Study on farmers’ satisfaction with the collective forest tenure reform and its influencing factors—based on survey data from farmers in Shaxian and Shunchang counties

At the beginning of the 21st century, Fujian Province took the lead in launching the collective forest tenure reform nationwide, marking the beginning of China’s collective forest tenure reform efforts. Through bold innovation and active practice, Fujian has accumulated valuable experience and achieved remarkable results in the reform. This study draws on survey data collected in 2022 by the Development Research Center of the National Forestry and Grassland Administration from Shaxian County and Shunchang County, Fujian Province. The research focuses on 280 households that participated in the forest tenure reform in these counties. One-on-one interviews were conducted with these households to collect data on their satisfaction with the forest tenure reform policy. Factor analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model were used to identify the factors that influence farmers’ satisfaction with the reform policy. Main findings: (1) Overall satisfaction is driven by subsidies, income, cooperatives, forestland disputes, and policy awareness. (2) In Shaxian, satisfaction stems from income and institutional support, yet challenges remain prominent in forestry income stability, forestland transfer disputes, and socialized service provision. (3) In Shunchang, satisfaction relies on timber and ecological subsidies, but is constrained by limited policy awareness and insufficient forestry income. (4) Regional heterogeneity confirms the inappropriateness of uniform policies. These findings highlight the necessity of tailoring reform measures to local conditions. Based on these findings, this study proposes several policy recommendations, including elevating compensation for ecological public welfare forests and refining the associated mechanisms; reorienting the forestry development model toward understory economy expansion; broadening the scope and professionalism of forestry services; strengthening evaluation frameworks and standardizing forestland transfer procedures; and adopting regionally differentiated policy design to accommodate local realities.