Quantifying Ecological Well-Being Loss under Rural–Urban Land Conversion: A Study from Choice Experiments in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Choice Experiment
2.3. Experimental Design
2.3.1. Attribute Identification
2.3.2. Attribute Levels
2.3.3. Experimental Schemes
2.3.4. Questionnaire Collection
2.4. Variable Definition
3. Results
3.1. Estimation Results
3.2. Loss of Residents’Ecological Well-being
4. Discussion
4.1. Differential Loss in Ecological Well-Being Attributes
4.2. Stakeholders’ Differences in Ecological Well-Being Loss
4.3. Spatial Differences in Ecological Well-Being Loss
4.4. Policy Implications
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lienhoop, N.; Schröter-Schlaack, C. Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 34, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leviston, Z.; Walker, I.; Green, M.; Price, J. Linkages between ecosystem services and human wellbeing: A Nexus Webs approach. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 658–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izac, A.M.N.; Swift, M.J. On agricultural sustainability and its measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecol. Econ. 1994, 11, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, S.; Swinton, S.M. Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1649–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swift, M.J.; Izac, A.M.N.; van Noordwijk, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking the right questions? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soy-Massoni, E.; Langemeyer, J.; Varga, D.; Sáez, M.; Pintó, J. The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.; Huntsinger, L.; Han, M. How does the Ecological Well-Being of Urban and Rural Residents Change with Rural-Urban Land Conversion? The Case of Hubei, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foley, J.A.; Ruth, D.; Asner, G.P.; Carol, B.; Gordon, B.; Carpenter, S.R.F.; Stuart, C.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, X.; Dong, X.; Liu, H.; Wei, H.; Fan, W.; Lu, N.; Xu, Z.; Ren, J.; Xing, K. Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Dessane, E.B.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agyemang, F.S.K.; Silva, E.; Poku-Boansi, M. Understanding the urban spatial structure of Sub-Saharan African cities using the case of urban development patterns of a Ghanaian city-region. Habitat Int. 2019, 85, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P. Assessment of Economic Drivers of Land Use Change in Urban Ecosystems of Delhi, India. Ambio 2009, 38, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, G.; Dong, T.; Cobbinah, P.B.; Jiao, L.; Sumari, N.S.; Chai, B.; Liu, Y. Urban expansion and form changes across African cities with a global outlook: Spatiotemporal analysis of urban land densities. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 802–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Zhang, A.; Song, M.; Zhang, Z. Measuring external costs of rural–urban land conversion: An empirical study in Wuhan, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 36, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, R.; Qu, F.; Heerink, N.; Mettepenningen, E. Rural to urban land conversion in China—How large is the over-conversion and what are its welfare implications? China Econ. Rev. 2011, 22, 474–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, M.H.; Li, H.; Svarverud, R. Ecological civilization: Interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 53, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dale, V.H.; Kline, K.L. Issues in using landscape indicators to assess land changes. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 28, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-C.; Ahern, J.; Yeh, C.-T. Ecosystem services in peri-urban landscapes: The effects of agricultural landscape change on ecosystem services in Taiwan’s western coastal plain. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 139, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, S.; Ma, X.; Xiao, R. Agricultural landscape pattern changes in response to urbanization at ecoregional scale. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 40, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kvakkestad, V.; Rørstad, P.K.; Vatn, A. Norwegian farmers’ perspectives on agriculture and agricultural payments: Between productivism and cultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrena, J.; Nahuelhual, L.; Báez, A.; Schiappacasse, I.; Cerda, C. Valuing cultural ecosystem services: Agricultural heritage in Chiloé island, southern Chile. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 7, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, H.; Zhang, X. Sustainable livelihoods and rural sustainability in China: Ecologically secure, economically efficient or socially equitable? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Huang, X.; Kwan, M.-P.; Bao, H.X.H.; Jefferson, S. Changes in farmers’ welfare from land requisition in the process of rapid urbanization. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 635–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yi, H.; Güneralp, B.; Filippi, A.M.; Kreuter, U.P.; Güneralp, İ. Impacts of Land Change on Ecosystem Services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 135, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, F. A top-down framework for cross-regional payments for ecosystem services. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obrien, L.V.; Berry, H.L.; Hogan, A. The structure of psychological life satisfaction: Insights from farmers and a general community sample in Australia. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, C.L.; Clay, P.M. Measuring subjective and objective well-being: Analyses from five marine commercial fisheries. Hum. Organ. 2010, 69, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Diaz, S.; Fargione, J.; Chapin, F.S., 3rd; Tilman, D. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loft, L.; Mann, C.; Hansjürgens, B. Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merlet, P.; Van Hecken, G.; Rodriguez-Fabilena, R. Playing before paying? A PES simulation game for assessing power inequalities and motivations in the governance of Ecosystem Services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 34, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruckelshaus, M.; McKenzie, E.; Tallis, H.; Guerry, A.; Daily, G.; Kareiva, P.; Polasky, S.; Ricketts, T.; Bhagabati, N.; Wood, S.A.; et al. Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 115, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fan, M.; Chen, L. Spatial characteristics of land uses and ecological compensations based on payment for ecosystem services model from 2000 to 2015 in Sichuan Province, China. Ecol. Inform. 2019, 50, 162–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Z.; Tan, Y.; Wu, C.; Mao, M.; Zhang, X. Alternatives or status quo? Improving fallow compensation policy in heavy metal polluted regions in Chaling County, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Permadi, D.B.; Burton, M.; Pandit, R.; Walker, I.; Race, D. Which smallholders are willing to adopt Acacia mangium under long-term contracts? Evidence from a choice experiment study in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 2017, 65, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jianjun, J.; Chong, J.; Thuy, T.D.; Lun, L. Public preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling City, China: A choice experiment study. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancaster, K.J. A New Approach to Consumer Theory. J. Political Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thurstone, L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. R. 1927, 34, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanley, N.; Wright, R.E.; Adamowicz, V. Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 11, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanemann, W.M. Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 19–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, L.; Liu, M.; Lun, F.; Min, Q.; Li, W. The impacts of farmers’ livelihood capitals on planting decisions: A case study of Zhagana Agriculture-Forestry-Animal Husbandry Composite System. Land Use Policy 2019, 86, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swinton, S.M.; Lupi, F.; Robertson, G.P.; Hamilton, S.K. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacheco, F.A.L.; Sanches Fernandes, L.F.; Valle Junior, R.F.; Valera, C.A.; Pissarra, T.C.T. Land degradation: Multiple environmental consequences and routes to neutrality. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 5, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, J.R. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 430–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soga, M.; Yamanoi, T.; Tsuchiya, K.; Koyanagi, T.F.; Kanai, T. What are the drivers of and barriers to children’s direct experiences of nature? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Q.; Lemos, M.C. Household Livelihood Differentiation and Vulnerability to Climate Hazards in Rural China. World Dev. 2018, 108, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eakin, H.C.; Lemos, M.C.; Nelson, D.R. Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 27, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernués, A.; Tello-García, E.; Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Casasús, I. Agricultural practices, ecosystem services and sustainability in High Nature Value farmland: Unraveling the perceptions of farmers and nonfarmers. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skandrani, Z.; Daniel, L.; Jacquelin, L.; Leboucher, G.; Bovet, D.; Prevot, A.C. On Public Influence on People’s Interactions with Ordinary Biodiversity. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graeme, S.C. Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services. Nature 2014, 515, 50–57. [Google Scholar]
- Hassan, S.; Olsen, S.B.; Thorsen, B.J. Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia. Land Use Policy 2019, 84, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narducci, J.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Castro, A.; Som-Castellano, R.; Brandt, J.S. Implications of urban growth and farmland loss for ecosystem services in the western United States. Land Use Policy 2019, 86, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehghani Pour, M.; Barati, A.A.; Azadi, H.; Scheffran, J. Revealing the role of livelihood assets in livelihood strategies: Towards enhancing conservation and livelihood development in the Hara Biosphere Reserve, Iran. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peel, D.; Berry, H.L.; Schirmer, J. Farm exit intention and wellbeing: A study of Australian farmers. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Poe, G.L.; Wolf, S.A. Payments for Ecosystem Services and Wealth Distribution. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wünscher, T.; Engel, S.; Wunder, S. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 822–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Research Area | Region It Belongs To | City Levels | MFOZD | Topography | Urbanization Rate in 2015 (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample Provinces | Sample Cities | |||||
Guangdong Province | Guangzhou | Eastern region | Provincial capital | PDZ | Plains/hills | 85.53 |
Shaoguan | Prefecture-level | KDZ | Mountains/hills | 52.27 | ||
Hubei Province | Wuhan | Central region | Provincial capital | KDZ | Plains | 79.41 |
Shiyan | Prefecture-level | RDZ | Mountains/hills | 51.60 | ||
Guizhou Province | Guizhou | Western region | Provincial capital | RDZ | Plateau mountains | 64.63 |
Duyun | Prefecture-level | RDZ/FDZ | Plateau mountains | 44.40 |
Attribute | Indicators | Attribute Levels | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Rural Residents | Urban Residents | |||
Security | Waste Recycling Capability 1 | —— | Unchanged | Improved |
Frequency of agroecosystem-related meteorological disasters (such as drought, floods, soil erosion, and desertification) | ||||
Basic materials for a good life 2 | Obtain daily staple food Obtain daily vegetables Obtain daily meat | —— | Unchanged | Improved |
Health | Satisfaction with air/water quality Safety of food/vegetables/meat consumption Pollution-related diseases | Unchanged | Improved | |
Good social relations | Nostalgia for rural life Children’s rural experiences | Frequency of eco-tourism Satisfaction with natural landscape | Unchanged | Improved |
Freedom of choice and action | Livelihood choices | Unchanged | Improved | |
Payment (CNY per household per year) | —— | 0 50 100 200 |
Choice Sets | Security | Health | Good Social Relations | Freedom of Choice and Action | Payment (CNY/ Year·Household) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Option A | Unchanged | Unchanged | Unchanged | Unchanged | 0 |
Option B | Unchanged | Improved | Unchanged | Improved | 50 |
Your choice is | Option A(…) | Option B(…) | Neither (…) |
Variable Types | Name | Definition | Value |
---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable | CHOC | Choice variable | 0 = section A and real zero payment, 1 = section B |
Independent Variables | SEC | Security | 0 = unchanged, 1 = improved |
HEA | Health | 0 = unchanged, 1 = improved | |
GSR | Good social relations | 0 = unchanged, 1 = improved | |
BML | Basic materials for a good life 1 | 0 = unchanged, 1 = improved | |
FCA | Freedom of choice and action | 0 = unchanged, 1 = improved | |
PAY | Payment (CNY) | 0, 50, 100, 200 | |
ASC | Alternative specific constants | 0 = participated in no improved schemes, 1 = participated in at least one improved scheme | |
GEN | Gender | 0 = male, 1 = female | |
AGE | Age | actual observed number | |
EDU | Education level | 1 = primary or below, 2 = junior high school, 3 = high school, 4 = specialized technical school, 5 = bachelor or above | |
EXP | Rural experience | 0 = no, 1 = yes | |
FSZ | Family size | actual observed number | |
LAB | Number of household labours | actual observed number | |
INC | Annual household income (CNY, ×104) | 1≤1 (CNY, ×104), 2 = 1–3 (CNY, ×104), 3 = 3–5 (CNY, ×104), 4 = 5–9 (CNY, ×104), 5 = 9–15 (CNY, ×104), 6 = 15–25 (CNY, ×104), 7≥25 (CNY, ×104) |
Urban Residents | Rural Residents | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Research Areas | Eastern Region (Guangdong) | Central Region (Hubei) | Western Region (Guizhou) | Eastern Region (Guangdong) | Central Region (Hubei) | Western Region (Guizhou) | ||||||
Variable | Estimate | z-Statistic | Estimate | z-Statistic | Estimate | z-Statistic | Estimate | z-Statistic | Estimate | z-Statistic | Estimate | z-Statistic |
SEC | 1.1591*** | 5.5052 | 0.6946** | 2.5297 | 1.6943*** | 4.7566 | 1.4055*** | 4.0893 | 0.2499*** | 2.8527 | 0.1651** | 2.0134 |
HEA | 1.1076*** | 4.7485 | 0.8983** | 2.2459 | 1.9192*** | 4.5389 | 1.5002*** | 5.2199 | 0.2869** | 1.9786 | 0.6037*** | 3.4936 |
BML | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— | 0.6300** | 2.6163 | 0.3035** | 1.9076 | 0.4130*** | 2.6222 |
GSR | 0.6209*** | 3.9598 | 0.3966*** | 4.5015 | 0.9641*** | 3.6416 | 0.6663** | 2.0277 | 0.6183*** | 2.8130 | 0.2315** | 1.7988 |
FCA | 0.4837*** | 2.8171 | 0.3788** | 1.9816 | 1.0162*** | 3.5242 | 0.4393** | 1.9268 | 0.4701*** | 2.5915 | 0.5985*** | 2.8244 |
PAY | −0.0144*** | −5.3333 | −0.0086** | −2.3590 | −0.0213*** | −4.4294 | −0.0189*** | −4.8462 | −0.0056*** | −3.2941 | −0.0076*** | −3.4545 |
ASC | 0.1815* | 2.1920 | 0.1226** | 3.2091 | 0.1283*** | −3.5640 | 0.5569* | 1.6726 | 0.1571*** | 2.6370 | 0.1389* | 1.7553 |
GEN | −0.0747 | −0.7814 | 0.6363*** | 5.1018 | 0.2715 | 1.1428 | −0.7055 | −1.1851 | −0.5040 | −1.5429 | −0.2157** | −1.6491 |
AGE | −0.0050* | −1.9231 | −0.0113** | −2.0222 | −0.0259*** | −3.7528 | −0.0037* | −1.7282 | −0.0162*** | −2.3824 | −0.0164*** | −3.0370 |
EDU | 0.3094*** | 7.2626 | 0.0540** | 2.1752 | 0.2757*** | 3.5043 | 0.6478*** | 3.5633 | 0.2552** | 2.1943 | 0.2296*** | 2.7696 |
FSZ | −0.2110*** | −5.7027 | −0.0539 | −1.1801 | −0.1292** | −1.7528 | −0.0850 | −0.9004 | −0.0329 | −0.6714 | −0.1687*** | −3.4289 |
LAB | 0.2574*** | 5.3962 | 0.1655** | 2.2074 | −0.0469 | −0.4658 | 0.0975** | 1.9632 | 0.1243* | 1.8415 | 0.1784*** | 2.4338 |
INC | 0.0206* | −1.7913 | 0.0344* | 1.9007 | 0.2351*** | 3.2383 | 0.2531*** | 2.1251 | 0.3528*** | 3.7692 | 0.2410*** | 3.3754 |
EXP | 0.0015** | 1.9841 | 0.1589** | 2.6463 | 0.2491** | 1.9807 | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— |
Ecological Well-Being Constituents | Eastern Region (Guangdong) | Central Region (Hubei) | Western Region (Guizhou) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MWTP | Rank | MWTP | Rank | MWTP | Rank | |
Security | 80.49 | 1 | 80.77 | 2 | 79.54 | 2 |
Health | 76.92 | 2 | 104.45 | 1 | 90.1 | 1 |
Good social relations | 43.12 | 3 | 46.12 | 3 | 45.26 | 4 |
Freedom of choice and action | 33.59 | 4 | 44.05 | 4 | 47.71 | 3 |
WTP (CNY per household per year) | 234.12 | — | 275.39 | — | 262.21 | — |
Ecological Well-Being Constituents | Eastern Region (Guangdong) | Central Region (Hubei) | Western Region (Guizhou) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MWTP | Rank | MWTP | Rank | MWTP | Rank | |
Security | 74.37 | 2 | 44.63 | 5 | 21.72 | 5 |
Health | 79.38 | 1 | 51.23 | 4 | 79.43 | 1 |
Basic materials for a good life | 33.33 | 4 | 54.20 | 3 | 54.34 | 3 |
Good social relations | 35.25 | 3 | 110.41 | 1 | 30.46 | 4 |
Freedom of choice and action | 23.24 | 5 | 83.95 | 2 | 78.75 | 2 |
WTP (CNY per household per year) | 245.57 | — | 344.42 | — | 264.71 | — |
Ecological Well-Being Constituents | Eastern Region (Guangdong) | Central Region (Hubei) | Western Region (Guizhou) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban Residents | Rural Residents | Urban Residents | Rural residents | Urban Residents | Rural Residents | |
(1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | |
WTP | 234.12 | 245.57 | 275.39 | 344.43 | 262.21 | 264.71 |
Balance of WTP (1)–(2) | −11.45 | −69.04 | −2.5 |
© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Han, M.; Song, M. Quantifying Ecological Well-Being Loss under Rural–Urban Land Conversion: A Study from Choice Experiments in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083378
Han M, Song M. Quantifying Ecological Well-Being Loss under Rural–Urban Land Conversion: A Study from Choice Experiments in China. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8):3378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083378
Chicago/Turabian StyleHan, Manman, and Min Song. 2020. "Quantifying Ecological Well-Being Loss under Rural–Urban Land Conversion: A Study from Choice Experiments in China" Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083378