Life satisfaction approach to farmers’ compensation for land acquisition: empirical study from the suburbs of Wuhan City

Farmers’ compensation for land acquisition is not only critical to increasing their income and to playing a pivotal role in maintaining rural stability, but also to the promotion of sustainable land use. Based on analysis of Chinese land acquisition policy under the Land Management Law, which provides principles or guidelines for determining compensation according to agricultural land use in regard to farmers’ previous quality of life, the Life Satisfaction Approach is introduced in this article to evaluate farmers’ compensation for land acquisition. Employing data from a questionnaire survey on 346 farming households in Wuhan Suburbs, this article examined the influence of farmland on farmers’ life satisfaction and evaluated the level of compensation for land acquisition. Results show that farmland has a significantly positive impact on life satisfaction, which fell by 0.033 on a five-point scale following a reduction farmland by of 1 mu. Respondents were willing to accept approximately RMB 3066.44 annual household income for the loss of 1 mu farmland; the level of compensation after discounting by 6.2% is RMB 750,000 per hectare. It was found in a further comparative study that the level of farmers’ compensation for land acquisition is decidedly low, and it was also shown that their compensation standards, as well as the actual compensation, could be substantially improved by expanding economic compensation to non-economic compensation to embody farmland multifunction in terms of production and non-production against farmers’ previous quality of life. This article proposes a compensation model that enriches the content of land acquisition compensation, extends the current literature on measuring compensation, and provides economic theory bases for increasing compensation standards and improving policies related to land acquisition. We consider that if this compensation model is applied, it could raise the cost of land acquisition and improve usage of land, reduce the speed of rural–urban land conversion, and improve farmers’ well-being.     

基于事故分析的公路限高门架警告标志优化设置*

为优化设置公路限高门架警告标志,利用Kruskal-Wallis检验与二元logistic回归分析,从工效学及人因工程学角度剖析事故原因,基于大型车辆驾驶员视认特征与道路交通环境特点,提出警告标志前置设置最低要求,构建考虑大型车辆驾驶员视认角度标志前置距离模型,并提出预防措施。结果表明:限高门架高度警示标志设置不规范,导致停车安全距离不足,标志视认能力下降;根据模型得出公路限高门架警告标志前置参考距离,验证模型有效性,并有针对性提出限高门架警示标志优化设置意见。研究结果可为公路限高门架警告标志设置提供参考和借鉴。     

Balancing making a difference with making a living in the conservation sector

Goals play important roles in people's lives because they focus attention, mobilize effort, and sustain motivation. Understanding conservationists’ satisfaction with goal progress may provide insights into real-world environmental trends and flag risks to their well-being and motivation. We asked 2694 conservationists working globally how satisfied they were with progress toward goals important to them. We then explored how this satisfaction varied among groups, including demographic and occupational. Finally, we looked at respondents' experiences associated with goal-progress satisfaction. Many (94.0%) indicated that making a meaningful contribution to conservation was an important goal for them, and over half were satisfied or very satisfied in this area (52.5%). However, respondents were generally dissatisfied with progress on collective conservation goals (e.g., stopping species loss). Some groups were more likely to report dissatisfaction than others. For instance, those in conservation for longer tended to be less satisfied with collective goal progress (log odds –0.21, 95% credibility interval [CI] –0.32 to –0.10), but practitioners reported greater satisfaction (log odds 0.38, 95% CI 0.15–0.60). Likewise, those who were more optimistic in life (log odds 0.24, 95% CI 0.17–0.32), male (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.10–0.41), and working in conservation practice (log odds 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.43) reported greater satisfaction with individual goal progress. Free-text responses suggested widespread dissatisfaction with livelihood goals, particularly related to job security and adequate compensation. Although contributing to conservation appeared to be a source of satisfaction, slow goal progress in other areas––particularly around making a living––looked to be a source of distress and demotivation. Employers, funders, professional societies, and others should consider ways to help those in the sector make a difference while making a satisfactory living by, for example, prioritizing conservationists′ well-being when allocating funding. This support could include avoiding exploitative practices, fostering supportive work environments, and celebrating positive outcomes.