Responses of Household Behavior to the Land Consolidation Project Based on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

Zhen Zhang; Chao Fu Wei; Jin Quan Gao

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.610-613.3821

Paper Titles

A Study on the Spatial Relationship between Rural Tourist Destination and Large Cities in China
p.3789

Spatial Distribution and Contribution Segregation of Hg and Cd in the Soils in the Chemical Industry Park and its Surrounding Areas
p.3797

A Study on the Scale of Land Renovation Based on Low-Carbon Limited in Guangzhou
p.3803

Research on the Public Transport Integration of Major Western Region Cities – A Case Study on Bus Connection with Subway Line 6 in Chonqing
p.3809

LIDL^®: the Implementation and Operation Environment of Spatial Arrangement of Urban and Rural Land Resources
p.3814

Responses of Household Behavior to the Land Consolidation Project Based on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
p.3821

Scenario Analysis in Coastal Wetland Development: a Case Study in Xiangshan Bay
p.3826

The Application of Landscape Ecology in Campus Landscape Planning
p.3832

Desorption Characteristics of Crude Oil in Oil-Contaminated Chernozem
p.3837

HomeAdvanced Materials ResearchAdvanced Materials Research Vols. 610-613Responses of Household Behavior to the Land...

Responses of Household Behavior to the Land Consolidation Project Based on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

Abstract:

Farmers are the direct pusher to ensure the implementation of land consolidation. Therefore, research on the change of farmers’ behavior in land consolidation becomes important. Taking the land consolidation in Gaolong town in Hechuan of Chongqing, China as the example, the objectives of this paper was to analyze technology efficiency, scale efficiency and total factor productivity trend of farmers’ behavior and willingness corresponding to land consolidation using Malmquist-DEA and C2R-DEA model, respectively. The results indicated that technical progress was the main factor to constrain the development, and technologies innovation was still low. Technical efficiency, pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency were all greater than 1, which illustrated the relative reasonable management level and resources allocation. The response type was positive for most farmers, and the farmers with weak and negative response were affected by family average quality, the attitude of staffs, efficiency of output compared to input, etc.