Evaluation of Risks Related to Transfer of Rural Housing Land for Tourism Development in the Context of “Separation of Three Rights” Reform in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, based on a field survey on typical villages in a Chinese metropolis suburb, we employ a risk matrix and the Borda ranking method to evaluate risks related to transfer of rural housing land for tourism development from the perspectives of different stakeholders. We also make suggestions regarding how to standardize transfers and revitalize utilization of rural housing land use rights. Combining qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis, the risk matrix determines the various risk levels faced by different stakeholders in the circulation of rural housing land for tourism development from two dimensions: risk impact degree and risk occurrence probability. Then, the Borda ranking method can subdivide the risk types within each risk level, thus identifying the most critical risks. Our results indicate that (1) unfair distribution of income from land transfers is the major risk faced by farm households and directly decides their willingness to transfer their housing land; (2) market instability is the prime risk factor faced by social investors, and together with project progress risk, indirectly leads to occurrence of operation risk and severely affects the motivation of social investors to invest in transfer, development and operation of rural housing land for tourism development; (3) disappearance of countryside characteristics is the critical risk factor faced by village collectives, and coordination and management risk is the main impediment that blocks the process of transfer of rural housing land for tourism development; and (4) other risks confronted by stakeholders in land transfer, although not the main ones, still need to be granted great importance and followed up closely. Therefore, it is necessary not only to establish appropriate risk avoidance measures for different critical risk factors faced by different stakeholders of such land transfers, but also to strengthen study of the association between the risks, identify the conduction effect of direct and indirect risks, macro and micro risks, and before action and after action risks, and improve the ability to prevent and mitigate these risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".