Spatial Measurements and Influencing Factors of Comprehensive Human Development in China

Abstract

Comprehensive human development is the ultimate goal of achieving a happy life and creating sustainable social development. This study examines 31 provinces in China as the research object, constructs an evaluation index system for comprehensive human development in three dimensions (human–nature, human–society, human–human), and analyzes the spatio-temporal evolution patterns. Barrier and regression analyses are used to identify the main drivers of the levels in different regions. The results show that: (1) China’s level of comprehensive human development has been on the rise since 2005. The level of harmonious development in human–nature and human–society is constantly improving, while the process of harmonious development in the human–human dimension is, relatively, lagging behind. There are large regional differences, with high-level areas being distributed in the northeastern and eastern coastal provinces, while the central and western regions are farther behind. (2) An analysis of the barriers shows that the development of green infrastructure is the main barrier affecting differences in the level of harmonious development in the human–nature dimension. Income distribution, housing problems, and recreation levels are the main barriers affecting differences in the level of harmonious development in the human–society dimension. The level of information technology and aging issues are the main barriers affecting the differences in the level of harmonious development of the human–human dimension. (3) Regression analysis shows that the level of economic development and the degree of openness have a significant impact on the level of comprehensive human development, and that industrialization plays a negative role, while the size of government and the level of marketization have a weak effect on comprehensive human development.

1. Introduction

Since the national reform and the country opening up, China’s economy has achieved rapid development, yet this development has overly pursued the rapid expansion of economic quantity and scale [1,2], giving rise to a strong tendency toward materialistic values. This has ignored the true value goal of human development and caused a series of problems such as human–nature conflicts, human–social conflicts, and the creation of a gap between the rich and poor, none of which is conducive to achieving full, free, and harmonious human development. The issue of development should adhere to a human-centered approach, giving full play to the role of the human subject, and emphasizing the comprehensiveness and richness of development. In essence, comprehensive human development not only emphasizes the development of the individual, but also focuses on removing and transforming the material conditions in different environments to achieve the simultaneous harmony of humans, society, and nature. With a shift in the main social contradiction to the contradiction between people’s growing need for a better life and unbalanced and insufficient development [3], how to coordinate the problem of unbalanced and inadequate development among regions, as well as how to effectively achieve the common progress and coordinated development of humans, society, and nature, is one of the most urgent challenges that must be addressed in China’s current period of economic development.

As China’s economy enters a period of transition, the environment, material conditions, and social relationships in which people live have undergone radical changes, while the comprehensive human development level varies widely among regions due to the constraints of differences in regional economic development levels and urbanization processes. To solve the problem of unbalanced development and to further promote high-quality development, the Chinese government has proposed a series of integrated development policies for regional development such as the “One Belt, One Road”, “city group development”, and “metropolitan areas development” policies. In addition, China is actively promoting the development of a low-carbon economy to alleviate the conflict between humans and nature. Therefore, it is of great practical importance to thoroughly evaluate the level of comprehensive human development in each region, explore its evolutionary characteristics in temporal and spatial dimensions, and further identify the driving factors.

Comprehensive human development is the highest principle of social development and the highest standard of value evaluation, and it is a hot issue of concern in sociology and political science [4]. Early studies of comprehensive human development focused on philosophical definitions but later moved on to educational, economic, and social inequalities, as well as on discussions of what aspects comprehensive human development involves. Scholars have debated the content of a multidimensional framework to define the connotations of comprehensive human development. As such, scholars have analyzed it from the perspectives of subjectivity, neediness, freedom, and other implicit characteristics, and have extended it to include the process of social development [5,6,7,8], making it clear that comprehensive human development involves material and spiritual, inner and outer, individual and society, human and nature, as well as other aspects [9,10]. Comprehensive human development is characterized by a continuous evolution, which is the process in which there is a degree of harmony between human beings and nature, a degree of satisfaction of human needs by materials, and a degree of harmony between human beings which continuously increases and tends to be coordinated and balanced [11,12]. Furthermore, comprehensive human development requires the development of productive forces, creation of science and technology, establishment of new social relationships, and improvement of population quality [13,14,15].

Based on the connotations of comprehensive human development, different evaluation indicators and methods that can be used to measure comprehensive human development have been proposed. To evaluate human development status, the World Bank proposed the living standard measurement method [16] and the UND constructed the human development index (HDI) based on life expectancy, level of education, and quality of life [17], while other scholars have used the entropy value, G1, AHP, and standard deviation methods to further incorporate political freedom, human rights, and self-esteem into the indicator systems [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Recently, scholars have incorporated the impact of the ecological environment into human development evaluation systems. Türe constructed an ecologically sustainable human development index using the ratio of the HDI to the ecological footprint (EF) per capita (HDI/EF) [25,26]. Hickel proposed a sustainability index based on HDI using two key ecological impact indicators [27]. Furthermore, some scholars have measured the level of human development in different countries and regions such as the Western Balkans countries, Sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and the southwest region of China [28,29,30,31].

Comprehensive human development is influenced by many factors, such as urbanization [32,33,34], the urban–rural income gap [13,35,36,37], and energy consumption [13]. Among these factors, research on the relationship between energy consumption and human development is an important aspect, focusing on electricity, biomass energy utilization, and other natural resources [38,39,40]. In addition, some scholars have studied the effects of policy evaluation on achieving the SDGs [20].

In previous studies, scholars have conducted rich analyses on the evaluation system, but the selection of indicators to evaluate comprehensive human development mainly focuses on the material conditions of human development and lacks consideration of non-economic factors. This makes it difficult to portray the status of comprehensive human development because of the low number of indicators selected and because the focus is often on evaluating a specific dimension of human development while lacking a detailed analysis from the perspective of spatial and temporal dynamics.

This study aims to assess the level of comprehensive human development in China’s provinces and to explore the driving factors of human development. Specifically, we constructed an evaluation index to determine the level of comprehensive human development using three dimensions (human–nature, human–society, and human–human) based on their connotations. The study is carried out in relation to the following aspects: First, based on 14-year panel data from the 30 mainland provinces, we used the principal component analysis method to measure the level of comprehensive human development. Moreover, we analyzed the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics across different dimensions. Second, we used barrier and regression analysis to identify the main driving factors of comprehensive human development. Finally, we proposed targeted suggestions for improvement inspired by the study results with the aim of providing a reference for the coordinated achievement of regional comprehensive human development and the overall construction of a moderately prosperous society.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the research methodology and data sources, as well as a multidimensional evaluation index of comprehensive human development, a barrier model, and a two-way fixed-effects model. Section 3 presents the results of the analysis, including the spatio-temporal evolutionary characteristics, the main barrier factors, and the driving factors affecting comprehensive human development. Finally, Section 4 provides the conclusions, recommendations, and limitations of this study.

2. Research Methodology and Data Sources

2.1. Constructing the Indicator System

The Human Development Report states that the main goal of development is to create an enabling environment in which people can continuously improve their conditions of existence in the midst of economic and social change, leading to freedom and development. Therefore, the key to achieving comprehensive human development is to deal with the relationship between the natural system, the productivity system, and the relationships of production, that is, the relationship between nature, society, and humans (Figure 1). Thus, this study is based on the “human–nature, human–society, and human–human” framework.

In this framework, the harmonious development of the human–nature dimension is the basis and prerequisite for the development of human–society and human–human dimensions. Stable economic development and social progress require a continuous supply of natural resources and a good ecological environment to support their growth [41,42]. The conflict between humans and nature is mainly reflected in the contradiction between the infinite growth of human demand and the limited and phased supply of nature. To achieve the harmonious development of the human–nature dimension, it is necessary to consider the following two aspects: (1) the volume of natural resources and the results of human actions on the natural environment, and (2) the ability of man to reasonably transform nature.

The harmonious development of the human–society dimension is the pivot that connects the harmonious development of the human–nature and human–human dimensions. The exploitation of natural resources through social labor promotes the evolution of the ecological environment and produces rich material products that enhance people’s sense of access and happiness, which is conducive to the harmonious development of the human–human dimension. In particular, high-quality economic development can lead to social progress, improve the material level and spiritual pursuit of people, and promote the conservation of the natural environment by society [43,44]. Specifically, promoting the harmonious development of human–society relies on the level of human consumption. Multilevel consumption with people as the mainstay means the continuous improvement and optimization of the quality and structure of consumption, which is reflected in people’s economic affluence, clothing, food, housing, transportation, medical care, social security, education, and entertainment.

Harmonious human–human development is the highest goal of comprehensive human development. It depends on the degree of harmonious human–nature and human–society development, which prompts individuals to make full use of their subjective initiative and to reasonably transform and utilize natural and social conditions, thus promoting harmonious human–nature and human–society development.

Combining the connotations of comprehensive human development and the social characteristics of the new developmental stage and based on relevant studies [45,46], a multidimensional index system for comprehensive human development is constructed by considering non-economic factors such as the state of the natural environment and the spiritual needs of people (

Table 1. Indicator system for evaluating the level of comprehensive human development.

Target Level	Guideline Level	First-Level Indicators	Symbol	Second-Level Indicators	Nature of Indicator
Comprehensive Human Development	Human–Nature	Air Quality	X1	Number of days with better air quality	Positive
			X2	Per capita carbon emission (mt)	Negative
			X3	PM2.5 concentration (g/m3)	Negative
		Ecology	X4	Green space per capita (m2)	Positive
			X5	Greenery coverage (%)	Positive
			X6	Forest coverage (%)	Positive
		Land use	X7	Construction land per capita (m2)	Positive
			X8	Arable land per capita (m2)	Positive
			X9	Industrial wastewater treatment rate (%)	Positive
			X10	Harmless disposal rate of waste (%)	Positive
		Resources	X11	Water consumption per capita (m3)	Positive
			X12	Energy consumption per capita (t)	Positive
	Human–Society	Income	X13	Disposable income per capita (CNY)	Positive
		Subsistence	X14	Food production per capita (kg)	Positive
		Housing	X15	Housing floor area per capita (CNY)	Positive
		Traffic facilities	X16	Railroad mileage per 10,000 people (km)	Positive
			X17	Road miles per 10,000 people (km)	Positive
			X18	Public transportation vehicles per 10,000 people	Positive
			X19	Private car	Positive
		Medical	X20	Number of health technicians	Positive
			X21	Number of beds in health institutions	Positive
		Education	X22	School student–teacher ratio	Negative
			X23	Education expenditure per capita (CNY)	Positive
			X24	Number of public libraries	Positive
			X25	Number of museums	Positive
		Entertainment	X26	Number of travel agencies	Positive
	Human–Human	Self-realization	X27	Employment rate (%)	Positive
		Civilization	X28	Urbanization rate (%)	Positive
		Income Gap	X29	Urban–rural income ratio	Negative
		Freedom	X30	Divorce rate (‰)	Negative
		Gender	X31	Sex ratio	Negative
		Social assistance	X32	Number of people covered by the social minimum	Positive
		Child Care	X33	Juvenile child support ratio (%)	Positive
		Elderly Care	X34	Elderly population dependency ratio (%)	Positive
		Morality	X35	Criminal arrest rate per 10,000 people	Negative
		Information	X36	Internet broadband access users	Positive
			X37	Cell phone year-end subscribers	Positive
			X38	Fixed-line year-end subscribers	Negative

).

The human–nature dimension mainly considers air quality, ecological green level, degree of land resource utilization, and degree of resource possession. The human–society dimension is characterized by indicators of human economic status, clothing, food, housing, transportation, medical care, education, social security level, and recreation. In the human–human dimension, the employment rate reflects the degree of personal fulfillment; the urbanization rate reflects the degree of civilization; the urban–rural income ratio measures the income gap between people; the divorce rate reflects freedom and equality between people; the gender ratio reflects the degree of equality between men and women; the number of people on social security reflects the importance of people; the child support ratio and the elderly population support ratio reflect the degree of care for children and the elderly; the arrest ratio of criminal cases per 10,000 people reflects the social morality of people; and the number of Internet broadband access users, cell phone year-end users, and fixed-line year-end users reflects the level of information exchange between people.

This study selects 30 provincial-level administrative regions as the study unit as the indicators could not be calculated due to the serious absence of some data during the study period for the Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and Tibetan regions, meaning that they were excluded. The central-eastern region includes 11 provinces (municipalities directly under the central government) in Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Liaoning, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong, Guangdong, and Hainan; the central region includes 8 provinces in Heilongjiang, Jilin, Shanxi, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, and Hunan; and the western region includes 11 provinces in Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government).

Based on data accessibility, the study period was defined as 2005–2018, with the data for each indicator mainly obtained from the China Statistical Yearbook, China Urban Statistical Yearbook, China Urban and Rural Construction Statistical Yearbook, China Environmental Statistical Yearbook, China Environmental Statistical Yearbook, and the statistical yearbooks of each province. Among them, two indicators (housing area per urban resident and arrest rate of criminal cases per 10,000 people) were interpolated using the linear interpolation method based on their historical data due to missing values for several years.

2.2. Research Methodology

2.2.1. Principal Component Analysis

In this study, the PCA method is used to measure the level of comprehensive human development in 30 provinces of China. The PCA method, which transforms several indicators with a certain level of correlation into a few integrated indicators by adopting the dimensionality reduction technique, can solve problems caused by inconsistent or redundant information among multiple indicators. This method is able to achieve this based on the standardization of the selected indicators [47,48]. The PCA method comprises the following steps:

(1) Assuming that there are m indicator variables, n evaluation objects for PCA, and the values of the indicators are standardized to eliminate the influence of the magnitude, the calculation formula is as follows:

Positive indicators:

$$x_{ij}^{\prime }=\raisebox{1ex}{$(x_{ij}-\min x_j)$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\left(\max x_{ij}-\min x_{ij}\right)$}\right..$$

(1)

Negative indicators:

$$x_{ij}^{\prime }=\raisebox{1ex}{$(\max x_j-x_{ij})$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\left(\max x_{ij}-\min x_{ij}\right)$}\right.$$

(2)

(2) The correlation coefficient matrix of each evaluation index after standardization is:

$$R={\left(r_{ij}\right)}_{m\times m}$$

(3)

where $r_{ij}$ is the correlation coefficient between the indicators.

(3) Calculate the information contribution $b_j$ of the eigenvalues ${\lambda }_j$ (j = 1, 2, …, m):

$$b_j=\frac{{\lambda }_j}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{k=1}^m{\lambda }_k}$$

(4)

(4) Determine the number p of principal components using the cumulative percent variance:

$${\alpha }_p=\frac{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{k=1}^p{\lambda }_k}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{k=1}^m{\lambda }_k}$$

(5)

(5) Calculate the overall score:

$$Z=b_1{Y}_1+b_2{Y}_2+\cdots +b_p{Y}_p$$

(6)

Principal component analysis helped measure the level of comprehensive human development in China’s provinces from 2005 to 2018. The KMO test value was 0.812, which passed the significance test and was suitable for the principal component analysis, with nine principal components (shown in

Table 2. Factor component matrix.

Symbol	Components
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
X1	−0.478	0.019	−0.322	0.223	0.467	0.117	−0.033	0.244	−0.232
X2	0.340	0.242	0.510	−0.318	−0.187	0.365	−0.281	0.139	−0.187
X3	0.091	0.422	−0.193	−0.457	−0.443	−0.160	−0.014	0.330	0.208
X4	0.641	0.038	0.312	0.219	0.057	0.129	−0.230	0.347	−0.099
X5	0.648	0.340	−0.114	0.092	0.163	0.009	−0.176	0.326	0.005
X6	0.033	0.411	−0.089	0.393	0.697	−0.127	−0.147	−0.064	0.035
X7	0.588	−0.323	−0.368	−0.316	0.088	0.078	0.158	0.089	0.042
X8	−0.227	−0.580	0.602	−0.148	0.299	0.093	−0.028	−0.025	−0.010
X9	0.757	0.141	0.243	0.179	−0.029	−0.126	−0.064	0.289	0.197
X10	0.689	0.148	0.000	0.385	−0.136	−0.162	−0.059	0.255	0.115
X11	−0.069	−0.449	0.181	0.063	0.101	0.333	0.604	0.231	0.048
X12	0.409	−0.626	0.117	−0.101	−0.295	0.297	−0.056	0.305	−0.264
X13	0.907	0.035	−0.095	0.202	0.013	−0.060	0.017	−0.038	0.107
X14	−0.042	−0.329	0.684	−0.314	0.421	−0.053	−0.023	0.066	0.226
X15	0.532	0.417	0.223	0.372	0.113	−0.169	0.194	0.151	0.348
X16	0.010	−0.756	0.421	0.165	−0.059	0.246	−0.120	0.024	−0.302
X17	−0.111	−0.540	0.488	0.431	−0.207	0.139	0.095	−0.069	−0.140
X18	0.669	−0.163	−0.235	0.113	−0.207	−0.035	0.149	−0.275	0.064
X19	0.898	−0.110	0.057	0.179	−0.099	0.030	−0.110	−0.074	−0.024
X20	0.874	−0.294	−0.082	0.084	−0.029	−0.008	−0.002	−0.162	0.024
X21	0.772	−0.265	0.359	0.155	−0.028	−0.177	0.165	−0.058	0.323
X22	−0.823	0.255	0.174	−0.008	0.066	−0.091	−0.040	0.125	0.035
X23	0.846	−0.256	−0.169	0.298	−0.085	−0.052	−0.007	−0.048	−0.006
X24	−0.043	0.581	0.660	−0.078	0.021	0.176	0.024	−0.134	0.120
X25	0.486	0.543	0.441	−0.037	−0.038	0.065	0.125	−0.203	0.251
X26	0.615	0.546	0.054	−0.252	0.015	0.316	0.006	−0.053	−0.022
X27	0.495	0.076	−0.280	0.257	−0.123	0.229	−0.146	−0.239	−0.314
X28	0.762	−0.161	−0.483	−0.250	0.111	−0.004	−0.035	0.023	0.003
X29	−0.695	−0.023	0.108	0.343	−0.285	0.084	−0.038	−0.156	−0.242
X30	0.573	−0.382	0.329	−0.092	0.248	−0.304	0.272	0.038	0.504
X31	0.016	0.078	−0.161	0.554	0.173	0.187	−0.326	−0.045	−0.439
X32	−0.228	0.403	0.596	0.108	0.004	−0.161	0.025	−0.097	0.275
X33	−0.578	0.192	0.207	0.577	−0.244	0.024	0.181	0.138	−0.044
X34	0.376	0.375	0.115	−0.158	−0.036	−0.629	0.216	0.015	0.746
X35	0.176	−0.077	−0.560	0.187	0.251	0.426	0.389	0.035	−0.241
X36	0.658	0.544	0.244	0.053	0.036	0.184	0.136	−0.107	0.135
X37	0.565	0.642	0.232	−0.002	0.065	0.314	0.067	−0.101	0.014
X38	0.051	0.663	−0.113	−0.390	0.107	0.425	0.148	−0.003	−0.078

) being extracted and the cumulative variance contribution rate reaching 81.78%. According to the factor component matrix, these nine principal components could respectively be named as: (I) socio-economic service factor, involving income (X13), medical care (X20), education (X23), and private cars (X19); (II) information communication and transportation factor, with railroad mileage (X16) and information communication users (X37,X38) being more significant; (III) life security factor, involving arable land area (X8), food production (X14), libraries (X24), and the number of social minimum security (X32); (IV) labor force factor; (V) air factor, involving air quality (X1) and forest coverage (X6); (VI) social governance factor, involving criminal arrest rate (X35), and elderly dependency ratio (X34); (VII) water factor; (VIII) ecological environment factor, involving PM_2.5 emissions (X3), greenery coverage (X5), etc.; and (VIIII) elderly care factor.

2.2.2. Barrier Degree Calculation

To analyze those factors influencing the spatial differences in the level of the comprehensive human development in 30 provinces in China, we introduced the barrier degree calculation method, which is formulated as follows:

$$O_{ij}=\frac{(1-x_{ij}^{\prime })\times w_{ij}\times 100\%}{{\displaystyle \sum }(1-x_{ij}^{\prime })\times w_{ij}}$$

(7)

where $O_{ij}$ represents the barrier degree of a single indicator to the level of comprehensive human development in the province, $x_{ij}^{\prime }$ represents the standardized value of each indicator, and $w_{ij}$ is the weight of each indicator, which is calculated by the component matrix, the characteristic root, and the variance contribution in the principal component analysis.

2.2.3. Two-Way Fixed-Effects Model

Given it is a model with both individual and time effects, and for the problem studied in this paper, a two-way fixed-effects model was selected based on regression diagnostics. This is because each province is different and there may be omitted variables that do not vary over time and time effects that do not vary with individual heterogeneity, as follows:

$$Scor{e}_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}lnpergd{p}_{it}+\cdots +{\beta }_{6}urban\_s_{it}+provinc{e}_i+yea{r}_t+{ϵ}_{it}$$

(8)

Here, $Scor{e}_{it}$ is the score of the comprehensive human development level of province i in year t. Drawing on other studies [49,50,51], the driving factors were mainly selected to detect the following variables: the economic development level, the size of government, openness, degree of industrialization, marketization process, and social development status. The variables $provinc{e}_i$ and $yea{r}_t$ are province-fixed effects and year-fixed effects, respectively. The rationale and definition of each variable are as follows: the level of regional economic development implies the comprehensive strength of the region, which is represented by the logarithm of GDP per capita ($lnpergd{p}_{it}$) and is expected to have a positive effect on comprehensive human development. Considering that the role of the government has a certain influence on comprehensive human development, the size of the regional government is indicated by the logarithm of the share of regional government budget expenditure in regional GDP ($lngo{v}_{it}$), which is expected to have a positive effect. During the economic transition period, foreign investment in the region produces regional economic development and has a certain influence on the regional culture, customs, and thoughts. The level of regional openness is measured by calculating the proportion of foreign direct investment to the regional GDP ($fd{i}_{it}$), with the expected result a positive influence. The degree of regional industrialization promotes economic development while intensifying the disorder of the regional natural environment. The ratio of the regional secondary industry output value to the regional primary industry output value ($second\_f_{it}$) is used to capture the degree of regional industrialization, with the expected impact unclear. The marketization process ($lnmarke{t}_{it}$) is represented by the logarithm of the regional marketization index calculated according to the method used by Fan Gang [52], with the expected result a positive impact. In addition, the squared term of the urbanization rate of the population ($urban\_s_{it}$) is considered to represent the social development status, reflecting the social progress and civilization, with a positive effect expected.

3. Analysis of Results

3.1. Measurement Result

With the help of principal component analysis, we were able to measure the level of comprehensive human development in China’s provinces from 2005 to 2018. Figure 2 shows that the comprehensive human development level showed a continuous increase from 0.353 in 2005 to 0.801 in 2018. The average annual changes in the three regions are similar to the national trends, while the comprehensive human development level in the eastern region is higher than the national average, and the central and western regions show lower levels of comprehensive human development than that observed at the national level. The comprehensive human development level in the western region was lower than that in the central region during the period of 2005–2012, but was slightly higher than that in the central region overall. From the decomposition of the Thayer Index, the intraregional variation in the comprehensive human development level in 2018 was 0.055 and the interregional variation was 0.068. From a provincial perspective, the comprehensive human development levels in Beijing, Inner Mongolia, and Northeast China, and in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai, were higher and more stable from 2005 to 2018; the level of development in Fujian, Guangdong, and Xinjiang was relatively higher; the level of development in Sichuan and Chongqing was initially lower, but the level of improvement and enhancement was greater. However, the other provinces show higher improvement and enhancement levels, though other provinces have a lower development level and a slower growth rate. It can be observed that the level of comprehensive human development is not balanced and that the coordinated development among regions needs to be improved.

Figure 3 shows that for the human–nature dimension, the national average score increased steadily from 0.374 in 2005 to 0.693 in 2018. Regarding the human–society dimension, the national average score increased from 0.282 in 2005 to 0.795 in 2018, demonstrating a larger increase and indicating that the harmonious development of human–society is at a higher level. In terms of the human–human dimension, the national average score increased from 0.451 in 2005 to 0.686 in 2018, indicating a slower growth rate.

Using ArcGIS 10.6 software, the Natural Jenks method was used to visualize the level values for the provincial level of comprehensive human development and its sub-dimensions at three time points in 2005, 2011, and 2018.

Figure 4 shows that the comprehensive human development level has increased in all regions since 2005, with the lowest value increasing from 0.100 in 2005 to 0.617 in 2018, and the maximum value increasing from 0.699 in 2005 to 1.000 in 2018. The disparity between regions in the spatial distribution of the comprehensive human development level at the provincial level during the study period is more obvious. The high values are concentrated in the eastern coastal provinces, specifically in three eastern provinces of Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, which have a good local economic base, diversified industrial base, and excellent ecological background, whereas the comprehensive human development level is generally lower in the vast central and western provinces, with the exception of Sichuan and Chongqing.

Figure 5 shows that the level of human–nature development in each province showed a slow increase starting in 2005, with the lowest value increasing from 0.134 in 2005 to 0.351 in 2018. The higher level of human–nature development in the southern coastal and northern frontier regions is closely related to their superior natural background conditions, while the lower level of human–nature development in the Loess Plateau and on the North China Plain is due to the contradiction between the high-density population and the weak carrying capacity of the natural environment.

Figure 6 shows that the level of human–society development in each province has improved quickly and increased starting in 2005, with the lowest value increasing from 0.100 in 2005 to 0.620 in 2018. This indicates that regional economic conditions, people’s living standards, transportation, medical care, education, and other aspects have significantly improved. The higher-level provinces are concentrated along the eastern coast and in Beijing, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang, which are provinces that are closely related to the level of socio-economic development. The lower-level provinces are sporadically distributed in the North China Plain and in the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau region, which may be influenced by the disparity between urban and rural economic development and the uneven supply of public services.

Figure 7 shows that the level of human–human development in each province has improved slowly since 2005, with the lowest value increasing from 0.111 in 2005 to 0.364 in 2018. Overall, the level of human–human development shows a high distribution characteristic in the east and a low distribution characteristic in the west, which may be due to the interregional and urban–rural disparities created by differences in economic development, the level of urbanization, and social conditions that constrain human employment, income level, and living standards.

3.2. Analysis of Barrier Factors

The main factors influencing the coordinated development of the subsystems within the comprehensive human development system and its internal elements in 2005–2018 were discerned with the help of the barrier degree model. Figure 8 shows that the level of human–society development was the main obstacle for comprehensive human development in 2005–2018, with the mean value of the obstacle fluctuating between 45% and 50%. This was followed by the level of human–human development, where the mean value of the obstacles tended to show a continuous increase, from 29.18% to 38.47% in 2018, while the obstacles to the level of human–nature development showed a decreasing trend and the lowest contribution rate. The spatial pattern of the system of impediments preventing increased comprehensive human development remains relatively stable, with small differences observed in the main impediment factors across provinces and regions. Specifically, Beijing and Zhejiang have the greatest number of barriers to human–human development, whereas other regions have more barriers to human–society development. Enhancing the level of comprehensive human development must be based on the coordination of the harmonious relationship between humans and society, which is supplemented by the harmonious development of the human–human dimension, and on the promotion of the coordinated and parallel development of these two major relationships.

For the main obstacle factors of each dimension (shown in

Table 3. Barrier factors within the three dimensions.

	Year	First Barrier	Second Barrier	Third Barrier	Fourth Barrier	Fifth Barrier
Human–Nature	2005	X4 (6.49)	X9 (4.93)	X5 (4.21)	X10 (3.51)	X6 (2.86)
	2006	X4 (6.45)	X9 (4.53)	X5 (4.21)	X10 (3.56)	X6 (2.91)
	2007	X4 (6.26)	X5 (4.17)	X9 (4.05)	X6 (3.02)	X10 (3.01)
	2008	X4 (6.11)	X5 (4.05)	X9 (3.40)	X4 (6.11)	X10 (2.70)
	2009	X4 (5.81)	X5 (3.93)	X9 (2.93)	X6 (2.70)	X10 (2.46)
	2010	X4 (5.59)	X5 (3.81)	X6 (2.78)	X9 (2.21)	X10 (1.90)
	2011	X4 (5.33)	X5 (3.91)	X6 (2.88)	X9 (1.91)	X10 (1.74)
	2012	X4 (5.26)	X5 (3.94)	X6 (2.98)	X9 (1.59)	X11 (1.56)
	2013	X4 (5.16)	X5 (4.07)	X6 (3.12)	X11 (1.61)	X8 (1.56)
	2014	X4 (4.97)	X5 (4.08)	X6 (3.20)	X2 (1.68)	X11 (1.67)
	2015	X4 (4.98)	X5 (4.25)	X6 (3.29)	X2 (1.70)	X11 (1.74)
	2016	X4 (4.90)	X5 (4.30)	X6 (3.41)	X11 (1.84)	X2 (1.73)
	2017	X4 (4.88)	X5 (4.37)	X6 (3.61)	X2 (1.87)	X11 (1.97)
	2018	X4 (5.13)	X5 (4.56)	X6 (3.58)	X2 (2.04)	X8 (1.97)
Human–Society	2005	X15 (7.40)	X25 (7.39)	X13 (6.77)	X26 (6.22)	X19 (6.00)
	2006	X25 (7.47)	X15 (7.19)	X13 (6.72)	X26 (6.46)	X19 (5.99)
	2007	X25 (7.70)	X15 (7.23)	X13 (6.77)	X26 (6.35)	X19 (6.10)
	2008	X25 (7.81)	X15 (7.16)	X13 (6.73)	X26 (6.64)	X19 (6.14)
	2009	X25 (7.91)	X15 (7.16)	X13 (6.82)	X26 (6.75)	X19 (6.13)
	2010	X25 (8.04)	X15 (7.31)	X13 (6.78)	X26 (6.73)	X19 (6.00)
	2011	X25 (8.18)	X15 (7.19)	X26 (6.86)	X13 (6.66)	X19 (5.88)
	2012	X25 (8.18)	X15 (7.37)	X26 (6.95)	X13 (6.50)	X19 (5.72)
	2013	X25 (8.23)	X15 (7.31)	X26 (7.11)	X13 (6.48)	X19 (5.53)
	2014	X25 (8.31)	X26 (7.21)	X15 (7.18)	X13 (6.28)	X19 (5.22)
	2015	X25 (8.37)	X26 (7.29)	X15 (7.16)	X13 (6.09)	X19 (4.93)
	2016	X25 (8.42)	X26 (7.50)	X15 (7.06)	X13 (5.90)	X19 (4.52)
	2017	X25 (8.36)	X26 (7.63)	X15 (7.15)	X13 (5.74)	X24 (4.50)
	2018	X25 (8.65)	X26 (6.90)	X15 (6.76)	X13 (5.55)	X24 (4.74)
Human–Human	2005	X35 (9.39)	X36 (8.87)	X37 (2.64)	X32 (2.38)	X34 (2.24)
	2006	X35 (9.40)	X36 (8.86)	X37 (2.61)	X32 (2.30)	X34 (2.23)
	2007	X35 (9.62)	X36 (9.02)	X37 (2.71)	X34 (2.27)	X29 (2.00)
	2008	X35 (9.70)	X36 (9.08)	X37 (2.87)	X27 (2.30)	X34 (2.30)
	2009	X35 (9.86)	X36 (9.20)	X37 (3.09)	X34 (2.37)	X27 (2.37)
	2010	X35 (9.92)	X36 (9.22)	X37 (3.26)	X34 (2.79)	X27 (2.46)
	2011	X35 (10.00)	X36 (9.24)	X37 (3.42)	X34 (2.86)	X27 (2.50)
	2012	X35 (10.05)	X36 (9.24)	X37 (3.56)	X34 (2.83)	X27 (2.57)
	2013	X35 (10.30)	X36 (9.31)	X37 (3.77)	X34 (2.81)	X27 (2.66)
	2014	X35 (10.42)	X36 (9.39)	X37 (3.95)	X34 (2.75)	X27 (2.74)
	2015	X35 (9.88)	X36 (9.68)	X37 (4.16)	X30 (2.66)	X34 (2.61)
	2016	X36 (9.87)	X35 (9.68)	X37 (4.43)	X30 (3.07)	X32 (2.73)
	2017	X36 (10.09)	X35 (9.41)	X37 (4.75)	X30 (3.32)	X32 (3.06)
	2018	X36 (10.15)	X35 (8.99)	X37 (5.04)	X30 (3.59)	X32 (3.45)

Note: the percentage of each indicator is shown within ().

), it is perceived that in the human–nature dimension, the obstacle of green park areas per capita (X4), green coverage rate in built-up areas (X5), and the forest coverage rate (X6) in urban greening infrastructure are higher, indicating that urban greening infrastructure still needs to be completed and that the urban greening level needs to be improved. The barrier effect of industrial wastewater treatment rate (X9) and harmless disposal rate of waste (X10) have decreased annually, indicating that industrial pollution control and domestic waste disposal have greatly improved. In addition, the barrier effect of carbon emissions (X2) has increased annually, implying that air pollution is a major threat affecting the harmony between humans and nature. It can be seen that the contradiction between the air pollution emissions and the lack of instruments and capacity for air quality management has become a major obstacle to the harmonious development of the human–nature dimension. In terms of the human–society dimension, the number of museums (X25), built-up housing area per urban resident (X15), number of travel agencies (X26), and disposable income per urban resident (X13) are the main obstacles, indicating that there is still a need to pay attention to basic livelihood issues such as income distribution and housing. However, the construction of regional public cultural services should be strengthened to meet the multilevel and differentiated needs of residents for culture and entertainment. In the human–human dimension, the barriers of criminal arrest rate (X35), information technology level (X36 and X37), and elderly population dependency ratio (X34) are higher, while the barrier of divorce rate (X30) continues to increase annually, indicating that the social security, lag in information technology, increasing aging population, and continuously high divorce rate will become significant factors influencing the harmonious development of the human–human dimension.

3.3. Analysis of Driving Factors

Although the barrier factor can identify the coordinating role of elements within the system, it cannot diagnose the drivers of comprehensive human development in the province. Therefore, a two-way fixed-effects model was used to further detect the drivers of comprehensive human development. The analysis results are as follows (

Table 4. Regression results by region.

Variables	All Regions	Eastern Region	Central Region	Western Region
Lnpergdp	0.183 *** (0.042)	0.087 (0.074)	0.282 *** (0.066)	0.086 (0.051)
Lngov	0.029 (0.047)	0.037 (0.078)	0.181 ** (0.071)	0.035 (0.062)
Fdi	0.010 ** (0.004)	0.005 * (0.002)	0.015 ** (0.006)	0.018 *** (0.005)
Second_f	−0.005 *** (0.001)	−0.002 ** (0.001)	−0.008 ** (0.003)	−0.002 (0.007)
Lnmarket	−0.056 (0.036)	−0.196 * (0.095)	−0.045 (0.072)	−0.063 (0.057)
Urban_s	0.206 (0.187)	0.486 ** (0.207)	−0.600 * (0.295)	1.641 *** (0.429)
Constant term	−1.408 *** (0.487)	−0.236 (0.688)	−2.622 *** (0.672)	−0.764 (0.553)
Provincial fixed effects	YES	YES	YES	YES
Time fixed effect	YES	YES	YES	YES
Obs	420	154	112	154
R2	0.955	0.918	0.984	0.983

Note: *, **, and *** represent 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively; robust standard errors are shown within ().

):

Table 4 shows that the coefficients of the effects of the size of the government, the degree of marketization, and the urbanization level on the level of comprehensive human development are relatively small and insignificant. The size of government has a certain marginal output effect on regional development, and expanding the size of the government to alarming levels triggers institutional bloat, redundancy, the wasteful and ineffective allocation of resources, and other factors that have a negative effect on livelihood services at the regional level [53,54]. Deepening marketization promotes faster development in economically developed regions, but the impact on regions that are relatively economically backward is not obvious, resulting in the “Matthew effect”, which leads to the widening of the development gap between regions and more unbalanced development [55]. The impact of urbanization on comprehensive human development will become more complicated as the space for transferring surplus labor in rural areas and the resource carrying capacity of urbanized areas in China both decrease. The coefficient representing the influence of the level of economic development and the level of openness on the level of comprehensive human development is significantly positive, while the coefficient of the influence of the degree of industrialization is significantly negative.

(1) The level of regional economic development has the greatest impact on comprehensive human development, indicating that the level of regional economic development plays a key role in comprehensive human development. This means that people’s aspiration for a better life are based on their level of economic development, and the promotion of high economic growth and high-quality development is an important material guarantee for the realization of comprehensive human development.

(2) The second most effective factor is the level of openness. Foreign investment constitutes an important driving force for the improvement of comprehensive human development in the region, whether in the eastern region or in the central and western regions, and has a significant positive effect improving the level of comprehensive human development. The promotion of utility for the central and western regions is stronger than that for the eastern regions, which is due to the fact that foreign investment created advanced foreign ideas and concepts, which helps to open up human horizons and promote comprehensive human development.

(3) The significant negative impact coefficient representing the degree of industrialization means that increasing regional industrialization will reduce the level of comprehensive human development, indicating that the negative effects created by an increase in industrialization are greater than the positive effects. For the eastern and central regions with a high degree of industrialization, the marginal economic benefits created by the industrialization process are diminishing, and the resultant negative effects have exceeded the maximum limit that the regional environment and nature can carry. However, the impact of these factors on the western region is not significant. In addition, high industrialization means that machines and equipment can replace or assist humans to complete various tasks, intensifying human dependence on tools, which is not conducive to exercising subjective initiative.

A two-way fixed-effects model was further conducted with the three subsystem scores of the human–nature, human–society, and human–human dimensions as the explanatory variables (

Table 5. Regression results by dimension.

Variables	Comprehensive Human Development	Human–Nature	Human–Society	Human–Human
Lnpergdp	0.183 *** (0.042)	0.244 *** (0.065)	0.075 ** (0.031)	0.125 *** (0.041)
Lngov	0.029 (0.047)	0.113 (0.084)	−0.030 (0.040)	−0.013 (0.042)
Fdi	0.010 ** (0.004)	0.003 (0.006)	0.006 * (0.003)	0.015 *** (0.005)
Second_f	−0.005 *** (0.001)	−0.004 *** (0.001)	−0.002 * (0.001)	−0.005 *** (0.001)
Lnmarket	−0.056 (0.036)	−0.011 (0.059)	−0.068 (0.044)	−0.056 * (0.029)
Urban_s	0.206 (0.187)	−0.369 (0.352)	0.380 * (0.191)	0.490 ** (0.238)
Constant term	−1.408 *** (0.487)	−2.130 ** (0.778)	−0.318 (0.362)	−0.721 (0.479)
Provincial fixed effects	YES	YES	YES	YES
Time fixed effect	YES	YES	YES	YES
Obs	420	420	420	420
R2	0.955	0.803	0.976	0.804

Note: *, **, and *** represent 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels; robust standard errors are shown within ().

). Table 5 shows that the size of the government and the level of marketization have insignificant effects on the three subsystems. In addition, the level of regional economic development, the level of openness, the degree of industrialization, and the level of urbanization, to some extent, have significant effects on the three subsystems of comprehensive human development, among which the coefficients of the level of economic development, the level of openness, and the level of urbanization have positive effects on the level of comprehensive human development, and the coefficient of the degree of industrialization has negative effects.

The level of regional economic development has a significant promoting influence on all three subsystems, indicating that economic development is an important guarantee for comprehensive human development. The increase in the level of external openness gives the regional human–society and human–human relationships a tendency to develop harmoniously, and has a moderate effect on improving the regional environment and ecology. The degree of industrialization has a dampening effect on the development of all three subsystems, especially in the areas of human–nature and human–human dimensions. On the one hand, the deepening of industrialization has brought great pressure to the natural ecological environment, the living environment of the region has been greatly challenged, and the well-being of the people has been reduced; on the other hand, increased industrialization means the widespread use of machines and equipment, with machines gradually replacing human resources, curbing the free development of individual ideas to a certain extent. Urbanization implies a change in lifestyle from rural to urban and a qualitative change in people’s quality of life, while the impact of urbanization on the overall regression is not significant, which may be related to the differences in the economic base, material conditions, and interpersonal interactions caused by the developmental stage of urbanization in those regions. Along with high urban development, the regional economic level and marketization are high, and the various urban infrastructures are relatively well developed. A further influx of people into cities will cause a loss in efficiency and mismatches in resources, and as the population and concentration become more concentrated, it will intensify the pressure on regional resources and the environment, and the relationship between human and nature will be challenged, to some extent ultimately restricting comprehensive human development.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

4.1. Discussion

The potential contributions of this paper are reflected in the following aspects.

First, the human development indicators that were constructed in this study include more comprehensive and systematic coverage. Compared to other studies that focus on traditional factors such as income, education, and healthcare [56,57], this study also considers indicators of non-economic factors such as nature and human spiritual needs. The introduction of two dimensions (natural factors and spiritual needs) increases the richness of the human development index and helps to address sustainable development issues.

Second, the content of the present research fits well with the current transformation of the main social contradictions in China, helping to promote improvements in the human development level and coordinated development among regions, demonstrating how this research is of great practical significance. The research results reveal the main obstacles blocking the expansion of development dimensions in different regions. These findings help to provide a theoretical reference for the formulation of development policies with local characteristics in the future.

Third, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, officially adopted by the United Nations in 2015, aims to effectively address social, economic, and environmental aspects. Among them, the continuous deterioration of the global ecological environment is a serious challenge that the international community is facing together. Therefore, achieving the harmonious development of humans and nature together is the top priority of sustainable development issues. The results of the present study will, to a certain extent, play a positive role in the construction of ecological civilization in China and will provide new experiences and inspiration for the majority of developing countries and emerging economies.

4.2. Conclusions and Recommendations

Currently, comprehensive human development in China is of great significance for the sustainable development of China’s economy and represents an important breakthrough in that economic transition. Analyzing the spatial and temporal patterns and driving factors for the level of comprehensive human development at the provincial level has provided important reference values for the sustainable development of China, as well as for other developing countries. The main conclusions of this study are as follows:

(1) The level of comprehensive human development at the provincial level has steadily increased annually since 2005 and the level of development in human–nature and human–society dimensions has continued to develop, while the level of human–human development has lagged behind. The spatial pattern of comprehensive human development has evolved smoothly, with the provinces with higher levels of comprehensive human development concentrated in the northeastern and eastern coastal regions of the country, while the central and western regions show lower levels of development.

(2) The pattern of the obstacles impending to the level of comprehensive human development in the three dimensions has largely remained unchanged, with the greatest obstacles being to human–society development followed by human–human development and human–nature development. The differences in the barrier factors for the level of comprehensive human development are small, with Beijing and Zhejiang having the largest barriers to human–human development and other regions having the largest barriers to human–society development. Across different dimensions, the construction of regional green infrastructure is the main factor hindering the harmonious development of the human–nature dimension; income distribution, housing problems, and recreation levels are the main factors hindering the harmonious development of the human–society dimension; and the level of information technology and the issue of an aging population are the main factors hindering the harmonious development of the human–human dimension.

(3) The spatial differentiation pattern of comprehensive human development at the provincial level is the result of the combined effects of multidimensional factors. Overall, increasing the regional economic development level and the level of openness will promote the level of comprehensive human development; however, increased industrialization will destroy the balance of the comprehensive human development subsystem and will inhibit comprehensive human development. The scale of the government and the level of marketization have weaker effects on the level of comprehensive human development.

Studying spatial measurements and the drivers of comprehensive human development provides important guidance for sustainable economic, social, and human development in China. At this stage, the level of comprehensive human development at the provincial level is generally at the upper-middle level, while there are still certain disparities between regions due to the constraints of physical geography as well as socio-economic and humanistic factors. To further strengthen the high-quality sustainable development of the region and to promote the orderly and coordinated development of the three dimensions of human–nature, human–society and human–human, we propose the following relevant policy suggestions:

First, the different regions should actively implement the concept of green and sustainable development, improve the relationship between humans and nature, and further promote the harmonious development of people and nature. All provinces and municipalities should focus on improving their construction of green infrastructure in urban areas. Accelerating the deep integration of information technology and environmentally friendly technology will promote the formation of a low-consumption, low-emission, recyclable, and sustainable intelligent infrastructure network, thus easing the pressure on urban resources and the environment. On the other hand, the government should accelerate the transformation and upgrading of green industries. By optimizing the structure of the three industries, creating a positive and well-developed environment, building a solid and reliable support system, and guiding the synergistic development of each industry to enhance its construction level of modern industrial systems in each city, economic transformation will be boosted due to the efficient operation of a modern industrial system; ultimately, this will allow sustainable economic development to be realized.

Second, the government should focus on coordinating the unbalanced development among regions, emphasize the importance of common development in each region, strengthen interregional cooperation and communication, and create greater synergy to promote high-quality regional economic development. On the one hand, this can be achieved through the effective docking of intraregional support policies and services, promoting the free flow of factors between regions, and continuously improving resource allocation efficiency. On the other hand, it optimizes the division of labor and integrated development of industries in the region, and forms an interregional industrial collaboration system according to the differences in the development status, location, and resource endowment of each region.

Third, livelihood issues are an essential aspect on the road to achieving harmonious and sustainable development. To this end, the government should actively promote a new urbanization development strategy, coordinate urban and rural development, narrow the income gap between urban and rural areas, and promote common prosperity. Simultaneously, the government should establish a new pension insurance system to meet the challenges of an aging population, achieve “a sense of security in old age”, and improve the quality of service for the populations.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research

We acknowledge that there are some limitations to this study. First, due to data limitations, the indicator system does not cover some indicators that represent legal and institutional aspects. In addition, the indicator system lacks the consideration of micro data. Future studies can include more relevant micro data to improve the completeness of the indicator system. Moreover, although nine different principal component dimensions are extracted, their spatio-temporal evolution pattern is not analyzed specifically. Second, different evaluation methods may have bias in measuring the level of comprehensive human development, and these methods were not compared in this study. In addition, although the barriers and drivers of comprehensive human development have been studied, the underlying influencing mechanisms require further consideration. Moreover, it is necessary to further explore whether there exist spatial effects of comprehensive human development. Finally, although China is one of the more economically developed countries among the world’s developing countries, there are disparities in the economic characteristics of different countries and regions. Therefore, caution is needed when generalizing these results and relevant studies should be conducted in regions with similar economic characteristics.