IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i18p11472-d912871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Villagers’ Satisfaction Evaluation System of Rural Human Settlement Construction: Empirical Study of Suzhou in China’s Rapid Urbanization Area

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Ye

    (Center for Chinese Urbanization Studies, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China
    School of Architecture, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China)

  • Zihao Wu

    (Center for Chinese Urbanization Studies, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China
    School of Architecture, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China)

  • Ting Wang

    (Center for Chinese Urbanization Studies, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China
    School of Architecture, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China)

  • Kangle Ding

    (Urban Planning Department, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China)

  • Yu Chen

    (Architecture Department, College of Landscape and Architecture, Zhejiang A&F University, Hangzhou 311300, China)

Abstract

Continuous improvement of rural human settlements is a major realistic requirement of China’s economic and social development in the context of rural revitalization. Tracking and evaluating the phased progress of human settlement construction in stages represent important techniques for ensuring continual improvement. To improve the current objective data-based index system, this paper focuses on the villager-centered evaluation system at the village level. Factor analysis is used to screen the original data from the questionnaire and minimize the dimensions to synthesize common factors on the basis of empirical results. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) according to weight, the satisfaction evaluation system includes five common factors: living support facilities, nonagricultural industry income, agriculture production income, transportation infrastructure, and comprehensive ecological improvement. The results show that construction investment is beneficial, but not directly proportional to the villagers’ satisfaction. Actual improvement is not keeping up with the demand for public fitness, cultural, and recreational facilities. On the other hand, changes in villagers’ lifestyles may reduce the need for commercial facilities; (2) according to the evaluation model, the indicators can be classified into four categories on the basis of the weight assessment score, all of which can provide differentiated construction strategies to avoid duplication and inefficient resource waste. The survey data’s indicators of major differences between villages, such as public transportation and sanitation, need further discussion; (3) the gap between actual improvement actions and villagers’ needs gives an optimization path for rural construction. The experiences of sample villages in well-developed areas can be used as a model for policy formulation in other regions, and a long-term follow-up investigation should be included in future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Ye & Zihao Wu & Ting Wang & Kangle Ding & Yu Chen, 2022. "Villagers’ Satisfaction Evaluation System of Rural Human Settlement Construction: Empirical Study of Suzhou in China’s Rapid Urbanization Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-18, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11472-:d:912871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11472/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11472/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pengyan Wang & Xiaofei Qin & Yurui Li, 2021. "Satisfaction Evaluation of Rural Human Settlements in Northwest China: Method and Application," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Darunee Jongudomkarn & Laura Camfield, 2006. "Exploring the Quality of Life of People in North Eastern and Southern Thailand," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 78(3), pages 489-529, September.
    3. Zhao, Pengjun & Wan, Jie, 2021. "Land use and travel burden of residents in urban fringe and rural areas: An evaluation of urban-rural integration initiatives in Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Xiaodong Xu & Jingping Liu & Ning Xu & Wei Wang & Hui Yang, 2018. "Quantitative Study on the Evolution Trend and Driving Factors of Typical Rural Spatial Morphology in Southern Jiangsu Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rui Song & Xueming Li, 2023. "Urban Human Settlement Vulnerability Evolution and Mechanisms: The Case of Anhui Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Changchun Feng & Hao Zhang & Liang Xiao & Yongpei Guo, 2022. "Land Use Change and Its Driving Factors in the Rural–Urban Fringe of Beijing: A Production–Living–Ecological Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Peng Wang & Yihui He & Kengcheng Zheng, 2023. "Effects of the Implementation of the Broadband China Policy (BCP) on House Prices: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Thomas Wai-Kee Yuen & Winnie Wan-Ling Chu, 2015. "Happiness in ASEAN member states," International Journal of Happiness and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 69-83.
    4. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    5. Jinliu Chen & Paola Pellegrini & Haoqi Wang, 2022. "Comparative Residents’ Satisfaction Evaluation for Socially Sustainable Regeneration—The Case of Two High-Density Communities in Suzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
    6. Malin Song & Weiliang Tao, 2022. "Coupling and coordination analysis of China's regional urban‐rural integration and land‐use efficiency," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 1384-1413, September.
    7. Sui Zhang & Minghao Wang & Zhao Yang & Baolei Zhang, 2021. "A Novel Predictor for Micro-Scale COVID-19 Risk Modeling: An Empirical Study from a Spatiotemporal Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Chau-kiu Cheung & Raymond Chan & Wing-chung Ho, 2014. "Feeling Close to Fellow Citizens in Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 25-48, October.
    9. Qindong Fan & Fengtian Du & Hu Li, 2020. "A Study of the Spatial Form of Maling Village, Henan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Theresia Rahayu & Sonny Harmadi, 2016. "The Effect of Income, Health, Education, and Social Capital on Happiness in Indonesia," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(7), pages 1-75, July.
    11. Mei Zhang & Jia Tang & Jun Gao, 2023. "Examining the Effects of Built Environments and Individual Characteristics on Commuting Time under Spatial Heterogeneity: An Empirical Study in China Using HLM," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Wenjun Li & Peng Li & Zhiming Feng & Chiwei Xiao, 2022. "GIS-Based Modeling of Human Settlement Suitability for the Belt and Road Regions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Marta Gwiaździńska-Goraj & Aleksandra Jezierska-Thöle & Małgorzata Dudzińska, 2022. "Assessment of the Living Conditions in Polish and German Transborder Regions in the Context of Strengthening Territorial Cohesion in the European Union: Competitiveness or Complementation?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 29-59, August.
    14. Xue Bai & Zhaoyu Xie & Bart Julien Dewancker, 2022. "Exploring the Factors Affecting User Satisfaction in Poverty Alleviation Relocation Housing for Minorities through Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Case Study of Pu’er," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.
    15. Yuxiang Tan & Mingshun Xiang & Haixia Lu & Linsen Duan & Jin Yang & Jiake Meng & Ao Li & Lanlan Deng, 2023. "Spatial Difference Studies and Driving Force Analysis of Rural Settlements in the Northwest Sichuan Plateau," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, April.
    16. Hejie Wei & Yingying Gao & Qing Han & Ling Li & Xiaobin Dong & Mengxue Liu & Qingxiang Meng, 2022. "Quality Evaluation and Obstacle Identification of Human Settlements in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau Based on Multi-Source Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Ning Xu & Yuning Cheng & Xiaodong Xu, 2018. "Using Location Quotients to Determine Public–Natural Space Spatial Patterns: A Zurich Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, September.
    18. Alison Woodcock & Laura Camfield & J. McGregor & Faith Martin, 2009. "Validation of the WeDQoL-Goals-Thailand Measure: Culture-Specific Individualised Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 135-171, October.
    19. Laura Camfield & Monica Guillen-Royo, 2010. "Wants, Needs and Satisfaction: A Comparative Study in Thailand and Bangladesh," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 96(2), pages 183-203, April.
    20. Krittiya Kantachote & Nathakhun Wiroonsri, 2023. "Octa-Cluster: Different Perspectives on Quality of Life in Thailand," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11472-:d:912871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.