ArticlePloS one2025
The impact of the reform of rural collective property rights system on villagers' public participation: An empirical study based on CRRS 2020 data.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reform of rural collective property rights system is of great significance for protecting the collective asset rights and interests of villagers, activating rural resource elements, and achieving rural revitalization. This study is based on 284 village committee questionnaires and 7451 villager questionnaires from 10 provinces in China, and uses multi-layer linear regression models to explore the impact of the reform of rural collective property rights system on villagers' public participation. Research has found that:(1) the reform of rural collective property rights system that has been completed at the rural level can significantly enhance the public participation of villagers, including total participation (β = 0.102, p ≤ 0.1), interest expression (β = 0.044, p ≤ 0.1), and election voting (β = 0.076, p ≤ 0.05). However, the impact on volunteer service is not significant (β = -0.004, p>0.1); (2)mechanism analysis shows that the reform can reduce the probability of migration for work, and thus enhance the level of public participation; (3)heterogeneity analysis reveals that the reform has a greater impact on the villagers' public participation in suburban villages and villages with better collective economy; (4)further analysis discovers that villagers have heard that reform can significantly enhance their public participation. This study comprehensively explores the spillover effects of the reform at the village level on public participation at the individual level through the use of more accurate measurement indicators, empirical analysis methods, and large-scale authoritative data, providing strong support for proposing strategies to promote villages' public participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.