IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i22p16021-d1281748.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the Effect of Ecosystem Services and Urbanization on Human Well-Being in Inner Mongolia Province

Author

Listed:
  • Shiqi Zhang

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Hanchen Wang

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Xiao Fu

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Mingfang Tang

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Di Wu

    (Institute of Architecture Design and Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100086, China)

  • Shuang Li

    (China IPPR International Engineering Co., Ltd., Beijing 100086, China)

  • Gang Wu

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

Abstract

Ecosystem services and urbanization processes are closely related to human well-being. Understanding the interaction between the three is of great importance for sustainable development. As a case study of northern China, Inner Mongolia Province, we attempt to build an effective framework to quantify human well-being from 1995 to 2020, using the entropy method and evaluating the interaction between ecosystem services, urbanization, and human well-being through the structural equation model. This model tries to understand the interaction between the three, as well as to provide some effective policies for local conditions to improve human well-being. The results showed that: (1) Except for the value of habitat quality, carbon storage and population density fluctuated, other ecosystem services and urbanization indicators have significantly improved at the province scale from 1995 to 2020. The ecosystem services indicators revealed differences between the western and eastern regions, while the high value of urbanization indicators showed a dispersed distribution. (2) Compared with 1995, human well-being improved significantly during the last twenty-five years, during which ecological human well-being increased about 30%, economic human well-being increased about 250%, and social human well-being increased about 170%. (3) Although the path coefficients revealed that ecosystem services and urbanization can significantly promote human well-being (ecosystem service: 0.517, urbanization: 0.878), urbanization had a significantly negative effect on ecosystem services with a path coefficient of −0.608. Taking ecosystem services and urbanization into consideration when studying human well-being can not only help to quantify the effects of human activities and natural resources on human well-being, but also to understand the driving mechanisms behind them. The results indicated that identifying the effect of natural resources and human activities on human well-being is beneficial for guiding effective sustainable development policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiqi Zhang & Hanchen Wang & Xiao Fu & Mingfang Tang & Di Wu & Shuang Li & Gang Wu, 2023. "Analysis of the Effect of Ecosystem Services and Urbanization on Human Well-Being in Inner Mongolia Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:16021-:d:1281748
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/16021/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/16021/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen Shi & Bo-sin Tang, 2020. "Institutional change and diversity in the transfer of land development rights in China: The case of Chengdu," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(3), pages 473-489, February.
    2. Holt, Alison R. & Mears, Meghann & Maltby, Lorraine & Warren, Philip, 2015. "Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-46.
    3. Batunacun, & Wieland, Ralf & Lakes, Tobia & Yunfeng, Hu & Nendel, Claas, 2019. "Identifying drivers of land degradation in Xilingol, China, between 1975 and 2015," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 543-559.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shan Liu & Mingxia Yang & Yuling Mou & Yanrong Meng & Xiaolu Zhou & Changhui Peng, 2020. "Effect of Urbanization on Ecosystem Service Values in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration of China from 2000 to 2014," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    4. Lin Jiang & Yani Lai & Ke Chen & Xiao Tang, 2022. "What Drives Urban Village Redevelopment in China? A Survey of Literature Based on Web of Science Core Collection Database," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Sun, Ranhao & Chen, Liding, 2017. "Effects of green space dynamics on urban heat islands: Mitigation and diversification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 38-46.
    6. Fulong Wu, 2020. "Adding new narratives to the urban imagination: An introduction to ‘New directions of urban studies in China’," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(3), pages 459-472, February.
    7. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    8. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    9. Maria Susana Orta Ortiz & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Mismatches in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services to Support Spatial Planning: A Case Study on Recreation and Food Supply in Havana, Cuba," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, June.
    10. Jingeng Huo & Zhenqin Shi & Wenbo Zhu & Hua Xue & Xin Chen, 2022. "A Multi-Scenario Simulation and Optimization of Land Use with a Markov–FLUS Coupling Model: A Case Study in Xiong’an New Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Haojie Liu & Jinyue Liu & Weixin Yang & Jianing Chen & Mingyang Zhu, 2020. "Analysis and Prediction of Land Use in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region: A Study Based on the Improved Convolutional Neural Network Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    12. Chen, Huirong, 2022. "Linking institutional function with form: Distributional dynamics, disequilibrium, and rural land shareholding in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Bayarmaa Byambaa & Walter T. de Vries, 2021. "The Production of Pastoral Space: Modeling Spatial Occupation of Grazing Land for Environmental Impact Assessment Using Structural Equation Modeling," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Wen, Lanjiao & Yang, Shenjie & Qi, Mengna & Zhang, Anlu, 2024. "How does China’s rural collective commercialized land market run? New evidence from 26 pilot areas, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    15. Ren Yang & Yuancheng Lin, 2022. "Rural spatial transformation and governance from the perspective of land development rights: A case study of Fenghe village in Guangzhou," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 1102-1121, September.
    16. Obiang Ndong, Gregory & Therond, Olivier & Cousin, Isabelle, 2020. "Analysis of relationships between ecosystem services: A generic classification and review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    17. Diriye, Abdishakur W. & Jama, Osman M. & Diriye, Jama Warsame & Abdi, Abdulhakim M., 2022. "Public preference for sustainable land use policies – Empirical results from multinomial logit model analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    18. Sikhululekile Ncube & Scott Arthur, 2021. "Influence of Blue-Green and Grey Infrastructure Combinations on Natural and Human-Derived Capital in Urban Drainage Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Xiangjian Rui & Lei Nie & Yan Xu & Hong Wang, 2019. "Land Degeneration due to Water Infiltration and Sub-Erosion: A Case Study of Soil Slope Failure at the National Geological Park of Qian-an Mud Forest, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Karol Langie & Kinga Rybak-Niedziółka & Věra Hubačíková, 2022. "Principles of Designing Water Elements in Urban Public Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, June.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:16021-:d:1281748. 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.