Measurement of Peasants ’ Satisfaction with the Compensation for Land Acquisition in the Chinese Mainland in the Last Thirty Years

Based on theories and documents, initial quantization table of peasants’ land acquisition compensation satisfaction has been developed. It consists of compensation standard, compensation procedure, compensation mode, and compensation distribution. Through on-spot interviews and pre-tested questionnaires, the final scale is determined. After the questionnaire surveys and primary component analysis, ultimately, we conclude that compensation degree, compensation procedure, and compensation mode are the main dimensions of the peasants’ satisfaction with the compensation for land acquisition. This reliable operating tool makes up for the limits of situational specificity and shortcoming of recognition inconsistence of land acquisition compensation from the current bibliography, and promotes in-depth research and theorizations of land-acquisition compensation.


Introduction
The essence of land acquisition is the redistribution of land property among the peasants whose lands are acquisitioned by the government.Other members of the village, land developers, and such local administrations, as village cadres, township and counties all tried their best to maximize their own benefits.In the existing property right and institutional framework, government's forcible land acquisition act does not protect famers' wish.This leads to endless disputes.Yu Jianrong 于建嵘 pointed out that rural land disputes had replaced tax disputes and currently become the main reason for peasants' rights protests, Yu observed that this was mainly because governmental acquisition of lands was practiced without peasants' permission, or the compensation was too low, or government embezzled the compensation.
In large number and often in passive situations, peasants, as a vulnerable group, are the main stakeholders of land.Obtaining the least interests, peasants become the most dissatisfied group.What are the specific elements of the peasants' satisfaction with land-acquisition compensation and what's the degree of the satisfaction?

Theoretical Basis
The Compensation Satisfaction Theory Satisfaction has long been an important indicator of management science, especially in psychology research.Each generation of management masters has come up with their own theories and models.F. W. Taylor "the father of scientific management" already established a prototype of the idea of satisfaction.Herzberg uses two-factor theory to further inquire which factors lead to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.P. C. Smith's (1969) Equity Model extends and expands the satisfaction theory.He thinks that people will compare the investment and reward ratio.If their investment and reward ratio are equal with others', they will feel fair.Conversely, if the self ratio is far behind others', they will feel unfair and unsatisfied.R. A. Ash (1965) points out that everyone has the output which is obtained from work and the input faith which is essential to achieve these outputs.These studies have laid a foundation for follow-up compensation satisfaction research.

The Development of Compensation Satisfaction
A number of researchers have deepened the satisfaction theory.The Lawler (1971) discrepancy model points out that people will compare the actual reward with what they should be paid, and the results will affect their pay satisfaction.
According to the Modified Discrepancy Model by Heneman and Schwab (1985) salary satisfaction should consist of four dimensions, namely, "salary", "pay and promotion", "salary policy and management", and "welfare".Their model has changed the view that salary satisfaction is a single surface structure.The first to discover the problem is Dreher (1988), who studied the salary and welfare satisfaction of "common guarantee scope and employee costs borne" with the sample of 1433 police officers.There were no specific differences ob--served among the officers, though they found that welfare actually had influence over welfare and salary satisfaction.Another forerunner is Henmeman (1988) who conducted researches on all the four satisfaction factors.Heneman (1988) examined the relationship between job performance compensa-tion and compensation satisfaction based on a research sample of 104 hospital staff.He found that there would be some differences using different survey methods, just the same as Drehe et al. had found.The third to find this problem is Miceli et al. (1991).Their study of the compensation system satisfaction (structure and management) features a sample of 2000 managers, who were divided into several levels according to their positions.The study found that the view on salary system fairness influenced organizational justice.External comparisons play an important role in determining satisfaction rather than salary system.At the same time, the study further notes that a high level executive force makes the salary system fairer.
A compensation satisfaction research review for the last 30 years finds two obvious phenomena.First, people almost always use the same satisfaction content and variables related to work.For example, Ronan and Organ (1973) investigated how work experience, age, education, gender, organizational capacity, and the actual wage influence salary satisfaction.At the same time, Rice et al. (1990) did the same research with almost the same variables.But there are also differences between their researches.For example, a study does not regard it as organization ability, but in another study it is often regarded as a part of the organization ability.And some of other same routine variables have been used for many years.Second, most of the studies only concentrate on the pay satisfaction, much to the negligence of raise, benefits, compensation system structure, and management satisfaction.But some researchers investigated some or all the four factors.
The satisfaction theory is not only applied in the field of human resource management, and government departments, but also in public administration, health, science and technology education.

The Measurement of Compensation Satisfaction
At the beginning, most methods measuring satisfaction adopted one-dimensional method-Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (Minnesota Weiss et al., 1967) and job satisfaction index (Smith et al., 1967), Later on the main satisfaction model (Dyer & Theriault, 1976;Lawler, 1971) came to be is multidimensional model.Heneman (1985) believes that either the theory of compensation satisfaction or actual measurement of the compensation satisfaction can help researchers understand the causes and results of satisfaction.He and Schwab, developed and validated a multidimensional method which was used to measure satisfaction, namely pay satisfaction questionnaire (Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire, PSQ).Because of the satisfactory results, they turned to remuneration related subjects and methods to do conducted more research (Heneman & Schwab, 1985).Some researchers have verified the correctness and reliability of the PSQ (Judge & Wellbourne, 1994;Mulvey et al., 1991).But there is at least one non-western researcher that questioned the validity of these four factors (Lam, 1998).The study by Lam in Hong Kong illustrated that there are only two factors-salary and welfare-connected to the compensation satisfaction.Ever since, people went on with some more investigations.But most of the research is on the PSQ dimension (Ash et al., 1990;Chrraher, 1991;Buckley, 1996;Carraher et al., 2004;Carraher & Scarpello, 1993;Mulvey et al., 1990;Orpen & Bonnici, 1987;Lance & Scarpello, 1989;Scarpello et al., 1988).As regards the differences between compensation satisfaction measurement and compensation satisfaction theoretical results, almost everyone predicts on the pay level while neglecting the factors that can influence satisfaction, such as salary, benefits and compensation management system and structure.P. Feuille (1974) found that after controlling distributive justice, the interpretation difference of distributive justice (18.8%) on pay satisfaction is two times larger than procedural (8.7%).Dreher (1981) shows that the relationship between distributive justice (0.78) and salary satisfaction is greater than procedural justice (0.42).Miceli et al. (2000) also come to the same conclusion.In his research on university instructors' satisfaction, Wu Xiaoyi 吴 小易 (2006) finds it obvious that justice in salary assessment procedure plays an important part in satisfaction effect.There have also been some empirical studies that have investigated the moderating variables and intermediary variable mechanism.Scarpello (1988) found that procedural justice was a conditioning variable through which fair distribution influences satisfaction behavior.Lawler (1971) found that fair distribution influenced organizational commitment through compensation, but procedural justice on salary satisfaction had no direct effect on it, and that procedural justice just influenced the organization commitment through satisfaction with supervisor.Smith (1969) points out that compensation level, compensation structure, and pay grade have a great effect on salary satisfaction, and there is positive relation between salary level and salary satisfaction.Derher ( 1981) also shows that the real wage and salary satisfaction among the correlation coefficient is 0.28, but the proportion of wage growth and salary satisfaction among the correlation coefficient is 0.07.
Initially the research of satisfaction or satisfaction measurement in the Chinese mainland is was focused on service Industry, such as the satisfaction change of bank service, the satisfaction in retail area of domestic and foreign brands, the tourism satisfaction in ecological tourism, rural tourism, ancient villages tourism, and so on.Later, their inquisition extended to the satisfaction with government service such as administrative services, public projects.In recent years, there are a lot of satisfaction researches related to peasants, including studies of peasant life, medical insurance, rural public goods, employment, and so on.Informed by foreign research, the research method used by the scholars gradually changes from quantitative research to qualitative research.In conclusion, in terms of approach methodology, variables, and measurement dimensions the present study acknowledges important inspiration from those research projects.

The Conceptual Model and Research Hypothesis Modeling
The reason why peasants are not satisfied and why there are lots of disputes is summarized below and shown in Table 1.
The first is compensation standard.Of all the 44 documents related to land compensation issues, there are 36 (i.e.81.8%) based on compensation standard of land acquisition and regarding the low compensation standard as the main reason for the dissatisfaction of the peasants.Zhu Mingfen 朱明芬 (2003) The ownership of the land 3 6.8% Total documents 44 Qiling 林其玲 (2009) have all carried on the analysis in this regard.Therefore, the compensation standard for land acquisition was listed as one of the factors that affect peasants' land acquisition satisfaction.
The second is the compensation mode.31% or 70.5% of the literature suggests that compensation mode affects the peasants' satisfaction.But the perspective research area is different, for it includes employment, social security, resettlement effect, single resettlement and settlement in wrong place and so on.This study also lists compensation mode as one of the influence factors.
The third is compensation distribution for land expropriation.There are 18 papers (about 40.9% of all) arguing that compensation distribution for land acquisition is an important fact affecting land expropriation.Three angles were analyzed in this part.The first one is the distribution of land value increment taken by An Husen 安虎森 and Zou Xuan 邹璇 (2005).The second is the amount of compensation collective internal distribution discussed by Lin Qiling 林其玲 (2009).The third one is an analysis of compensation for land acquisition (CLA henceforward) from the administrative decision of leaving and village committee retained.
The fourth and last one is compensation procedure.It is examined from quite dispersive angles in those papers, some of which focus on imperfect institution system, government monopoly, or government interference.They also investigated such other topics as illegal operations, management confusion, funds management, public participation, and so on.Although the contents are rich and diversified, the main ways are decision-making, behavior and supervision of CLA.There is no unified naming in this area.It is appropriate for Chen Zhen 陈 真 (2006), Zhao Wei 赵伟, Zhang Zhengfeng 张正峰 (2009) and others to present a summary using compensation procedure.We hence name it compensation procedure in our further analysis of it as an influencing factor.There are 7 articlessuch as those by Zhong Shuiying 钟水映 (2007), Yu Jianrong 于建嵘 (2008)-that consider CLA range as also an important factor which can affect the satisfaction.They analyze the compensation, operating losses and compensation rent losses, transfer fees, emotional compensation, and so on.There are 4 articles-including Zou Xuan's 邹璇 (2005)-that consider land acquisition measuring method as the main problem of CLA And there are 4 articles exemplified by that by Zhao Wei 赵 伟 and Zhang Zhegfeng 张 正 峰 (2009), in which the scopes of public purpose in land acquisition are identified to be the main factors that affect satisfaction factors.In general, the numbers of study in these three types are relatively small, which means that accredited degree is relatively low.At the same time, the author thinks that these three types are the factors affecting the low land compensation standard.Therefore, these three types are listed together and returned to the factors of compensation standard.
There are 3 authors, Liu Yue 刘乐 and Yang Xuecheng 杨 学成 (2009), Qin Hui 覃卉 (2006), Jin Shigao 金士高 (2006), who think that ownership is the main problem in CLA.It is the main cause of disorder of CLA distribution.Therefore, it doesn't become a separated influence factor.
In short, this study suggests that what affects peasants' CLA are compensation standard, compensation method, compensation distribution and compensation procedure.
In the following, Figure 1 diagrams the measurements of specific variables.

The Research Hypotheses
The following assumptions are made based on the understanding of related meaning and relevant model.
Hypothesis 1: CLA standard is an element of peasant compensation satisfaction dimensions; Hypothesis 2: The CLA mode is an element of peasant compensation satisfaction dimensions; Hypothesis 3: The land compensation distribution is an element of peasant compensation satisfaction dimensions; Hypothesis 4: The CLA procedure is an element of peasant compensation satisfaction dimensions.

Questionnaire Form
According to the research model, preliminary indexes with other related issues in peasants' CLA satisfaction were designed.To study the satisfaction of those with their land acquisitioned and to make questionnaire close to the reality, an almost month-long series of individual interview was organized from early October to early November in 2009.After the interview, four dimensions were determined to constitute compensation satisfaction.They are compensation standard, compensation method, compensation distribution, and compensation procedure The interview eliminates some unclear and incomprehensive questions in the questionnaire.Finally, we obtained the initial measured variables'. 1) The first level index.CLA satisfaction is the first level indicator.
2) The second level index.There are four second level indexes, namely CLA standard satisfaction, CLA mode satisfaction, land compensation distribution satisfaction, CLA procedure satisfaction.
3) The third level index.According to the literature research and interview, we select 25 indicators in level three.
4) The definition of measuring index.In the light of the third index, we defined the indicators.
Measurement index.Likerte symmetric five index scales were used to measure the third level indexes.In order to avoid the interference on the respondents from the answer sequence, half of the questionnaire options are 1 totally agree, 2 agree, 3 general, 4 do not quite agree, 5 totally disagree.While the other half options are 1 strongly disagree, 2 do not quite agree, 3 general, 4 quite agree, 5 totally agree.We change the reverse variable questions when we put the data into computer.

Investigation Process
The survey was completed during the Labor Day Holidays.The sample range is in accordance with the actual, the way of getting sample is scientific and strict.There are 350 questionnaires totally which are shown in Table 2.There are only 10 investigation samples from Changshan and Daishan due to the small populations of the two counties.The other 22 counties each claim 15 samples.The number of the total recovered questionnaires is 261, the effective recovery rate of which is 72.8%.

A Description of the Sample
As shown in Table 3, males account for 80.8% and females account for 19.2%.Males take a larger part in the survey.People of 30 years old or younger account for 9.2%.People aged between 31 and 40 account for 23.1%.Those between 41 and 50 years old account for 54.7%.And those between 51 and 60 account for 9.8%.People over 61 years old took up 3.2%.The middle aged is the main part of the survey.
The education levels of the samples are as follows: primary school or below, 49.3%; junior middle school, 26.2%, senior mille school and secondary technical, 19.8%, college degree or above, 4.6%.There are three fourths of the samples educated below junior high school.
Families with one, two, three, four, and five or more mem- bers account for, respectively, 1.9%, 12%, 30.9%, 39.1%, and 16.1%, which means that families with three or four members constitute the largest part and take up more than 80%.Thirty point six per cent of the landless peasants have their main income from agriculture account for 30.6%, 47.9% working elsewhere, 11.4% doing business, 10.1% engaged in other trades.Because the agriculture is not as popular as it was in Zhejiang province, most of the peasants there have turned to sidelines.
In the investigation, 81.4% of the peasants are still registered as permanent rural residents, while 18.6% of them are not.Most peasants still retain a rural household.Among those peasants whose land was expropriated, only a small portion fully completed their transformation into nonagricultural residence.

A Preliminary Assessment of Data Quality
The Validity of Questionnaire The exploratory factor analysis, KMO and Bartlett sphere of the questionnaire all meet the requirements, which are shown in Table 4.
Test "do you agree" by, After the KMO sampling and Bart-WANG X. L.
lett test of the 14 questions answered by 261 investigators, the result shows a KMO value of 0.729 and Bartlett test value of 1616.68 (p < 0.001), which reach significant level.These 14 entries can be factor analysis.

Questionnaire Reliability Test
Used in this paper, is the Cronbach's alpha coefficient that was put forward in 1951 by Cronbach.Table 5 shows that reliability coefficient is positively related to credibility of the measurements.
As seen in Table 5, besides the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for CLA program is 0.585 and the rest are bigger than 0.7.Overall, this questionnaire reliability is acceptable.

The Analysis of Exploratory Factor
Table 6 shows a general dissatisfaction with the 14 variables among peasants in the questionnaire.The peasants are satisfied with the 14 describe problems in land acquisition process, but they are not satisfied with the CLA now.Of these 14 variables, the peasants speak highly of the following three variables, the average of lower living standard for land acquisition (3.0766); the average of life threaten for old-age pension, medical care and other social security problem which cannot be solved properly (3.0881); the average of land compensation fee that shall be enjoyed by members of the village land ownership (3.0077).
The peasants are most unsatisfied-3.4253 on average-with the resettlement arrangements that lack effective policy advocacy.Their dissatisfaction with the lack of powerful supervision of is also high, reaching 3.3946.There is also a high dissatisfaction (3.3831) of the large amount of retentate, diversion of land acquisition compensation and the non-standard use of capital and the little actual obtained capital of peasants.Factor analysis is a unity of two kinds of analysis, one of which is purely exploratory factor analysis.The aim of exploratory factor analysis (Exploratory Factor Analysis, EFA) is to identify the essential structure of the observed variables from a group of data and thereby develop a new hypothesis or theory frame capable of changing those variables with complicated and confused relations into a few common factors so as to describe variation of questions.Its idea is to simplify the complication.This paper uses exploratory-factor analysis.It mainly includes Principal Component Analysis Methods, PCA, Varimax, and Factor Analysis.Among the quantity decision of the factors, those whose characteristic value (Eigenvalue) is greater than 1 are regarded as evaluation standard.The following three rules were observed during the screening variables measuring project (Item): 1) we deleted those factors with only one question for there are no internal consistency.2) The load of the factors belonging to the question had to be greater than 0.5 and with convergent validity; otherwise it would be deleted.3) The load of every corresponding question should be close to 1.
The common factor is the concentrated extract of original index information, featuring clear explanatory factor to each original variable.And the original index can be expressed as a sum of common factors and special factors.Common factors do contribution to the quadratic sum of all load in the model.The contribution rate of the common factor equals to the proportion of corresponding feature values in the whole.Finally each research variable is decomposed into several affecting factor variables and is shown in Table 7.
This paper also uses the method of principal component analysis to solve the initial variance contribution rate, common factor characteristic value, and the cumulative variance contribution rate (see the table).According to the principal that characteristics of the male factor should be greater than 1, three initial factors were determined.In Table 8, it can be seen from the Variance Column that the contribution of extracting 3 factors can reach 62.840%, which shows that extracting 3 common factors can fully retain the variable information.
The initial factor loading matrix requires that the factors should have clear, reasonable and realistic meaning.Therefore, in order to better understand the factors of practical significance, this paper uses the Vrimax with Kaisr Normalization to rotate the factor.The load matrix of the rotation factor is shown in Table 9.

Hypothesis Testing and Discussion
Finally, Table 10 is based on the following 3 meaningful factors according to the factor loading matrix, namely land acquisition compensation procedure satisfaction, land acquisition compensation level of satisfaction, and land acquisition compensation model satisfaction.
Research shows that the peasants whose lands were acquisitioned are not satisfied with the compensation (only 3.2942 in all dimensions of variables).There are 0.4% who are very satisfied, 14.7% who are satisfied, 40.5% who feel just so-so, 36.6% who are not satisfied, and 7.5% who are not satisfied at all.The ones who are not satisfied and not satisfied account for 44.1%.What the peasants care the most in the acquisite process is the benefits they will get.In this regard, the peasants' best wish is to have a high CLA benefits based on market value compensation.Huang Xianjin 黄贤金 (2003) argues that land acquisition costs should refer to the price on land market.While Zhang Runsen 张润森 (2009) thinks that peasants trade freely is just reasonable in theory.
What the peasants fear is that the CLA procedure is unfair and the CLA mode is improper, which will affect their final income.Therefore, peasants are also concerned about the said WANG X. L.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.73  The government got most profit by buying the land at a low price and selling it at high price, Peasants cannot enjoy the benefits of land acquisition The interception diversion of land acquisition money is large and its use is non-standard The actual income of peasants is too little Land acquisition compensation is below the agricultural production value before land acquisition

Land acquisition compensation standard
There are different compensation standard in the region Land compensation fees will soon be spent out and peasant will become poorer。 Pension and medical protection is not properly resolved, and peasant life is at more risk.

Land acquisition compensation mode
Peasants have no long-term guarantee and they will lose jobs again The level of acquisition compensation satisfaction The acquisition compensation level satisfaction The acquisition compensation procedure satisfaction The mode of acquisition compensation satisfaction procedure and mode.The results of the tested hypothesis are as follow: Hypothesis 1: the compensation standard of CLA is not the dimension of peasant compensation satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: the CLA mode is the dimension of peasant compensation satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: the distribution of CLA is not the dimension of the peasant compensation satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: CLA procedure is the dimension of peasants' compensation satisfaction.

Conclusion
By analyzing peasants' views, the present study has identified the most prominent factors which influence peasants' CLA satisfaction.CLA satisfaction consists of compensation standard, compensation procedure, compensation mode, and compensation distribution.
Through the literature review, a pretest questionnaire and then a scale questionnaire are used to collect data, which is tested to be valid and reliable.
After the principal component analysis and testing, we find that peasants' CLA satisfaction as shown in Figure 2, is com-posed of compensation level, compensation procedures and compensation model.

Table 1 .
The main problems in land acquisition compensation.

Table 2 .
Composition of samples.