Heterogeneity of Capability Deprivation and Subjective Sense of Gain: Analysis of Factor Mixture Models Based on 892 Rural Households in Six Provinces
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Capability Deprivation and Relative Poverty of Rural Households in China
2.2. The Relationship between Capability Deprivation and Subjective Acquisition
2.3. Summary of Literature
3. Data and Variable Explanation
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Measures of Subjective Sense of Acquisition
3.3. Measures of Capability Deprivation
4. Methods
4.1. Factor Analysis
4.2. Latent Class Model
4.3. Factor Mixture Analysis (FMM)
5. Empirical Results
5.1. Parameter Estimation of Potential Deprivation Factor
5.2. Group Heterogeneity of Deprivation
5.3. Comparison of Deprivation Model with A–F Method and Income Poverty
5.4. Regression Analyses
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, Z.S.; Huang, Y. A study on the governance of relative poverty in China and its countermeasures. Modern. Econ. Sci. 2021, 43, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.G.; Sun, J.N. China’s Relative Poverty Standards, Measurement and Targeting After the Completion of Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in an All-round Way: An Analysis Based on Data from China Urban and Rural Household Survey in 2018. Chin. Rur. Econ. 2021, 3, 2–23. [Google Scholar]
- Sen, A. A Sociological Approach to The Measurement of Poverty: A Reply to Professor Peter Townsend. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 1985, 37, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robeyns, I. The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 2005, 6, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.L.; Zhang, S.H. Analysis of the General Social Survey Data on the Chinese People’s sense of Fulfillment. Studies Marxism. 2019, 3, 102–112. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, T.; Tan, Y.F.; Fu, X.S. The residents’ sense of gain in China and its determinants. Financ. Econ. 2018, 9, 120–132. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, C.Y. Redistribution Reform and Relative Acquisition: Taking the Rural Tax Reform as an Example. Comp. Econ. Soc. Syst. 2021, 5, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Y.; He, X.Y.; Ning, M.X. Impact of China’s New Rural Pension Program on the sense of economic gain of rural elderly. J. Hunan Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2021, 22, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Y.H.; Li, Z.B. Social Quality and Urban Residents’ Sense of Gain. Nankai J. Philos. Lit. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2021, 4, 169–181. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Y.H.; Liu, Y. Under the perspective of social stratification of urban residents for research. Soc. Sci. J. 2021, 2, 88–97. [Google Scholar]
- Xiang, J. Objective Attainment and Subjective Attainment—From the Perspective of Status Attainment and Social Mobility. J. Soc. Dev. 2018, 6, 135–153, 245. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.P.; Min, S. Does Rural-Urban Migration Improve Farmers’ Sense of Gain? An Empirical Analysis Based on the CFPS Data. Contemp. Financ. Econ. 2021, 2, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- Nie, W. Employment Quality, Life Control and Migrant Workers’ Sense of Gain. Chin. J. Pop. Sci. 2019, 2, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Yang, C.; Hu, X.; Chen, H. The mediating effect of community identity between socioeconomic status and sense of gain in Chinese adults. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lv, X.K.; Sun, S.Y. The Generation Mechanism of Sense of Gain: The Dual Approaches of Personal Development and Social Justice. J. Northwest Norm. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2021, 58, 92–99. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, B.L. Relative Poverty control: Nature, Strategy and Long-Term Mechanism. Seeker 2020, 6, 18–27. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, B.L.; Hong, W.J.; Geng, P.P.; Zheng, W.L. Empowering People, Strengthening Capacity and Ensuring Inclusiveness: Enhancing Farmers’ Subjective Well-Being in Reducing Relative Poverty. Mana World 2021, 37, 166–181, 240. [Google Scholar]
- Suppa, N. Capability Deprivation and Life Satisfaction. Evidence from German Panel Data. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 2015, 16, 173–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Townsend, P. Poverty in The United Kingdom; Penguin Books: London, UK, 1979; Volume 248. [Google Scholar]
- Sauders, P. Monitoring and Addressing Global Poverty: A New Approach and Implications for Australia. Econ. Labour Relat. Rev. 2018, 29, 9–23. [Google Scholar]
- Alkire, S.; Foster, J. Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement. J. Public Econ. 2011, 95, 476–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dean, J.; Maika, S.; Mario, N. Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2018: Piecing Together the Poverty Puzzle; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 87–95. [Google Scholar]
- Whelan, T.; Nolan, B.; Matitre, B. Multidimensional poverty measurement in Europe: An application of the adjusted headcount approach. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 2014, 24, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alkire, S.; Apablaza, M. Multidimensional Poverty in Europe 2006–2012: Illustrating a Methodology; OPHI Working Paper 74; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Suppa, N. Towards a multidimensional poverty index for Germany. Empirica 2018, 45, 655–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anand, P.; Jones, S.; Donoghue, M.; Teitler, J. Non-monetary Poverty and Deprivation: A Capability Approach. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 2020, 31, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.L.; Alire, S. Multidimensional Poverty in China: Estimation and Policy Implications. Chin. Rural Econ. 2009, 12, 4–10. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, W.; Fang, Y.F. A Study on the Dynamic Multidimensional Measurement of China’s Poverty. Chin. J. Pop. Sci. 2011, 6, 49–59. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Q.; Zhang, Q.H. The chronic multidimensional poverty state transition and education factors in China. J. Quant. Tech. Econ. 2017, 4, 3–19. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, M.B.; Li, S. The key to precise poverty alleviation rests in the precise identification of impoverished populations: An analysis of the targeting effect of the rural subsistence allowance policy. Soc. Sci. China 2017, 9, 90–112. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.L.; Feng, H.X. China’s Multidimensional Relative Poverty Standards in the Post-2020 Era: International Experience and Policy Orientation. Chin. Rural Econ. 2020, 3, 2–21. [Google Scholar]
- Easterlin, R.A. Will Raising the Incomes of All Increase the Happiness of All? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1995, 27, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingdon, G.G.; Knight, J. Subjective well-being poverty vs. income poverty and capabilities poverty. J. Dev. Stud. 2006, 42, 1199–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, A.E.; D’Ambrosio, C.; Ghislandi, S. Adaptation to poverty in long-run panel data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2016, 98, 591–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Samman, E.; Santos, M.E. Poor and dissatisfied? Income poverty, poverty transitions and life satisfaction in Chile. J. Poverty Soc. Justic. 2013, 21, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheung, K.C.K.; Chou, K.L. Poverty, deprivation and life satisfaction among Hong Kong older persons. Ageing Soc. 2019, 39, 703–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terraneo, M. The Effect of Material and Social Deprivation on Well-Being of Elderly in Europe. Int. J. Health Serv. 2021, 51, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lau, M.; Bradshaw, J. Material well-being, social relationships and children’s overall life satisfaction in Hong Kong. Child Indic. Res. 2018, 11, 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Q.; Pan, H. Investigation on life satisfaction of rural-to-urban migrant workers in China: A moderated mediation model. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ravallion, M. Mashup Indices of Development. World Bank Res. Obs. 2012, 27, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Festinger, L.A. Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Hum. Relat. 1954, 7, 117–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.J.; Li, F.; Li, L. Has Landless Farmers’ Sense of Economic Gain Increased? China Rural Surv. 2020, 5, 93–107. [Google Scholar]
- Robeyns, I. The Capability Approach in Practice. J. Polit. Philos. 2006, 14, 351–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, W.; Chen, N.; Zhao, P. The Capability Approach to Adolescent Poverty in China: The Profile, Decomposition and Predictors of Deprivation. Child Indic. Res. 2020, 13, 255–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Najera, H. Multiple Deprivation, Severity and Latent Sub-Groups: Advantages of Factor Mixture Modelling for Analysing Material Deprivation. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017, 131, 681–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chen, Y.S.; Wen, Z.L.; Gu, H.L. Factor Mixture Model: An integration of Latent class analysis and factor analysis. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 23, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, S.L.; Muthen, B.; Kaprio, J. Models and Strategies for Factor Mixture Analysis: An Example Concerning the Structure Underlying Psychological Disorders. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2013, 20, 681–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yang, Y.B.; Miao, D.M. Item Analysis of the Chinese Soldier Personality Questionnaire Using Item Response Theory. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2008, 40, 611–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, W.; Yao, X.; Qiu, Y.T. Constructing Chinese Remote Associates Test (RAT) with Application of Item Response Theory. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Pekin. 2016, 52, 354–362. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Q.G. Development and Test of National Assessment of Collegiate Capacity of Critical Thinking. J. High. Educ. 2019, 40, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
- Lubke, G.; Muthen, B. Investigating Population Heterogeneity with Factor Mixture Models. Psychol. Methods 2005, 10, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Y.N. The Obtained Sense from the Minsheng Public Services: Measurement and Explanation. J. Public Adm. 2018, 5, 117–136. [Google Scholar]
- Lubke, G.; Neale, M. Distinguishing between latent classes and continuous factors with categorical outcomes: Class invariance of parameters of factor mixture models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2008, 43, 592–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Self-Assessment | Life Satisfaction | Self-Confidence | Social Status | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Proportion% | Frequency | Proportion% | Frequency | Proportion% | |
Very dissatisfied | 5 | 0.56% | 7 | 0.79 | 8 | 0.90 |
Relatively dissatisfied | 65 | 7.34% | 41 | 4.62% | 40 | 4.51 |
Satisfied | 360 | 40.63% | 341 | 38.44 | 474 | 53.44 |
Relatively satisfied | 362 | 40.86% | 410 | 46.22 | 293 | 33.03 |
Very satisfied | 94 | 10.61% | 88 | 9.92 | 72 | 8.12 |
A Better Life | Activities and Service | Dimensions | Mean Standard | Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Compulsory education | Attend a desirable primary school nearby | Opportunities | 0.043 | 0.202 |
Compulsory education | Attend a desirable secondary school nearby | Opportunities | 0.057 | 0.232 |
The social security | Emergency deposit | Functionings | 0.210 | 0.407 |
The social security | Giving alimony to elders | Functionings | 0.096 | 0.295 |
The social security | Buy endowment insurance | Functionings | 0.089 | 0.284 |
Medical and health care | Annual physical examination | Opportunities | 0.187 | 0.390 |
Medical and health care | Serious illness to urban hospital | Opportunities | 0.036 | 0.186 |
Medical and health care | Paying for large medical expenses | Opportunities | 0.321 | 0.467 |
Production and living conditions | Courier service | Opportunities | 0.302 | 0.459 |
Production and living conditions | Banking services | Opportunities | 0.379 | 0.485 |
Production and living conditions | Garbage sorting service | Opportunities | 0.189 | 0.392 |
Cultural activities | Culture to the countryside | Opportunities | 0.562 | 0.496 |
Cultural activities | Traveling | Opportunities | 0.050 | 0.219 |
Cultural tradition | Neighbors help each other | Functionings | 0.017 | 0.129 |
Cultural tradition | Holiday dinners out | Opportunities | 0.148 | 0.355 |
Cultural tradition | Exchanging gifts and money in daily life | Functionings | 0.034 | 0.180 |
Cultural tradition | Giving red envelopes for Chinese New Year | Functionings | 0.047 | 0.212 |
Models | AIC | BIC | a_BIC | Entropy | LMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Single factor model | 7367.963 | 7487.800 | 7408.405 | – | – |
Two-class model | 7413.228 | 7542.651 | 7456.904 | 0.777 | 0.0000 |
Three-class model | 7207.653 | 7404.185 | 7273.976 | 0.811 | 0.0000 |
Four-class model | 7149.775 | 7413.416 | 7238.746 | 0.838 | 0.0000 |
Two class free mean | 7301.608 | 7435.825 | 7346.903 | 0.763 | 0.0245 |
Three class free mean | 7278.358 | 7422.162 | 7326.887 | 0.642 | 0.2614 |
Four class free mean | 7269.790 | 7423.181 | 7321.555 | 0.631 | 0.0012 |
Three class free intercept | 7019.244 | 7278.091 | 7106.597 | 0.804 | 0.0013 |
Four class free intercept | 6979.416 | 7305.372 | 7099.416 | 0.793 | 0.7797 |
Three class free intercept and variance | 7013.494 | 7281.928 | 7104.083 | 0.630 | 0.2828 |
Four class free intercept and variance | 6979.493 | 7319.829 | 7094.346 | 0.799 | 0.0452 |
Three class free intercept, variance and loading | 6990.299 | 7373.777 | 7119.712 | 0.787 | 0.7648 |
Four class free intercept, variance and loading | 6977.184 | 7490.085 | 7150.273 | 0.868 | 0.2414 |
Threshold Value | Double Deprivation | Severe Deprivation of Opportunity | Deprivation of Function | Non-Poor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Serious illness to hospital | 0.012 | 0.724 | 2.050 | 15.807 |
Large medical expenses | −0.125 | 0.646 | 2.004 | 2.616 |
Physical examination | 1.274 | 0.334 | 1.628 | 16.383 |
Giving pension to elders | 14.861 | 0.449 | 15.972 | 16.405 |
Emergency deposit | 0.443 | 0.227 | 0.215 | 2.177 |
Desirable primary school | 1.003 | −0.251 | 2.332 | 3.188 |
Desirable high school | 1.200 | 0.160 | 2.366 | 3.530 |
Courier service | −1.473 | 0.004 | 0.212 | 0.852 |
Banking service | −1.410 | 0.673 | −0.099 | 0.598 |
Giving red envelopes | −0.370 | −0.598 | −0.307 | 1.005 |
Neighbor help | −0.018 | 0.331 | 0.102 | 1.657 |
Exchanging gifts and money | 0.339 | −0.269 | −0.026 | 1.616 |
Holiday dinners out | 0.374 | −0.268 | 0.925 | 2.587 |
Proportion (%) | 4.60% | 5.15% | 22.65% | 67.60% |
Classes | K = 0.1 | K = 0.2 | K = 0.3 | K = 0.4 | K = 0.5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Double deprivation | 9.23 | 16.47 | 22.31 | 34.09 | 33.33 |
Severe deprivation of opportunity | 10.36 | 17.67 | 32.31 | 59.09 | 66.67 |
Deprivation of function | 45.50 | 54.62 | 45.38 | 6.82 | 0.00 |
Non-poor | 34.91 | 11.24 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Classes | Per Capita Income (Yuan) | P 40% | P 50% | P 60% |
---|---|---|---|---|
Double deprivation | 15,255.88 | 6.08 | 5.21 | 6.00 |
Severe deprivation of opportunity | 15,908.30 | 8.11 | 8.33 | 9.20 |
Deprivation of function | 16,997.91 | 34.46 | 34.38 | 32.40 |
Non-poor | 44,388.11 | 51.35 | 52.08 | 52.40 |
Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class-2 | −0.7518 *** (0.2211) | −0.5198 ** (0.2079) | −0.6022 *** (0.2129) | |||
Class-3 | −0.5273 *** (0.1834) | −0.2053 (0.1855) | −0.1103 (0.1833) | |||
Class-4 | −0.4886 *** (0.0924) | −0.2367 ** (0.0946) | −0.3167 *** (0.0973) | |||
Poverty-1 | −0.3244 *** (0.1216) | −0.0450 (0.1180) | −0.0443 (0.1191) | |||
Poverty-2 | −0.3440 * (0.1837) | −0.1999 (0.1933) | −0.0535 (0.1754) | |||
Poverty-3 | −0.5574 *** (0.1521) | −0.3189 ** (0.1569) | −0.4444 *** (0.1628) | |||
Age | 0.0088 ** (0.0037) | 0.0120 *** (0.0038) | 0.0106 *** (0.0038) | 0.0087 ** (0.0037) | 0.0118 *** (0.0038) | 0.0103 *** (0.0038) |
Education | 0.0270 * (0.0136) | 0.0797 *** (0.0138) | 0.0566 *** (0.0143) | 0.0316 ** (0.0136) | 0.0833 *** (0.0139) | 0.0623 *** (0.0145) |
Marital status | −0.1561 (0.1435) | −0.1126 (0.1612) | −0.2183 (0.1540) | −0.1687 (0.1404) | −0.1238 (0.1625) | −0.2308 (0.1577) |
Party status | 0.2063 * (0.1263) | 0.0979 (0.1277) | 0.3335 *** (0.1267) | 0.2600 ** (0.1210) | 0.1229 (0.1245) | 0.3597 *** (0.1243) |
Income | 0.0636 * (0.0383) | 0.0873 ** (0.0371) | 0.0404 (0.0325) | 0.0406 (0.0409) | 0.0923 ** (0.0418) | 0.0504 (0.0368) |
Business | 0.2792 ** (0.1283) | 0.2148 (0.1393) | 0.2243 * (0.1319) | 0.3118 ** (0.1248) | 0.2345 * (0.1367) | 0.2446 * (0.1294) |
Loans | −0.0552 (0.1332) | −0.1473 (0.1571) | 0.645 (0.1508) | −0.1351 (0.1315) | −0.1974 (0.1576) | −0.0027 (0.1522) |
Livelihood risk | −0.1678 * (0.0945) | −0.1512 (0.0956) | −0.0571 (0.0937) | −0.2614 *** (0.0924) | −0.1937 ** (0.0925) | −0.1937 ** (0.0915) |
Land | 0.0121 (0.0070) | 0.0369 *** (0.0077) | 0.0037 (0.0066) | 0.0140 ** (0.0070) | 0.0388 *** (0.0081) | 0.028 (0.0065) |
Social capital | 0.2122 *** (0.0805) | 0.1265 (0.0799) | 0.2702 *** (0.0803) | 0.2145 *** (0.0806) | 0.1255 (0.0795) | 0.2718 *** (0.0799) |
Central region | −0.0100 (0.0890) | 0.1433 (0.0918) | 0.2080 ** (0.0927) | 0.0589 (0.0883) | 0.1210 (0.0925) | 0.1786 * (0.0920) |
Eastern Region | 0.2761 *** (0.0999) | 0.3462 *** (0.0981) | 0.399 *** (0.0992) | 0.2833 *** (0.1000) | 0.3521 *** (0.0976) | 0.4079 *** (0.0994) |
Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.0732 | 0.0814 | 0.0738 | 0.0626 | 0.0776 | 0.0685 |
Sense of Gain | Score | Class-2 | Class-3 | Class-4 | Poverty-1 | Poverty-2 | Poverty-3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Life Satisfaction | Very dissatisfied | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.007 ** | 0.005 * | 0.006 | 0.012 * |
Relatively dissatisfied | 0.110 ** | 0.068 ** | 0.062 *** | 0.041 ** | 0.044 | 0.080 *** | |
Satisfied | 0.150 *** | 0.122 *** | 0.115 *** | 0.075 *** | 0.079 ** | 0.113 *** | |
Relatively satisfied | −0.182 *** | −0.122 *** | −0.112 *** | 0.072 ** | −0.077 * | −0.132 *** | |
Very satisfied | −0.094 *** | −0.076 *** | −0.072 *** | −0.050 *** | −0.052 ** | −0.074 *** | |
Self-confidence | Very dissatisfied | 0.013 * | 0.004 | 0.004 * | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
Relatively dissatisfied | 0.051 * | 0.016 | 0.019 ** | 0.004 | 0.018 | 0.030 * | |
Satisfied | 0.125 * | 0.055 | 0.063 ** | 0.012 | 0.051 | 0.077 ** | |
Relatively satisfied | −0.126 ** | −0.044 | −0.052 ** | −0.009 | −0.044 | −0.074 * | |
Very satisfied | −0.064 * | −0.031 | −0.035 *** | −0.007 | −0.028 | −0.042 ** | |
Social status | Very dissatisfied | 0.020 | 0.002 | 0.008 ** | 0.001 | −0.001 | 0.016 * |
Relatively dissatisfied | 0.059 ** | 0.008 | 0.026 *** | 0.003 | −0.004 | 0.044 ** | |
Satisfied | 0.125 *** | 0.030 | 0.079 *** | 0.011 | −0.014 | 0.090 *** | |
Relatively satisfied | −0.142 *** | −0.025 | −0.074 *** | −0.010 | 0.012 | −0.104 *** | |
Very satisfied | −0.062 *** | −0.015 | −0.039 *** | −0.006 | 0.008 | −0.046 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Huo, Z.; Zhang, M.; Han, J. Heterogeneity of Capability Deprivation and Subjective Sense of Gain: Analysis of Factor Mixture Models Based on 892 Rural Households in Six Provinces. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074294
Huo Z, Zhang M, Han J. Heterogeneity of Capability Deprivation and Subjective Sense of Gain: Analysis of Factor Mixture Models Based on 892 Rural Households in Six Provinces. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(7):4294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074294
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuo, Zenghui, Mei Zhang, and Junhui Han. 2022. "Heterogeneity of Capability Deprivation and Subjective Sense of Gain: Analysis of Factor Mixture Models Based on 892 Rural Households in Six Provinces" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 7: 4294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074294