伴随着改革开放的不断深入和城市化的快速推进，为了更好的拓宽经济来源、提高经济收入水平，大量农村人口开始从农村向城镇迁移。自1997年至2023年底，我国外出务工的农民工数量从0.39亿增加至1.77亿。在现行的宅基地制度和农民的传统观念双重限制下，这些农村人口往往选择在城乡之间“两栖”生活，宅基地常处于闲置状态，造成了农村村庄人口和土地两个维度的空心化现象严重。近年来，为了促进农业转移人口有序市民化、提高宅基地资源的有效利用率，进而为乡村振兴提供土地资源、助力乡村产业发展，在各项政策支持下，宅基地有偿退出工作逐渐成为各级政府工作的重难点。那么现有的村庄空心化现象对于宅基地有偿退出工作究竟有何可能存在的影响？目前实践中仍陷入僵局。农户作为宅基地退出的主体，其真实意愿是宅基地退出和改革成功与否的关键。

围绕上述议题，本文选取安徽省滁州市来安县三城镇8个村的村庄层面数据与277户农户的微观调研数据，采用条件价值评估法（CVM）和实地问卷调查法，通过实证分析村庄空心化对农户宅基地退出受偿意愿的影响。首先，基于感知价值理论、新迁移经济理论以及农户行为理论，构建了分析框架；其次，采用综合测评法从人口结构和土地利用两个维度对村庄空心化的指标体系进行构建，并运用层次分析法确定指标权重，得到各村空心化水平指数；最后，在实地问卷调研的基础上，基于特定情境下运用条件价值评估法度量农户对宅基地退出的最低补偿价格，并通过实证分析揭示村庄空心化对农户宅基地退出受偿意愿的影响规律，探讨农户对宅基地功能价值认知在其中的中介效应。

本文的主要研究结论如下：

（1）农村村庄空心化水平在整体上呈现边远村＞远郊村＞近郊村的趋势。这主要是因为相较于近郊村，远离城镇中心的村庄因自然和经济条件限制，农户更愿意迁往城镇工作生活，进而引发村庄空心化。

（2）当前宅基地退出补偿标准与农户的受偿意愿之间存在显著差异。实地调研显示，三城镇农户宅基地退出的平均受偿意愿为757.54元/m²，中位数为779.82元/m²，远高于来安县政府的256.3元/m²补偿标准，严重阻碍了农村宅基地的有效退出。这相较于以前研究中简单的农户宅基地退出意愿更能突显出宅基地有偿退出过程中政策与实践的相错。

（3）村庄空心化现象对农户宅基地退出受偿意愿具有显著的负相关性。控制其他因素，村庄空心化水平每增加1个单位，农户宅基地退出补偿意愿降3.45个单位，结果稳健。异质性分析显示，年轻农户、接受过职业技术培训的农户、社会网络在城镇的农户，空心化对其补偿意愿的负面影响更显著。农户家庭抚养人口数、年总收入、宅基地面积、使用年限、所有权认知、政策了解程度及风险偏好等因素也可能影响受偿意愿。因此，制定宅基地退出补偿政策时，需考虑村庄和农户实际情况，确保政策合理可行。

（4）农户对宅基地的功能价值认知在村庄空心化与农户宅基地退出受偿意愿之间发挥了部分中介作用。因此，明确农户对宅基地功能价值的认知，是促进宅基地退出机制的关键路径。

基于上述结论，本文建议：一是在农户宅基地退出补偿过程中，应依据实际情况进行有序的分类推进，优先考虑空心化程度严重的村庄；二是合理评估宅基地各项功能价值，引导农民形成正当的退出补偿预期；三是推动农村居民向城市居民身份的转化，确保其在城市中的生存与发展需求得到实质性的保障。

With the continuous deepening of reform and opening up and the rapid advancement of urbanization, in order to better broaden economic sources and improve economic income levels, a large number of rural populations have begun to migrate from rural areas to cities. From 1997 to the end of 2023, the number of migrant workers working abroad in China has increased from 39 million to 177 million. Under the dual limitations of the current homestead system and traditional beliefs of farmers, these rural populations often choose to live in an "amphibious" manner between urban and rural areas. Homesteads are often idle, resulting in a serious hollowing out of the population and land dimensions in rural villages. In recent years, in order to promote the orderly urbanization of agricultural transfer population, improve the effective utilization rate of homestead resources, and provide land resources for rural revitalization and support the development of rural industries, with the support of various policies, the paid withdrawal of homestead has gradually become a key and difficult point for governments at all levels. So, what are the possible impacts of the existing hollowing out of villages on the paid withdrawal of homestead land? At present, there is still a deadlock in practice. As the main body of rural households withdrawing from homesteads, their true willingness is the key to the success of homestead withdrawal and reform.

Based on the above issues, this article selects village level data from 8 villages in Sancheng Town, Lai'an County, Chuzhou City, Anhui Province, and micro survey data from 277 households. Using the contingent valuation method (CVM) and on-site questionnaire survey method, the article empirically analyzes the impact of village hollowing out on the willingness of farmers to receive compensation for their homesteads. Firstly, based on the theory of perceived value, the theory of new migration economy, and the theory of farmer behavior, an analytical framework was constructed; Secondly, a comprehensive evaluation method is adopted to construct an indicator system for village hollowing out from two dimensions: population structure and land use. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to determine the weight of the indicators and obtain the hollowing out level index for each village; Finally, based on on-site questionnaire surveys, the conditional valuation method was used to measure the minimum compensation price for farmers to withdraw from homestead land in specific contexts. Empirical analysis was conducted to reveal the impact of village hollowing out on farmers' willingness to withdraw from homestead land and explore the mediating effect of farmers' perception of the functional value of homestead land.

The main research conclusions of this article are as follows:

(1) The level of hollowing out of rural villages shows an overall trend of remote village > suburban village > near-suburban village. This is mainly because compared to near-suburban village, villages far away from the city center are more willing to move to urban areas for work and life due to natural and economic limitations, which leads to the hollowing out of villages.

(2) There is a significant difference between the current compensation standards for the withdrawal of homestead land and the willingness of farmers to receive compensation. Field research shows that the average willingness to receive compensation for the withdrawal of rural homesteads in the three cities is 757.54 yuan/m ², with a median of 779.82 yuan/m ², which is much higher than the compensation standard of 256.3 yuan/m ² set by the Lai'an County government, seriously hindering the effective withdrawal of rural homesteads. Compared to previous studies that simply focused on farmers' willingness to withdraw from homesteads, this highlights the mismatch between policies and practices in the process of compensated withdrawal of homesteads.

(3) The phenomenon of village hollowing out has a significant negative correlation with the willingness of farmers to withdraw from their homesteads for compensation. Controlling for other factors, for every 1 unit increase in the level of village hollowing out, the willingness of farmers to withdraw their homestead compensation decreases by 3.45 units, and the results are stable. Heterogeneity analysis shows that the negative impact of hollowing out on compensation willingness is more significant for young farmers, farmers who have received vocational and technical training, and farmers with social networks in urban areas. Factors such as the number of dependents, annual total income, area of homestead land, usage period, ownership awareness, level of policy understanding, and risk preference of rural households may also affect their willingness to receive compensation. Therefore, when formulating compensation policies for the withdrawal of homesteads, it is necessary to consider the actual situation of villages and farmers to ensure that the policies are reasonable and feasible.

(4) Farmers' perception of the functional value of homestead land plays a partial mediating role between the hollowing out of villages and their willingness to withdraw from compensation for homestead land. Therefore, clarifying farmers' understanding of the functional value of homestead land is a key path to promoting the exit mechanism of homestead land.

Based on the above conclusions, this article suggests that: firstly, in the process of compensating farmers for the withdrawal of their homesteads, orderly classification should be carried out according to the actual situation, and priority should be given to villages with severe hollowing out; The second is to reasonably evaluate the functional value of homestead land and guide farmers to form a legitimate expectation of compensation for withdrawal; The third is to promote the transformation of rural residents into urban residents, ensuring that their survival and development needs in the city are substantially guaranteed.

中文论文

[1] 白俊红, 张艺璇, 卞元超. 创新驱动政策是否提升城市创业活跃度——来自国家创新型城市试点政策的经验证据[J]. 中国工业经济. 2022(6): 61-78.

[2] 蔡银莺, 张安录. 基于农户受偿意愿的农田生态补偿额度测算——以武汉市的调查为实证[J]. 自然资源学报. 2011, 26(02): 177-189.

[3] 陈鹏. 农村宅基地退出驱动力及机制研究[D]. 东北农业大学. 2019.

[4] 程连生, 冯文勇, 蒋立宏. 太原盆地东南部农村聚落空心化机理分析[J]. 地理学报. 2001(04): 437-446.

[5] 程文仕, 曹春, 陈英, 张仁陟, 张军, 蔡立群. 意愿调查法在征地区片综合地价评估中的应用——以兰州市安宁区城市规划区征地区片综合地价评估为例[J]. 中国土地科学. 2006(05): 20-25.

[6] 崔继昌, 郭贯成, 张辉. 宅基地集约利用的空心化格局:华北平原典型村庄的微观尺度分析[J]. 干旱区资源与环境. 2023, 37(05): 94-103.

[7] 傅熠华. 农民工农村宅基地退出的决策逻辑——基于全国2328户农民工家庭的实证研究[J]. 经济体制改革. 2018(06): 70-75.

[8] 高杨, 赵端阳, 于丽丽. 家庭农场绿色防控技术政策偏好与补偿意愿[J]. 资源科学. 2019, 41(10): 1837-1848.

[9] 戈晨曦, 员学锋, 马超群, 徐和平, 任朝霞. 黄土丘陵沟壑区空心村土地整治潜力及空间重构[J]. 水土保持研究. 2020, 27(06): 285-292.

[10] 龚宏龄, 林铭海. 农民的异质化特征对宅基地退出补偿偏好的影响——基于大足和涪陵两地的调研数据[J]. 农村经济. 2019(02): 31-38.

[11] 郭贯成, 李金景. 经济欠发达地区农村宅基地流转的地域差异研究——以河北省张家口市为例[J]. 资源科学. 2014, 36(06): 1229-1234.

[12] 贺晓英, 谷耀鹏, 陈家伟. 陕西省农户宅基地退出意愿及其影响因素研究[J]. 西安工业大学学报. 2017, 37(07): 550-555.

[13] 胡银根, 杨春梅, 董文静, 齐琪, 张也, 林书达. 基于感知价值理论的农户宅基地有偿退出决策行为研究——以安徽省金寨县典型试点区为例[J]. 资源科学. 2020, 42(04): 685-695.

[14] 胡银根, 张曼, 魏西云, 刘彦随, 徐小峰, 何安琪. 农村宅基地退出的补偿测算——以商丘市农村地区为例[J]. 中国土地科学. 2013, 27(03): 29-35.

[15] 贾宁凤, 白怡鸽, 乔陆印, 曹蓉, 姚春龙. 农村闲置宅基地空间分异及其驱动因素——以山西省长子县为例[J]. 经济地理. 2020, 40(12): 166-173.

[16] 孔东菊. 户籍改革背景下农村宅基地退出机制研究[J]. 华南农业大学学报(社会科学版). 2014, 13(04): 46-53.

[17] 邝佛缘, 陈美球. 风险预期、生计资本对农户宅基地退出意愿的影响及其代际差异——基于江西省456份农户调查数据[J]. 农林经济管理学报. 2021, 20(01): 92-101.

[18] 李建强, 杨雨山, 唐鹏. 政策激励与农户宅基地退出方式选择——基于四川典型地区的调查与分析[J]. 四川农业大学学报. 2019, 37(05): 734-742.

[19] 李俊霞. 人口大规模流出对农村家庭结构的影响及对策研究——基于四川省的数据[J]. 农村经济. 2017(11): 96-102.

[20] 李宁宁. 拜泉县农村多维空心化及治理对策研究[D]. 东北农业大学. 2022.

[21] 李田, 罗琳, 任平. 浅谈“空心村”的形成及整治措施[J]. 华商. 2008(15): 171-172.

[22] 刘丹, 巩前文. 功能价值视角下农民宅基地自愿有偿退出补偿标准测算方法[J]. 中国农业大学学报. 2020, 25(12): 173-183.

[23] 刘华芹. “空心村”的两种类型与乡村振兴路径——基于河南A村与山东B村的比较研究[J]. 湖北民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版). 2022, 40(01): 97-106.

[24] 刘继来, 刘彦随, 李裕瑞, 胡银根. 2007—2015年中国农村居民点用地与农村人口时空耦合关系[J]. 自然资源学报. 2018, 33(11): 1861-1871.

[25] 刘双良, 秦玉莹. 农民阶层分化背景下宅基地流转与农民住房保障联动的内在逻辑与传导路径[J]. 农村经济. 2020(01): 32-38.

[26] 刘彦随. 中国新时代城乡融合与乡村振兴[J]. 地理学报. 2018, 73(04): 637-650.

[27] 刘彦随, 刘玉. 中国农村空心化问题研究的进展与展望[J]. 地理研究. 2010, 29(01): 35-42.

[28] 路雅文, 张正河. 1978—2016年农村人口迁移的社会网络分析:来自中部人口流出大省C村的证据[J]. 农业经济问题. 2018(03): 87-97.

[29] 罗湖平, 何媛媛. 新发展格局下宅基地使用权有偿退出的法律制度构建研究[J]. 岭南师范学院学报. 2023, 44(01): 73-79.

[30] 罗伟玲, 刘禹麒. 基于产权的宅基地退出机制研究[J]. 国土资源科技管理. 2010, 27(03): 122-126.

[31] 毛燕玲, 曾文博, 余国松, 肖教燎. 基于改进区间Shapley值的农村宅基地退出收益分配方法[J]. 中国地质大学学报(社会科学版). 2015, 15(05): 104-114.

[32] 牟月华. 乡村空心化过程与乡村重构研究[D]. 西南科技大学. 2020.

[33] 庞洁, 靳乐山. 基于渔民受偿意愿的鄱阳湖禁捕补偿标准研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境. 2020, 30(07): 169-176.

[34] 彭小霞. 农民参与农村土地征收:理论基础、现实困境及路径选择[J]. 农村经济. 2013(06): 104-107.

[35] 丘水林, 靳乐山. 生态保护红线区人为活动限制补偿标准及其影响因素——以农户受偿意愿为视角[J]. 中国土地科学. 2021, 35(07): 89-97.

[36] 曲衍波, 赵丽鋆, 柴异凡, 李砚芬, 朱伟亚, 平宗莉. 乡村振兴视角下空心村多维形态识别与分类治理——以山东省禹城市房寺镇为例[J]. 资源科学. 2021, 43(04): 776-789.

[37] 全世文, 刘媛媛. 农业废弃物资源化利用:补偿方式会影响补偿标准吗?[J]. 中国农村经济. 2017(04): 13-29.

[38] 史卫民, 曹姣. 论农村闲置宅基地与农房收储的制度构建[J]. 经济纵横. 2021(10): 114-121.

[39] 史卫民, 胡睿. 城乡融合发展中农村宅基地退出的法律完善[J]. 重庆社会科学. 2020(09): 106-118.

[40] 舒丽琼, 刘颖, 唐晨珂. 凉山州会东县农村人口空心化测度及影响因素研究[J]. 山地学报. 2021, 39(06): 901-911.

[41] 孙博, 段伟, 丁慧敏, 冯彦, 温亚利. 基于选择实验法的湿地保护区农户生态补偿偏好分析——以陕西汉中朱鹮国家级自然保护区周边社区为例[J]. 资源科学. 2017, 39(09): 1792-1800.

[42] 孙鹏飞, 赵凯. 社会资本对农户宅基地退出行为的影响——基于安徽省金寨县的调研数据[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版). 2020, 20(05): 128-141.

[43] 王孟翰, 刘兆德, 孙雯雯. 济宁市农村综合空心化影响因素与机制研究[J]. 中国农业资源与区划. 2021, 42(05): 149-158.

[44] 王雨婷, 王建国, 董会和, 薛宇超, 何睿, 张洪鑫, 王明常. 吉林省平原区村落空心化特征及发展建议[J]. 资源开发与市场. 2021, 37(02): 146-152.

[45] 王兆林, 杨庆媛, 骆东奇. 农民宅基地退出差异性受偿意愿及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国土地科学. 2018, 32(09): 28-34.

[46] 吴郁玲, 于亿亿, 洪建国. 产权让渡、价值实现与宅基地退出收益分享——基于金寨、余江的实地调查[J]. 中国农村经济. 2022(04): 42-63.

[47] 夏敏, 林庶民, 郭贯成. 不同经济发展水平地区农民宅基地退出意愿的影响因素——以江苏省7个市为例[J]. 资源科学. 2016, 38(04): 728-737.

[48] 邢姝媛. 农村宅基地退出补偿机制建立研究——以陕西省为例[J]. 中国农业资源与区划. 2016, 37(01): 115-119.

[49] 徐大伟, 刘春燕, 常亮. 流域生态补偿意愿的WTP与WTA差异性研究:基于辽河中游地区居民的CVM调查[J]. 自然资源学报. 2013, 28(03): 402-409.

[50] 许恒周. 基于农户受偿意愿的宅基地退出补偿及影响因素分析——以山东省临清市为例[J]. 中国土地科学. 2012, 26(10): 75-81.

[51] 杨忍, 刘彦随, 陈秧分. 中国农村空心化综合测度与分区[J]. 地理研究. 2012, 31(09): 1697-1706.

[52] 杨永华. 舒尔茨的《改造传统农业》与中国三农问题[J]. 南京社会科学. 2003(09): 28-31.

[53] 杨照东, 任义科, 杜海峰. 确权、多种补偿与农民工退出农村意愿[J]. 中国农村观察. 2019(02): 93-109.

[54] 于伟, 刘本城, 宋金平. 城镇化进程中农户宅基地退出的决策行为及影响因素[J]. 地理研究. 2016, 35(03): 551-560.

[55] 俞立平, 郑昆. 期刊评价中不同客观赋权法权重比较及其思考[J]. 现代情报. 2021, 41(12): 121-130.

[56] 俞振宁, 谭永忠, 吴次芳, 张晓滨. 基于兼业分化视角的农户耕地轮作休耕受偿意愿分析——以浙江省嘉善县为例[J]. 中国土地科学. 2017, 31(09): 43-51.

[57] 岳永兵. 闲置宅基地形成机理、规模测算与整治前景——基于宅基地闲置类型的讨论[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版). 2024, 24(03): 95-103.

[58] 岳永兵, 黄洁, 张超宇. 宅基地换房过程中宅基地价值补偿的思考[J]. 国土资源科技管理. 2011, 28(04): 95-99.

[59] 张凤荣. 坚持以人民为中心的宅基地制度改革方向——《基于农户视角的平原农区空心化村庄宅基地退出模式研究》书评[J]. 中国土地科学. 2023, 37(08): 134-136.

[60] 张贵友. 乡村振兴背景下“空心村”治理对策研究——基于安徽省的调查[J]. 江淮论坛. 2019(05): 37-42.

[61] 张慧利, 夏显力. 农村劳动力流动如何影响农户宅基地退出行为?[J]. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版). 2022, 22(01): 139-148.

[62] 张文方, 李林. 广州市宅基地流转意愿的影响因素——基于宅基地功能演变视角[J]. 江苏农业科学. 2017, 45(03): 299-302.

[63] 赵林玉. 农村闲置宅基地价值构成及其退出补偿对价研究[D]. 东北农业大学. 2021.

[64] 赵林玉, 冯广京, 谢莹. 农村宅基地价值构成及其退出补偿对价研究[J]. 农业经济问题. 2021(08): 104-112.

[65] 甄小鹏, 凌晨. 农村劳动力流动对农村收入及收入差距的影响——基于劳动异质性的视角[J]. 经济学(季刊). 2017, 16(03): 1073-1096.

[66] 周晨, 丁晓辉, 李国平, 唐萍萍, 彭晓邦. 流域生态补偿中的农户受偿意愿研究——以南水北调中线工程陕南水源区为例[J]. 中国土地科学. 2015, 29(08): 63-72.

[67] 朱新华. 户籍制度对农户宅基地退出意愿的影响[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境. 2014, 24(10): 129-134.

[68] 朱臻, 徐志刚, 沈月琴, 占菁, 李博伟, 陈梅. 非农就业对南方集体林区不同规模林农营林轮伐期的影响[J]. 自然资源学报. 2019, 34(02): 236-249.

[69] 邹伟, 王子坤, 徐博, 张兵良. 农户分化对农村宅基地退出行为影响研究——基于江苏省1456个农户的调查[J]. 中国土地科学. 2017, 31(05): 31-37.

[70] 钱龙, 陈方丽, 卢海阳, 钱文荣. 城市人"身份认同"对农村宅基地使用权流转的影响研究 ——基于浙江温州农户的调查[J]. 农业技术经济. 2019(8): 40-52.

[71] 彭山桂, 孙昊, 王健, 张勇. 农户互动对农村宅基地退出补偿的影响——基于社会网络视角[J]. 资源科学. 2021, 43(07): 1440-1453.

外文著作

[72] KIM C H. The ecological impact of the korean saemaul (new rural community) movement,1970-1979[M]: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2015.

[73] MATANLE P. Ageing and depopulation in japan: understanding the consequences for east and southeast asia in the 21st century[M]: Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2014.

[74] WALSH R G. Recreation economic decisions: comparing benefits and costs[M]. Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, 1986.

外文论文

[75] CARSON R T. Contingent valuation:  a user's guide[J]. Environmental science & technology, 2000. 34(8): 1413-1418.

[76] CHANEY P, SHERWOOD K. The resale of right to buy dwellings: a case study of migration and social change in rural England[J]. Journal of rural studies, 2000. 16(1): 79-94.

[77] DUTT A K, ACHMATOWICZ-OTOK A, MUKHOPADHYAY A, CARNEY M C. Urban and rural housing characteristics of Poland[J]. Landscape Urban Planning, 1992(22): 153-160.

[78] GRÖNROOS C. Value-driven relational marketing: From products to resources and competencies[J]. Journal of marketing management, 1997. 13(5): 407-419.

[79] HOLBROOK M B. Consumer value：A framework for analysis and research[J]. Psychology And Marketing, 1999. 2(16): 93-96.

[80] LIANG Z, MA Z. China's floating population: new evidence from the 2000 census[J]. Population and Development Review, 2004. 30(3): 467-488.

[81] STARK O. Rural-to-urban migration in LDCS: a relative deprivation approach[J]. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1984. 32(3): 475-486.

[82] STARK O, BLOOM D E. The new economics of labor migration[J]. The American Economic review, 1985. 75(2): 173-178.

[83] STARK O, TAYLOR J E. Migration incentives, migration types: the role of relative deprivation[J]. The Economic Journal, 1991. 101(408): 1163-1178.

[84] TAYLOR J E. The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration process[J]. Int Migr, 1999. 37(1): 63-88.

[85] ZEITHAML V A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1988. 52(3): 2-22.