resettlement housing, subsidies for purchasing homes in towns, and monetary
compensation followed by settlement in towns, these measures have fallen short. They
have not adequately considered the potential net welfare loss arising from the decreased
ease of living for farmers after withdrawing from their homesteads. Additionally, the
reduced sense of well-being and acquisition stemming from the high cost of living in urban
areas has not been taken into account.
The free usage of homesteads fulfills a social security role for farmers, providing
them with essential needs such as housing and provisions for old age. This represents
an incontrovertible and lawful vested interest of farmers. A notable social reality that
must be acknowledged during the withdrawal of homesteads is the significant aging of
the rural populace. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of individuals aged 65 and above
escalated from 14,524 to 20,978, with the old-age dependency ratio surging from 14.3% to
21.8% [
57
]. Given this rising trend of aging, land-based pension emerges as a pragmatic
Land 2024,13, 1180 19 of 28
solution to address the current state of rural geriatric care. Referring to Table 5, there are
11 instances related to social security benefits, predominantly concerning basic old-age
insurance aspects following homestead withdrawal. The rural elderly population maintains
a profound attachment to their homesteads, which serve as their fundamental source of
residential security. Consequently, the social security interests of this demographic are
pivotal for the successful implementation of the homestead withdrawal policy.
The existing compensation for the withdrawal of homesteads is limited in scope,
excluding the value-added gains resulting from the development rights of the homesteads.
Following withdrawal, a rural homestead is typically allocated for one of two purposes:
(1) reclamation as arable land for agricultural use, or (2) reorganization and utilization as
construction land for urban development. Motivated by potential benefits, both village
collectives and local governments tend to prefer the latter option. In practice, a homestead,
through the substitution of urban construction land indicators, is often acquired by the local
government in a unified manner, aligned with market mechanisms. Consequently, the asset
value of this land, when introduced to the market, becomes significantly enhanced, yielding
substantial land value gains. This value appreciation, stemming from the development
rights of the homesteads, constitutes a prospective benefit that should accrue to the outgoing
farmers. Nevertheless, in the context of resettlement compensation, only the right to use the
homestead and the house on it are typically remunerated, while farmers seldom participate
in the distribution of land appreciation after the withdrawal of the homestead. This
exclusion underscores a significant gap in the existing compensation framework, which
fails to adequately address the full range of benefits associated with homestead withdrawal.
5. Discussion
5.1. Main Findings: The Systematic and Phased Characteristics of the Protection of Farmers’
Rights and Interests in the PWRH
The elevated idle rate and suboptimal utilization efficiency of rural homesteads hin-
der the optimal allocation of land resources and sustainable socio-economic develop-
ment
[58,59]
. The essence of the PWRH centers on rejuvenating dormant, vacant, or unused
land resources in rural areas is for ultimately enhancing farmers’ income and boosting land
utilization efficiency.
Previous studies have primarily examined the PWRH within various models,
delving into compensation, willingness to withdraw, and the influencing factors
thereof
[17,18,23,24,40,49,56]
. However, this study shifts focus to farmers’ satisfaction
following the PWRH. Prior research has investigated farmers’ satisfaction after rural home-
stead replacement, focusing on aspects such as public facilities, spiritual outlook, family
resource endowment, settlement community, living environment, and resettlement compen-
sation [
33
–
38
]. In this study, we adopt a more straightforward and objective approach by
assessing farmers’ satisfaction and sense of access through the protection of their rights and
interests in judicial adjudication. The protection of farmers’ rights and interests constitutes
a significant aspect of their overall satisfaction. Centering on this satisfaction, farmers’
interest claims emerging from judicial decisions offer a vivid and intuitive portrayal of their
contentment with the withdrawal policy and its implementation. This study presents a
novel perspective on gauging farmers’ satisfaction, thereby enriching both theoretical and
empirical findings in this domain. Scholars have addressed farmers’ rights to information,
participation, and subject position [
40
,
42
,
60
], as well as the distribution of value-added
gains from homesteads [
30
,
41
,
61
–
65
]. Based on this foundation, our study provides a
comprehensive analysis of farmers’ political rights and interests, resettlement compensa-
tion rights, social rights and interests, homestead development rights, and legal remedy
rights. Previous research has emphasized resettlement compensation as a pivotal factor
in the success of rural homestead withdrawal [
26
,
66
,
67
]. However, our findings reveal
that withdrawing farmers are equally concerned about their political and social rights and
interests. Notably, even within the context of resettlement and compensation, numerous
Land 2024,13, 1180 20 of 28
cases have centered on the recovery of unjust enrichment from resettlement compensation
and the allocation of such compensation, particularly in matters of inheritance.
Based on the case analysis of judicial decisions, the protection of farmers’ rights and
interests during the PWRH must align with the systematic and phased characteristics
inherent in the process. Firstly, protecting farmers’ rights and interests throughout the
three phases of pre-withdrawal, during withdrawal, and post-withdrawal. This protection
encompasses various aspects such as political rights, resettlement and compensation rights,
social rights, homestead development rights, and legal remedy rights. Collectively, these el-
ements form the core structure for protecting farmers’ interests during the PWRH. Secondly,
prior to the withdrawal process, farmers tend to show increased attention to their right to
participate in shaping the withdrawal policies. This often leads to disputes regarding with-
drawal programs and agreements, among other pertinent matters. During the withdrawal
stage, resettlement and compensation benefits become a focal point, sparking numerous
controversies related to the qualification criteria for resettlement, resettlement standards,
and forms of resettlement. This finding echoes previous studies [
27
,
34
,
66
,
68
]. Unexpect-
edly, our study also uncovered disputes concerning the return of unjust enrichment and
a notable number of conflicts related to the inheritance and distribution of compensation
within the context of resettlement and compensation disputes. Moreover, considering
the societal realities of rural China, social security benefits, particularly old-age security,
carry significant importance. This emphasis has generated several controversies. The
withdrawal policy ought to take into account not just the property value for farmers but
also the social security value of homesteads, thereby striking a balance between the farmers’
immediate and long-term interests. Finally, it is crucial to address the issue of protecting
farmers’ rights and interests during the withdrawal of rural homesteads at the institutional
level. By drawing insights from judicial practices surrounding PWRH, we should establish
a comprehensive framework for protecting farmers’ rights and interests in this domain.
Such a structure will promote the efficient utilization of rural land and enhance farmers’
satisfaction and sense of accomplishment.
5.2. Building a Mechanism for Realizing the Protection of Farmers’ Rights and Interests in
the PWRH
The PWRH stands as a pivotal component of the rural homestead reform, directly
impacting the rights and interests of farmers. During the implementation phase, it is
crucial to maintain a harmonious balance between policy feasibility and the preservation
of farmers’ rights and interests. To attain this objective, the key lies in the construction
of an ideal realization mechanism for the protection of farmers’ rights and interests. The
autonomous decisions of farmers must be honored, with special emphasis on their resettle-
ment and compensation for the loss of residential and social security values inherent in
their homesteads. Following the withdrawal process, farmers must be assured of receiving
adequate alternative security measures and participating in the long-term benefits derived
from land appreciation. Additionally, they should be equipped with efficient legal remedies
to uphold their rights and interests (Figure 8).
5.2.1. Pre-Withdrawal: Fully Respecting the Autonomous Status of Farmers
The right to use the homestead constitutes a usufruct right, falling under the umbrella
of private law. As per Article 323 of the Property Rights Section in the Civil Code, “the
usufructuary is entitled to possess, use, and reap benefits from immovable or movable
property owned by others, in accordance with legal provisions”. Farmers retain the liberty
to determine whether they wish to relinquish their homestead usage rights and reap the
attendant benefits. Even though public authority may intervene in private rights for
the greater public good, farmers, as right holders, maintain specific political rights and
interests. Farmers are directly impacted stakeholders in the process of PWRH, as this
process is intimately linked to their personal interests and survival security. Consequently,
farmers undoubtedly have the right to access comprehensive information concerning
Land 2024,13, 1180 21 of 28
the PWRH, and to directly participate in policymaking related to such withdrawal. The
formulation of relevant policies should respect farmers’ wishes [
60
] and strengthen their
rights to information and oversight [
36
]. During the PWRH, it is imperative to conduct
exhaustive research on pertinent withdrawal strategies and programs. This process should
involve listening attentively to farmers’ perspectives and promptly communicating details,
such as the timeline, scope, resettlement arrangements, and compensation criteria for
the withdrawal. Such measures are essential to guarantee farmers’ effective engagement
and participation.
Land 2024, 13, 1180 21 of 29
Farmers subjectivity
Pre-withdrawal
During
Withdrawal
Post-withdrawal
Respect for the autonomous
will of farmers
Effective participation of farmers
Constructing a
compensation mechanism
for the complete value of
rural homesteads
Building a fair and
reasonable system for
distributing long-term
value-added gains
Farmers
Rural collective
economic organizations
Local governments
Improvement of farmers'
social security, long-term
income distribution
mechanisms and rights
protection and relief
guarantees
Improving social security
Protection of rights and
remedies
Extension of compensation
Increase in reimbursement rates
Establishment of a mechanism for
farmer participation in homestead
compensation
Political rights and
benefits
Resettlement
compensation rights and
interests
Social security rights and
benefits
Homestead development
Rights
Right to legal remedy
Rights and
interests
Realization
mechanism
Figure 8. Ideal realization mechanism of farmers’ rights and interests guarantee in the PWRH.
5.2.1. Pre-Withdrawal: Fully Respecting the Autonomous Status of Farmers
The right to use the homestead constitutes a usufruct right, falling under the umbrella
of private law. As per Article 323 of the Property Rights Section in the Civil Code, “the
usufructuary is entitled to possess, use, and reap benefits from immovable or movable
property owned by others, in accordance with legal provisions”. Farmers retain the liberty
to determine whether they wish to relinquish their homestead usage rights and reap the
attendant benefits. Even though public authority may intervene in private rights for the
greater public good, farmers, as right holders, maintain specific political rights and inter-
ests. Farmers are directly impacted stakeholders in the process of PWRH, as this process
is intimately linked to their personal interests and survival security. Consequently, farm-
ers undoubtedly have the right to access comprehensive information concerning the
PWRH, and to directly participate in policymaking related to such withdrawal. The for-
mulation of relevant policies should respect farmers’ wishes [60] and strengthen their
rights to information and oversight [36]. During the PWRH, it is imperative to conduct
exhaustive research on pertinent withdrawal strategies and programs. This process
should involve listening attentively to farmers’ perspectives and promptly communi-
cating details, such as the timeline, scope, resettlement arrangements, and compensation
criteria for the withdrawal. Such measures are essential to guarantee farmers’ effective
engagement and participation.
5.2.2. During Withdrawal: Building a Mechanism to Compensate for the Full Value of
Rural Homesteads
Exploring a reasonable compensation mechanism is pivotal to the success of PWRH.
Firstly, it is imperative to further refine the homestead compensation system and expand
the scope of compensation. When determining the scope of resettlement compensation for
the PWRH, it is essential to consider not only the houses and ancillary facilities on the
homestead but also the income value derived from the usage rights of the homestead.
Figure 8. Ideal realization mechanism of farmers’ rights and interests guarantee in the PWRH.
5.2.2. During Withdrawal: Building a Mechanism to Compensate for the Full Value of
Rural Homesteads
Exploring a reasonable compensation mechanism is pivotal to the success of PWRH.
Firstly, it is imperative to further refine the homestead compensation system and expand
the scope of compensation. When determining the scope of resettlement compensation
for the PWRH, it is essential to consider not only the houses and ancillary facilities on
the homestead but also the income value derived from the usage rights of the homestead.
Secondly, elevating the compensation standard is more likely to encourage farmers to
relinquish their homesteads [
69
]. The withdrawal compensation criteria should be sci-
entifically devised by referencing elements such as land acquisition prices in the district.
Moreover, a reasonable assessment of the value of homesteads and rural dwellings is
crucial. A scientific evaluation of the value of rural habitations provides the foundation
for adequate compensation [
70
]. Compensation norms for PWRH can be framed based on
the “functional value theory of rural homesteads” [
24
]. In appraising the value of rural
homesteads, a comprehensive evaluation of diverse factors influencing homestead value
is essential, encompassing both its present worth and the latent value of its development
rights. Finally, it is vital to establish a mechanism for farmers’ engagement in homestead
compensation. To guarantee equitable and just compensation for farmers withdrawing,
their rights to articulate their interests and take part in the process must be preserved. The
Land 2024,13, 1180 22 of 28
government can proactively foster consultation and democracy through public hearings,
and if necessary, arrange hearings specifically on the withdrawal price of homesteads.
5.2.3. Post-Withdrawal: Improving Farmers’ Social Security, Long-Term Income
Distribution Mechanisms, and Safeguards for Rights and Remedies
With the introduction of the “three-rights separation” concept, the institutional ob-
jective of homesteads has undergone a shift. It has moved from being solely focused on
“residence security” to embracing a dual function that includes both “residence security
and property value” [
16
,
70
]. As a result, the significance of protecting farmers’ social rights
and interests, as well as the development rights of the homestead, has gained prominence.
Firstly, to address farmers’ concerns, it is essential to link the rural pension insurance
system, medical care, employment, and other long-term sustainable compensations with
the homestead withdrawal compensation. Secondly, a fair and equitable long-term revenue
distribution system must be established. This involves striking a careful balance between
the interests of the government, farmers’ collective economic organizations, and individual
farmers, ensuring a just distribution among these entities. Rural collective economic or-
ganizations and their farmer members should constitute the primary beneficiaries of land
value-added income. Farmers deserve to reap the rewards of homestead value appreciation
and reap future benefits. Negotiations between rural collective economic organizations
and farmers are crucial. Farmers may receive a lump-sum compensation as needed or
convert their homestead usage rights into shares, which can then be introduced into the
rural construction land market. This allows them to annually share in the proceeds from
collective construction land in accordance with market operations. The local government,
having invested in the initial planning of homesteads and the subsequent development of
supporting facilities, should also have a stake in the distribution of value-added income
from the homesteads. However, their share should be commensurate with their investment.
Additionally, the government can utilize taxes as a tool to effectively regulate benefit dis-
tribution. Finally, the legal recourse and rights of farmers following their withdrawal are
paramount. It is imperative to establish a seamless avenue for rights and redress for these
farmers. The people’s courts can implement a regular notification system for case-related
information, such as the number of cases received and closed, case types, group litigation,
and trial outcomes. This will facilitate the efficient resolution of related disputes. Further-
more, enhancing the multi-disciplinary dispute resolution mechanism offers farmers a
wider range of options to protect their rights and seek redress.
5.3. Policy Implications
This study contributes a unique perspective to the existing literature on farmers’ satis-
faction and access by focusing on the protection of farmers’ rights and interests. Specifically,
we explore the system designed to safeguard these rights and interests during the PWRH.
This comprehensive system encompasses aspects such as political rights, resettlement
and compensation, social entitlements, homestead development opportunities, and legal
remedies. To illustrate farmers’ rights and interests more tangibly in the context of PWRH,
we analyzed 324 judicial cases. Our findings reveal distinct stage-specific characteristics
in this process. Understandably, farmers express concern regarding their resettlement
and compensation rights. However, they also show significant interest in their rights to
information and participation prior to withdrawal, as well as their post-withdrawal social
security benefits, particularly pension insurance. Furthermore, we found that new prob-
lems of distribution of withdrawal compensation payments arose after farmers received
resettlement and compensation entitlements. Examining the protection of farmers’ rights
and interests during homestead withdrawal from the perspective of Chinese moderniza-
tion bears significant theoretical importance and practical relevance. It prompts us to
contemplate institutional-level responses that address these concerns effectively.
From a policymaking perspective, aligning the PWRH policy with the national rural
revitalization strategy requires an emphasis on strengthening the mechanism for rural
Land 2024,13, 1180 23 of 28
homestead withdrawal. Concurrently, it is imperative to undertake measures aimed at
increasing farmers’ satisfaction and perception of gain. With this foundation, our study
constructs an institutional framework aimed at protecting farmers’ rights and interests
during the compensated withdrawal of homesteads process. This framework is grounded
in judicial practices pertaining to PWRH. Based on our findings, we offer the following
policy recommendations:
Firstly, the core of PWRH lies in constructing a legal system that protects farmers’
rights and interests. Given that the protection of rural homestead rights is a significant
aspect of farmers’ land rights protection, establishing a scientific, fair, and reasonable legal
framework for rural homestead withdrawal is essential to preserving farmers’ legitimate
rights. This involves improving legislation related to rural homestead withdrawal and
clearly defining the rights and obligations of the government, farmers’ collectives, and
individual farmers. Furthermore, withdrawal procedures, income distribution, and legal
responsibilities must be precisely outlined.
Secondly, a fair and equitable mechanism for the PWRH needs to be established.
Obtaining fair compensation is pivotal for farmers to voluntarily relinquish their home-
steads. Farmers must be ensured the right to express their interests and participate in
the withdrawal process, emphasizing their welfare. This should be achieved by formu-
lating a reasonable valuation standard for homesteads, considering all aspects of their
value, fully compensating farmers, and adopting diverse withdrawal methods tailored to
local conditions.
Thirdly, enhancing farmers’ social security is vital. Social security measures after
PWRH are crucial determinants for a smooth withdrawal process. To effectively revitalize
idle rural homesteads in rural areas and encourage farmers to relinquish them, various
rural social security mechanisms must be refined. This includes improving social security
levels in areas such as rural pension insurance, cooperative healthcare, and minimum living
standards. Simultaneously, it is imperative to guarantee farmers’ right of residence after
withdrawal and ensure that their children enjoy equal education opportunities in towns
and cities. To address potential housing insecurities arising from failed business ventures
or unemployment in towns, the security of tenure for farmers after withdrawal must also
be strengthened.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Conclusions
As urbanization and industrialization accelerate, numerous issues have surfaced
regarding the utilization of rural homesteads. By implementing an efficient framework to
safeguard farmers’ rights and interests, as well as encouraging voluntary withdrawal from
unused homesteads, we can achieve multiple objectives. Not only can we unlock unused
resources, but we can also enhance the efficient and intensive use of rural land, thereby
improving overall land utilization efficiency. Additionally, this approach has the potential
to boost farmers’ income and enhance their overall well-being. Through an empirical
analysis of 324 judicial decisions, this study reveals that farmers exhibit a strong sense
of entitlement during the PWRH. Furthermore, related disputes encompass the entire
withdrawal process, highlighting systematic and stage-specific characteristics of farmers’
rights and interests.
First are farmers’ rights and interests pertaining to the PWRH encompass political,
resettlement and compensation, as well as social rights and interests. Together, these ele-
ments constitute a comprehensive system aimed at protecting farmers’ rights and interests.
Notably, the emphasis on specific rights and interests varies depending on the stage of the
withdrawal process.
Second are disputes arising prior to withdrawal primarily center around policies, pro-
grams, agreements, or resolutions related to the PWRH. This underscores farmers’ political
interest in staying informed and engaged with the withdrawal policy, reflecting a growing
awareness of their subjective status. This observation is further supported by four practical
Land 2024,13, 1180 24 of 28
disputes linked to the disclosure of withdrawal information. Disputes connected to the
withdrawal process concentrate on resettlement and compensation benefits, specifically
qualification criteria for resettlement and compensation, as well as compensation forms.
Our study also uncovered that among resettlement compensation issues, disputes con-
cerning the allocation of compensation funds, particularly those tied to inheritance, are
the most widespread. Instances of unjustified compensation gains being reclaimed exist,
shedding light on several problems within the PWRH framework and the surfacing of
fresh challenges. After withdrawal, focus shifts to alternative social security provision
and demolishing old structures to ease new construction, highlighting the homestead’s
inherent residential and social security worth. Farmers who withdraw primarily choose
between settling in cities or staying in rural locales. Hence, withdrawal strategies must take
into account farmers’ resettlement and compensation needs, emphasizing the homestead’s
social security significance and its enduring advantages.
Finally, to fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of farmers during the PWRH,
it is imperative to establish a mechanism based on relevant judicial practices for the realiza-
tion of farmers’ rights and interests. This mechanism should encompass political rights,
resettlement and compensation rights, social rights, homestead development rights, and
legal relief rights, which together constitute the core of the farmers’ rights protection system.
The implementation of this system should prioritize the following key areas: (1) Ensuring
farmers’ political rights by guaranteeing their rights to information, participation, and
oversight. (2) Constructing a comprehensive value compensation mechanism for home-
steads, designed to realize farmers’ rights and interests in resettlement and compensation.
(3) Enhancing the social security system to bolster the social rights and interests of farmers.
(4) Guaranteeing farmers’ participation in the distribution of value-added income, thus re-
alizing their homestead development rights. (5) Optimizing dispute resolution processes to
ensure farmers’ access to legal remedies and safeguard their rights and interests. By adopt-
ing these measures, we can promote fairness, transparency, and sustainability throughout
the process.
6.2. Research Limitations
While our study provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. We have
investigated the safeguarding of farmers’ rights and interests during the PWRH through
judicial decisions, which offer a direct window into the actual rights and interests of farmers.
Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that certain disputes may not have progressed
to the judicial adjudication phase, but were instead settled through mediation or other
alternative means. Consequently, our dataset primarily comprises disputes that were
not resolved via mediation, thus providing an incomplete picture of the broader issue of
farmers’ rights and interests protection. In light of this, future research efforts could explore
the integration of rural household survey data, village committee survey data, as well as
judicial adjudication data, to facilitate a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis.
6.3. Directions for Future Research
Firstly, the dominant approach for allocating value-added benefits derived from
PWRH is predominantly shaped by the “linking the increase and reduction of urban and
rural construction land” policy. However, there is a notable absence of comprehensive
planning and coordination in the distribution approach based on administrative divisions,
lacking the perspective of regional integration. In future investigations, we aim to exam-
ine the disparities in the allocation of value-added gains, as well as the utilization and
management of rural homesteads, influenced by variations in resource endowments. This
exploration will be conducted through analyzing the interactive relationship between the
distribution of value-added gains and the regulation of land spatial planning.
Secondly, with the advancement of new urbanization and urban–rural integration, the
issue of aging among the rural population that has been left behind has gained significant
importance. Addressing the challenges associated with the PWRH, along with optimizing
Land 2024,13, 1180 25 of 28
rural aging concerns and land utilization, represents a practical necessity for realizing
the rural revitalization strategy. Henceforth, emphasis should be placed on ensuring the
protection of the rights and interests of the elderly in rural communities during the process
of homestead withdrawal.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.Z. and C.T.; methodology, X.Z. and S.N.; validation,
J.Y.; formal analysis, X.Z. and C.T.; investigation, S.N.; resources, J.Y.; data curation, X.Z. and C.T.;
writing—original draft preparation, X.Z. and C.T.; writing—review and editing, X.Z. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (grant no.
2023M740007) and the 2023 Anhui Province Social Science Innovation and Development Research
Project, PRC (2023CX083).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical approval and informed consent have been reviewed.
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study by the School of Economics, Anhui University,
and the School of Law, Anhui University, because there were no ethical issues in this study.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to declare.
Notes
1
Government Work Report 2023. https://www.gov.cn/zhuanti/2023lhzfgzbg/index.htm?eqid=a2d7d66800005226000000066459
ed2a (accessed on 17 June 2024).
2People’s Daily. How to Revitalize 70 Million Unused Farm Houses? https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1605375436994340829&
wfr=spider&for=pc (accessed on 9 June 2024).
3
The cases documented in the China Judgement and Documentation Network date back to 2012. However, disputes pertaining to
the paid withdrawal of rural homesteads only surfaced in 2014. Therefore, the timeframe for selecting the sample in this study
spans from 2014 to 2023.
4
In this instance, the township people’s government lacked the legal authority to devise a compensation and resettlement program
for land expropriation. Its creation of such a program exceeded its jurisdiction and, technically, should have been revoked.
Nevertheless, given that the land expropriation and demolition processes were nearly finalized, and the majority of farmers
had already been resettled and compensated in line with the program, revocation would have resulted in substantial harm
to the public interest. Therefore, while the court acknowledged the unlawfulness of the land expropriation program and its
supplemental confirmation, it did not revoke them.
5
In this case, the court determined that the conduct of the village committee and the villagers’ affairs council breached legal
provisions and contradicted the essence of the homestead reform pilot project. The court further ordered the township’s people’s
government to promptly commence an administrative investigation, assessing whether the “three deliberations and one vote”
process pertaining to the compulsory withdrawal of rural homesteads adhered to the pertinent clauses of the Organic Law of
the Village Committee. Additionally, the investigation must evaluate if the village committee properly executed its supervisory
duties by investigating and addressing the matter. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the government is required to inform
the plaintiff of the findings.
6
In this case, the court determined that the county people’s government breached legal obligations by neglecting to respond in
writing within the prescribed timeframe upon receiving the plaintiff’s request for disclosure of government information, and by
failing to notify the plaintiff of the methods and avenues to access such information.
7
In these cases, the courts determined that despite the household registration remaining unchanged, individuals who had relocated
and were no longer permanently residing in the area, nor were members of the village group’s collective economic organization,
could not be identified as the subjects of resettlement.
8
In this case, the court rejected the appeal and affirmed the initial ruling, citing that the appellant’s membership status in the
village collective economic organization was not deliberated during the village representatives’ meeting, thus preventing their
recognition as the subject of resettlement.
9
In this case, the court has adjudicated that the yard under consideration must be encompassed within the compensation package,
as per the unambiguous directives outlined in the Circular of Chongqing Municipality on Matters Pertaining to the Reform
Land 2024,13, 1180 26 of 28
of the Household Registration System in Relation to the Allocation of Rural Homesteads and Ancillary Facilities. The circular
explicitly mandates that compensation for agricultural structures, entitlement to rural homestead usage, and allowances for
house purchases must all be uniformly computed according to the policy dictating the land premium payable for the entire
residential plot, inclusive of land designated for ancillary facilities.
10
In this case, the withdrawing farmer requested the court to reconfirm the reclaimed area, but since the Land Resources Manage-
ment Sub-bureau was not an eligible defendant, the court explained the need to change the defendant in accordance with the law.
However, the plaintiff refused to do so, and the court ultimately ruled that the lawsuit should be dismissed.
11
In this case, the withdrawing farmer petitioned the villagers’ committee to award him a compensation of CNY 50,000 for the trees
located in the fruit grove adjacent to his homestead. Upon verifying that the villagers’ committee had indeed transferred the
agreed compensation for the trees to the withdrawing farmer’s account, as per the agreement, the court ultimately dismissed
the lawsuit.
12
In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff’s demand for the defendant to carry out statutory duties should be directed
towards the administrative body explicitly assigned such duties by laws, rules, and regulations. Whether the plaintiff referred to
the aforementioned regulations, opinions, approval documents, or the “Office of the State Council’s guidance notice forwarded
to the Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Water Resources on further improving the work of the
Huaihe River”, none of these specified that the county government bears the responsibility for coordinating the resettlement and
compensation of residents. Consequently, the court ultimately decided to dismiss the lawsuit.
13
In this case, the village committee disbursed the compensation intended for the withdrawal of two households to other villagers,
who then failed to transfer the funds to the rightful beneficiaries. This led to a dispute concerning unjust enrichment. The court
ultimately sided with the claimants, ordering the return of the unjustly enriched funds.
14
In this instance, the local government inadvertently made an operational error during payment processing, leading to an over-
payment. Consequently, the court ultimately sided with the local government’s petition for the recoupment of unjust enrichment.
References
1.
Chi, G.; Ho, H.C. Population stress: A spatiotemporal analysis of population change and land development at the county level in
the contiguous United States, 2001–2011. Land Use Policy 2018,70, 128–137. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Tong, Q.; Qiu, F. Population growth and land development: Investigating the bi-directional interactions. Ecol. Econ. 2020,169,
106505. [CrossRef]
3.
Kupidura, A.; Łuczewski, M.; Home, R.; Kupidura, P.A. Public perceptions of rural landscapes in land consolidation procedures
in Poland. Land Use Policy 2014,39, 313–319. [CrossRef]
4.
Muchova, Z.; Leitmanova, M.; Petrovic, F. Possibilities of optimal land use as a consequence of lessons learned from land
consolidation projects (Slovakia). Ecol. Eng. J. Ecotechnol. 2016,90, 294–306. [CrossRef]
5.
Pa Akarnis, G.; Morley, D.; Malien, V. Rural development and challenges establishing sustainable land use in Eastern European
countries. Land Use Policy 2013,30, 703–710. [CrossRef]
6.
Valbuena, D.; Verburg, P.; Veldkamp, A.; Bregt, A.K.; Ligtenberg, A. Effects of farmers’ decisions on the landscape structure of a
Dutch rural region: An agent-based approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010,97, 98–110. [CrossRef]
7.
Erickson, D.L.; Lovell, S.T.; Mendez, V.E. Landowner willingness to embed production agriculture and other land use options in
residential areas of Chittenden County, VT. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011,103, 174–184. [CrossRef]
8.
Lisec, A.; Primozic, T.; Ferlan, M.; Sumrada, R.; Drobne, S. Land owners’ perception of land consolidation and their satisfaction
with the results—Slovenian experiences. Land Use Policy 2014,38, 550–563. [CrossRef]
9.
Demetriou, D.; Stillwell, J.; See, L. Land consolidation in Cyprus: Why is an Integrated Planning and Decision Support System
required? Land Use Policy 2012,29, 131–142. [CrossRef]
10.
Hendricks, A.; Lisec, A. Land Consolidation for Large-Scale Infrastructure Projects in Germany. Geod. Vestn. 2014,58, 46–68.
[CrossRef]
11.
Gonda, N. Land grabbing and the making of an authoritarian populist regime in Hungary. J. Peasant Stud. 2019,46, 606–625.
[CrossRef]
12.
Cegielska, K.; Noszczyk, T.; Kukulska, A.; Szylar, M.; Hernik, J.; Dixon-Gough, R.; Jombach, S.; Valánszki, I.; Kovács, K.F. Land
use and land cover changes in post-socialist countries: Some observations from Hungary and Poland. Land Use Policy 2018,78,
1–18. [CrossRef]
13.
Janus, J.A.; Markuszewska, I. Land consolidation—A great need to improve effectiveness. A case study from Poland. Land Use
Policy 2017,65, 143–153. [CrossRef]
14.
Solecka, I.; Raszka, B.; Krajewski, P. Landscape analysis for sustainable land use policy: A case study in the municipality of
Popielow, Poland. Land Use Policy 2018,75, 116–126. [CrossRef]
15. Gao, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J. China’s initiatives towards rural land system reform. Land Use Policy 2020,94, 104567. [CrossRef]
16.
Zhao, Q.L.; Jiang, G.H.; Ma, W.Q.; Zhou, D.Y.; Qu, Y.B.; Yang, Y.T. Social security or profitability? Understanding multifunction
of rural housing land from farmers’ needs: Spatial differentiation and formation mechanism-Based on a survey of 613 typical
farmers in Pinggu District. Land Use Policy 2019,86, 91–103.
Land 2024,13, 1180 27 of 28
17.
Chen, H.; Zhao, L.; Zhao, Z. Influencing factors of farmers’ willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads: A survey in zhejiang,
China. Land Use Policy 2017,68, 524–530. [CrossRef]
18.
Liu, R.; Yu, C.; Jiang, J.; Huang, Z.; Jiang, Y. Farmer differentiation, generational differences and farmers’ behaviors to withdraw
from rural homesteads: Evidence from Chengdu, China. Habitat Int. 2020,103, 102231. [CrossRef]
19. Liu, Y.; Li, Y. Revitalize the world’s countryside. Nature 2017,548, 275–277. [CrossRef]
20.
Zehua, W.; Fachao, L.; Sheng-Hau, L. Can socially sustainable development be achieved through homestead withdrawal? A
hybrid multiple-attributes decision analysis. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023,10, 574.
21.
Li, T.; Long, H.; Liu, Y.; Tu, S. Multi-scale analysis of rural housing land transition under China’s rapid urbanization: The case of
Bohai Rim. Habitat Int. 2015,48, 227–238. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, L.; Fan, W. Rural Homesteads Withdrawal and Urban Housing Market: A Pilot Study in China. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Tr.
2020,56, 228–242. [CrossRef]
23.
Yu, J.; Li, J.; Lo, K.; Huang, S. Withdrawal Intention of Farmers from Vacant Rural Homesteads and Its Influencing Mechanism in
Northeast China: A Case Study of Jilin Province. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2023,33, 634–648. [CrossRef]
24.
Chen, Y.; Ni, X.; Liang, Y. The Influence of External Environment Factors on Farmers’ Willingness to Withdraw from Rural
Homesteads: Evidence from Wuhan and Suizhou City in Central China. Land 2022,11, 1602. [CrossRef]
25. Yuan, Z.; Fu, C.; Kong, S.; Du, J.; Li, W. Citizenship Ability, Homestead Utility, and Rural Homestead Transfer of “Amphibious”
Farmers. Sustainability 2022,14, 2067. [CrossRef]
26.
Liang, F.; Lin, C.; Lin, S. Farmers’ Livelihood, Risk Expectations, and Homestead Withdrawal Policy: Evidence on Jinjiang Pilot of
China. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2022,26, 56–71. [CrossRef]
27.
Zhao, Q.; Jiang, G.; Yang, Y.; Tian, Y.; Fan, L.; Zhou, T.; Tian, Y. Multifunction change of rural housing land in metropolitan
suburbs from the perspective of farmer households’ land-use behavior. Land Use Policy 2022,119, 106206. [CrossRef]
28.
Su, K.; Hu, B.; Shi, K.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, Q. The structural and functional evolution of rural homesteads in mountainous areas: A
case study of Sujiaying village in Yunnan province, China. Land Use Policy 2019,88, 104100. [CrossRef]
29.
Li, L.; Dong, Q.; Li, C. Research on Realization Mechanism of Land Value-Added Benefit Distribution Justice in Rural Homestead
Disputes in China-Based on the Perspective of Judicial Governance. Land 2023,12, 1305. [CrossRef]
30.
Wang, R.; Tan, R. Patterns of revenue distribution in rural residential land consolidation in contemporary China: The perspective
of property rights delineation. Land Use Policy 2020,97, 104742. [CrossRef]
31.
Gu, H.; He, Y.; Wang, B.; Qian, F.; Wu, Y. The Influence of Aging Population in Rural Families on Farmers’ Willingness to
Withdraw from Homesteads in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China. Land 2023,12, 1716. [CrossRef]
32.
Zhu, Y. Empirical Research on Satisfaction of Farmers with Different Income Status in Homestead Exchange Project. J. Anhui
Agric. Sci. 2008,36, 4272–4314.
33.
Fu, W.; Guo, J.; Ou, M.; Meng, L.; Yin, S. Cost-benefit, policy recognition and households’ compensation satisfaction of rural
settlements consolidation. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2017,27, 138–145.
34.
Yang, X.; Yong, Y.; Wang, X. A Study of Satisfaction Evaluation System of Residents in Replacement Residential Homestead Plot.
Huazhong Archit. 2010,1, 54–56.
35.
Hu, X.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, L. Satisfaction of the Rural Homestead Readjustment in the Context of the New Urbanization: A
Survey of Pengdun Village in Hubei Province. China Land Sci. 2014,28, 63–70.
36.
Li, M.; Fen, Y.; Tang, P. Study on Influential Factors of Farmers’ Satisfaction with Rural Homestead Withdrawal: Based on the
Survey Data of Typical Areas in Sichuan Province. West. Forum 2019,29, 45–54.
37.
Hu, Y.; Wu, X.; Wang, C.; Yu, Y.; Dong, W.; Xu, X. The Impact Factors of Rural Household Decision-making Behavior of Rural
Residential Land Paid-exit and Paid-use: Evidence from the Traditional Agricultural Regions of Yicheng City. China Land Sci.
2018,32, 22–29.
38.
Tang, Y.; Mason, R.J.; Sun, P. Interest distribution in the process of coordination of urban and rural construction land in China.
Habitat Int. 2012,36, 388–395. [CrossRef]
39.
Wang, X.; Kang, J. Decision Making and Influencing Factors in Withdrawal of Rural Residential Land-Use Rights in Suzhou,
Anhui Province, China. Land 2023,12, 479. [CrossRef]
40. Shi, R.; Hou, L.; Jia, B.; Jin, Y.; Zheng, W.; Wang, X.; Hou, X. Effect of Policy Cognition on the Intention of Villagers’ Withdrawal
from Rural Homesteads. Land 2022,11, 1356. [CrossRef]
41.
Yu, G.; Feng, J.; Che, Y.; Lin, X.; Hu, L.; Yang, S. The identification and assessment of ecological risks for land consolidation
based on the anticipation of ecosystem stabilization: A case study in Hubei Province, China. Land Use Policy 2010,27, 293–303.
[CrossRef]
42.
Wang, W.; Yu, L.; Zhou, W.; Marcouiller, D.W.; Luo, B. Estimating the mechanism of farmers’ effective participation in Chinese
rural land consolidation. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2019,11, 100–124. [CrossRef]
43.
Nguyen, T.T.; Hegedus, G.; Nguyen, T.L. Effect of Land Acquisition and Compensation on the Livelihoods of People in Quang
Ninh District, Quang Binh Province: Labor and Income. Land 2019,8, 91. [CrossRef]
44.
Hui, E.C.M.; Bao, H.J.; Zhang, X.L. The policy and praxis of compensation for land expropriations in China: An appraisal from
the perspective of social exclusion. Land Use Policy 2013,32, 309–316. [CrossRef]
45.
Bao, H.; Peng, Y. Effect of land expropriation on land-lost farmers’ entrepreneurial action: A case study of Zhejiang Province.
Habitat Int. 2016,53, 342–349. [CrossRef]
Land 2024,13, 1180 28 of 28
46. Mills, D.E. Transferable development rights markets. J. Urban Econ. 1980,7, 63–74. [CrossRef]
47.
Yang, C.; Chen, R.; Zhong, S.; Liu, W.; Xin, G. How social solidarity affects the outcomes of rural residential land consolidation:
Evidence from Yujiang County, South China. Land Use Policy 2023,130, 106662. [CrossRef]
48.
Fang, Y.; Shi, K.; Niu, C. A comparison of the means and ends of rural construction land consolidation: Case studies of villagers’
attitudes and behaviours in Changchun City, Jilin province, China. J. Rural Stud. 2016,47, 459–473. [CrossRef]
49.
Cheng, L.; Brown, G.; Liu, Y.; Searle, G. An evaluation of contemporary China’s land use policy—The Link Policy: A case study
from Ezhou, Hubei Province. Land Use Policy 2020,91, 104423. [CrossRef]
50.
Jiang, Y.; Waley, P.; Gonzalez, S. ‘Nice apartments, no jobs’: How former villagers experienced displacement and resettlement in
the western suburbs of Shanghai. Urban Stud. 2018,55, 3202–3217. [CrossRef]
51.
Li, Y.; Wu, W.; Liu, Y. Land consolidation for rural sustainability in China: Practical reflections and policy implications. Land. Use
Policy 2018,74, 137–141. [CrossRef]
52.
Lo, K.; Xue, L.; Wang, M. Spatial restructuring through poverty alleviation resettlement in rural China. J. Rural Stud. 2016,47,
496–505. [CrossRef]
53.
Tong, W.; Zhang, P.; Lo, K.; Chen, T.; Gao, R. Age-differentiated impact of land appropriation and resettlement on landless
farmers: A case study of Xinghua village, China. Geogr. Res. 2017,55, 293–304. [CrossRef]
54.
Lv, X. On the Policy Risks and Legal Countermeasures in the Rural Land Consolidation from the Perspective of Interests Protection
of Villagers(Residents). South China Rural Area 2013,30, 31–44.
55.
Wang, J.; Zhao, K.; Cui, Y.; Cao, H. Formal and Informal Institutions in Farmers’ Withdrawal from Rural Homesteads in China:
Heterogeneity Analysis Based on the Village Location. Land 2022,11, 1844. [CrossRef]
56. National Bureau of Statistics. 2023 China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2023.
57.
Wu, Y.; Mo, Z.; Peng, Y.; Skitmore, M. Market-driven land nationalization in China: A new system for the capitalization of rural
homesteads. Land Use Policy 2018,70, 559–569. [CrossRef]
58.
Huang, X.; Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, X. Land use policy as an instrument of rural resilience—The case of land withdrawal
mechanism for rural homesteads in China. Ecol. Indic. 2018,87, 47–55. [CrossRef]
59.
Tang, P.; Chen, J.; Gao, J.; Li, M.; Wang, J. What Role(s) Do Village Committees Play in the Withdrawal from Rural Homesteads?
Evidence from Sichuan Province in Western China. Land 2020,9, 477. [CrossRef]
60.
Xie, X.; Dries, L.; Heijman, W.; Zhang, A. Land value creation and benefit distribution in the process of rural-urban land
conversion: A case study in Wuhan City, China. Habitat Int. 2021,109, 102335. [CrossRef]
61.
Yan, L.; Lei, X.; Hong, K.; Li, H.; Chen, M. Improving Farmer Willingness to Participate in the Transfer of Land Rights in Rural
China: A Preference-Based Income Distribution Scheme. Land 2022,11, 379. [CrossRef]
62.
Zhang, Y.; Torre, A.; Ehrlich, M. Governance Structure of Rural Homestead Transfer in China: Government and/or Market? Land
2021,10, 745. [CrossRef]
63.
Yan, Y.; Yang, Q.; Su, K.; Bi, G.; Li, Y. Farmers’ Willingness to Gather Homesteads and the Influencing Factors—An Empirical
Study of Different Geomorphic Areas in Chongqing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 5252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64.
Zhou, C.; Banik, D. Access to Justice and Social Unrest in China’s Countryside: Disputes on Land Acquisition and Compensation.
Hague J. Rule Law 2014,6, 254–275. [CrossRef]
65.
Chen, T.; Zheng, A. Factors influencing paid withdrawal of rural homestead and psychological anxiety of farmers. Int. J. Ment.
Health Nurs. 2023,32, 84.
66.
Zhao, Y.; Cloutier, S.; Li, H. Farmers’ Economic Status and Satisfaction with Homestead Withdrawal Policy: Expectation and
Perceived Value. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 7110. [CrossRef]
67.
Dong, G.; Ge, Y.; Cao, H.; Zhai, R. Withdrawal and Transformation of Rural Homesteads in Traditional Agricultural Areas of
China Based on Supply-Demand Balance Analysis. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022,10, 897514. [CrossRef]
68.
Qi, W.; Li, Z.; Yin, C. Response Mechanism of Farmers’ Livelihood Capital to the Compensation for Rural Homestead Withdrawal-
Empirical Evidence from Xuzhou City, China. Land 2022,11, 2149. [CrossRef]
69.
Liu, R.; Jiang, J.; Yu, C.; Rodenbiker, J.; Jiang, Y. The endowment effect accompanying villagers’ withdrawal from rural homesteads:
Field evidence from Chengdu, China. Land Use Policy 2021,101, 105107. [CrossRef]
70.
Zhou, Y.; Guo, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wu, W.; Li, Y. Targeted poverty alleviation and land policy innovation: Some practice and policy
implications from China. Land Use Policy 2018,74, 53–65. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
