PDF Download

[1]Zhang Chaozheng,Sun Xiaoyu,Hou Jiao,et al.Comprehensive Assessment and Spatiotemporal Change of Residents' Welfare Considering the Contribution of Ecological Composition[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2024,31(06):375-383.[doi:10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2024.06.034]

Copy

Comprehensive Assessment and Spatiotemporal Change of Residents' Welfare Considering the Contribution of Ecological Composition

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 31 Number of periods: 2024 06 Page number: 375-383 Column: Public date: 2024-12-10

Title:: Comprehensive Assessment and Spatiotemporal Change of Residents' Welfare Considering the Contribution of Ecological Composition

Author(s):: Zhang Chaozheng¹, Sun Xiaoyu², Hou Jiao³, Zhang Han¹, Deng Chenning⁴, Zheng Weiwei¹; (1.College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China; 2.College of Public Administration, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China; 3.School of Management, Wuhan Polytechnic University, Wuhan 430048, China; 4.Key Laboratory of Environmental Benchmarking and Risk Assessment, Chinese Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)

Keywords:: ecological composition; residents' welfare; spatiotemporal changes; middle reaches of the Yangtze River

CLC:: X171.1

DOI:: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2024.06.034

Abstract:: [Objective]The aims of this study are to construct an indicator system to evaluate residents' welfare by considering regional characteristics and taking into account the contribution of ecological components, to provide a reference for quantifying the quantitative relationship between ecological environment and residents' welfare, to reveal the effects of ecological protection policies on residents' welfare, and to provide a scientific basis for enhancing residents' welfare and promoting ecological civilization construction. [Methods]The middle reaches of the Yangtze River(MRYR)was taken as the research area and 2010—2018 as the research period. The annual combined weighting and linear weighted sum method were used to measure the score of residents' welfare, while standard deviation was used to evaluate the inequality of residents' welfare. [Results](1)The score of residents' comprehensive welfare in the MRYR had continued to increase from 17.641 in 2000 to 31.387 in 2018, and its spatial pattern had gradually evolved from a generally low level to a high level in the middle and a low level around the periphery. In terms of sub-welfare, the score of basic income, basic materials, health, cultural and educational welfare also continued to increase, but the score of safety and social relationship welfare decreased. There was a high heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of different levels of different dimensions of sub-welfare.(2)The inequality of residents' comprehensive welfare in the MRYR slightly widened from 2.429 in 2000 to 4.709 in 2018, but at a very low level. In terms of sub-welfare, the inequality of basic income, basic material, health, cultural and educational welfare had deteriorated, and the inequality of safety and social welfare had improved, but at a very low level. [Conclusions]The MRYR should follow the principle of ‘benchmarking against the national level, adapting to regional realities, and gradually raising the standards by item', so as to effectively raise the level of residents' comprehensive welfare and reduce the inequality of residents' comprehensive welfare.

References:: [1]Liu Y X, Fu B J, Wang S, et al. Global assessment of nature's contributions to people[J]. Science Bulletin, 2023,68(4):424-435.
[2]Yang S Q, Zhao W W, Pereira P, et al. Socio-cultural valuation of rural and urban perception on ecosystem services and human well-being in Yanhe watershed of China[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019,251:109615.
[3]陈万旭,李江风,朱丽君.长江中游地区生态系统服务价值空间分异及敏感性分析[J].自然资源学报,2019,34(2):325-337.
Chen W X, Li J F, Zhu L J. Spatial heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis of ecosystem services value in the Middle Yangtze River Region[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2019,34(2):325-337.
[4]Ran R, Hua L, Xiao J F, et al. Can poverty alleviation policy enhance ecosystem service value? Evidence from poverty-stricken regions in China[J]. Economic Analysis and Policy, 2023,80:1509-1525.
[5]Mao B N, Wang X, Liao Z M, et al. Spatiotemporal variations and tradeoff-synergy relations of ecosystem services under ecological water replenishment in Baiyangdian Lake, North China[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023,343:118229.
[6]杨武,陶俊杰,陆巧玲.基于生态系统服务视角的人类福祉评估技术方法体系[J].生态学报,2021,41(2):730-736.
Yang W, Tao J J, Lu Q L. Methodologies of human well-being assessment from the ecosystem service perspective[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021,41(2):730-736.
[7]李文青,赵雪雁,杜昱璇,等.秦巴山区生态系统服务与居民福祉耦合关系的时空变化[J].自然资源学报,2021,36(10):2522-2540.
Li W Q, Zhao X Y, Du Y X, et al. Spatio-temporal changes of the coupling relationship between ecosystem services and residents' well-being in Qinba Mountains Area[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2021,36(10):2522-2540.
[8]Phillips J. Determining sustainability using the Environmental Performance Index and Human Development Index: An alternative approach to the Environmental Human Index through a holistic quantitative dynamic framework[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2023,884:163752.
[9]Yang L J, McCall B. World education finance policies and higher education access: A statistical analysis of World Development Indicators for 86 countries[J]. International Journal of Educational Development, 2014,35:25-36.
[10]Harding S D. Psychological well-being in great Britain: An evaluation of the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 1982,3(2):167-175.
[11]Diener E, Emmons R A, Larsen R J, et al. The satisfaction with life scale[J]. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1985,49(1):71-75.
[12]Kourtit K, Nijkamp P, Türk U, et al. City love and place quality assessment of liveable and loveable neighbourhoods in Rotterdam[J]. Land Use Policy, 2022,119:106109.
[13]Bondarchik J, Jabońska-Sabuka M, Linnanen L, et al. Improving the objectivity of sustainability indices by a novel approach for combining contrasting effects: Happy Planet Index revisited[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2016,69:400-406.
[14]Garces E J, Adriatico C, Timbal L R E. Analysis on the relationships on the global distribution of the world happiness index and selected economic development indicators[J]. OALib, 2019,6(6):1-13.
[15]Greco S, Ishizaka A, Resce G, et al. Measuring well-being by a multidimensional spatial model in OECD Better Life Index framework[J]. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 2020,70:100684.
[16]Lazarus E, Brown C. Improving the genuine progress indicator to measure comparable net welfare: U.S. and California, 1995—2017[J]. Ecological Economics, 2022,202:107605.
[17]Kamei M, Wangmo T, Leibowicz B D, et al. Urbanization, carbon neutrality, and Gross National Happiness: Sustainable development pathways for Bhutan[J]. Cities, 2021,111:102972.
[18]Smith L M, Case J L, Smith H M, et al. Relating ecoystem services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a U.S. index[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2013,28:79-90.
[19]Summers J K, Smith L M, Case J L, et al. A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services[J]. AMBIO, 2012,41(4):327-340.
[20]Yang W, Dietz T, Liu W, et al. Going beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment: An index system of human dependence on ecosystem services[J]. PLoS One, 2013,8(5):e64581.
[21]张文彬,王赟.可行能力视角下中国福利水平区域差异、动态演进与结构分解[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2021,38(12):45-66.
Zhang W B, Wang Y. Regional differences, dynamic evolution and structural decomposition of China's welfare from the perspective of feasible capability[J].Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, 2021,38(12):45-66.
[22]Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis[R]. Washington D C: Island Press, 2005.
[23]陈明星,周园,汤青,等.新型城镇化、居民福祉与国土空间规划应对[J].自然资源学报,2020,35(6):1273-1287.
Chen M X, Zhou Y, Tang Q, et al. New-type urbanization, well-being of residents, and the response of land spatial planning[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020,35(6):1273-1287.
[24]李琰,李双成,高阳,等.连接多层次人类福祉的生态系统服务分类框架[J].地理学报,2013,68(8):1038-1047.
Li Y, Li S C, Gao Y, et al. Ecosystem services and hierarchic human well-being: Concepts and service classification framework[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2013,68(8):1038-1047.
[25]Huang Q, Yin D, He C, et al. Linking ecosystem services and subjective well-being in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: Insights from a multilevel linear model[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2020,43:101106.
[26]乔旭宁,张婷,杨永菊,等.渭干河流域生态系统服务的空间溢出及对居民福祉的影响[J].资源科学,2017,39(3):533-544.
Qiao X N, Zhang T, Yang Y J, et al. Spatial flow of ecosystem services and impacts on human well-being in the Weigan River Basin[J]. Resources Science, 2017,39(3):533-544.
[27]Hu Z, Yang X, Yang J, et al. Linking landscape pattern, ecosystem service value, and human well-being in Xishuangbanna, southwest China: Insights from a coupling coordination model[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021,27:e01583.
[28]刘基伟,闵素芹,金梦迪.基于分布式感知深度神经网络的高分辨率PM_2.5值估算[J].地理学报,2021,76(1):191-205.
Liu J W, Min S Q, Jin M D. High resolution PM_2.5 estimation based on the distributed perception deep neural network model[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2021,76(1):191-205.
[29]邱坚坚,刘毅华,陈澄静,等.生态系统服务与人类福祉耦合的空间格局及其驱动方式:以广州市为例[J].自然资源学报,2023,38(3):760-778.
Qiu J J, Liu Y H, Chen C J, et al. Spatial structure and driving pathways of the coupling between ecosystem services and human well-beings: A case study of Guangzhou[J]. Journal of Natural Resources, 2023,38(3):760-778.
[30]张丽君,巩蓉蓉,袁伟伦.公共服务差距与区域间收入不平等的形成:基于2000—2019年省级面板数据的分析[J].公共管理评论,2020,2(4):50-81.
Zhang L J, Kong R R, Yuan W L. Differences in public services and the formation of interregional income inequality: An analysis based on provincial panel data, 2000—2019[J].Public Administration Review, 2020,2(4):50-81.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 2024-12-10