土地利用规划中“迁村并点”的公众参与--以北京市海淀北部地区为例

Public Participation in Village Relocation and Annexation in Land Use Planning:A Case Study of Northern Haidian District of Beijing Municipality

论文探讨了土地利用规划中村庄迁并工作的公众参与方法、结果和结论。首先,运用自助法(Bootstrap)抽取了北京市海淀北部地区15个村的150家农户,然后通过问卷调查的形式让农民参与到土地利用规划中村庄迁并方案的制定之中。问卷调查的内容主要涉及到了农村村民的基本情况、居住现状,村民对土地利用规划中村庄迁并模式、房屋拆迁安置方式的看法等几个方面的内容。问卷调查的结果表明:①64.67%的农民对于目前的居住现状表示非常满意或比较满意,表示不太满意和很不满意的只有12.00%;②38.90%的农民表示愿意居住楼房,而不愿意居住楼房的农民比例则达到61.10%;随着文化程度的增加、年龄的降低、收入的降低,农民愿意居住楼房的比例逐渐上升;③农村房屋拆迁后,希望得到货币、房屋和另行审批宅基地安置方式的农民比例分别为20%、32.94%和44.71%;假如农民失去耕地,56.94%的农民希望政府帮助解决社会保险,25%的农民希望解决就业,其他选择较少。由此,我们可以得出以下结论:①村庄的迁并工作应该谨慎进行;②村庄的迁并模式应该多元化,不应过分强调居住楼房;③房屋拆迁安置方式应自主化,征地应社会保障先行。

Due to China＇s rapid urbanization, relocation and annexation of villages in urban suburbs is an important and relevant topic. Recently, lots of village relocation and annexation （VRA） projects have been implemented by the government as part of land use planning. But due to a lack of farmer participation, farmers＇ benefits were minimally considered in these projects. Many farmers were obliged to move from their original residences （mostly bungalows） to multi-story buildings. Due to low incomes and high expenses in the new buildings （such as heating fees and management fees）, farmers acquire little benefit from this move. In many sites, relocation actually increases poverty. This leads to conflicts between government and farmers and contributes to societal instability. In order to making VRA projects scientific and rational, it is important to investigate and reflect farmers＇ preferences. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the approach, results and conclusions of public participation in VRA. The bootstrap method was used to sample 150 farmers from 15 villages. Farmers participated in the VRA projects by answering questionnaires on topics including farmers＇ basic situation, residential choice, and preferred compensation for relocation. The results showed that 64.67 % of farmers are very satisfied or relatively satisfied with their living status and only 12% of farmers are not satisfied. Only 38.9% of farmers are wiling to reside in multistory buildings and 61.1% of farmers are not willing. With increased education level, younger age, or lower incomes, the proportion of farmers who are willing to reside in these buildings increases. When farmers＇ houses are dismantled, the proportion of farmers who want to get money, new house and another plot of rural land are 20%, 32.94% and 44.71% respectively. When farmers lose their arable land, 56.94 % of farmers want to get social insurance and 25 % of farmers want to get new jobs. We suggest that VRA projects should be conducted carefully, and that modes of VRA should be diverse and not overly focused on residing in multi-story buildings. Also, farmers should be given the right to choose the means of compensation for relocation and a social insurance system should be established before land expropriation. Overall, farmers＇ choices should be considered when implementing VRA projects.