Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Consumption in Context: A Cross-Cultural Study of Social Representations
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatiotemporal Evolution and Suitability Evaluation of Rural Settlements in the Typical Mountainous Area of the Upper Minjiang River: A Case Study of Lixian County, Sichuan Province, China
Previous Article in Journal
Machine Learning to Forecast Airborne Parietaria Pollen in the North-West of the Iberian Peninsula
Previous Article in Special Issue
What Configurational Paths Enhance the High-Quality Construction of Cold Region Rural Landscapes? A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 66 Villages in Heilongjiang Province
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 4
10.3390/su17041529
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influences of Land Use and Economic Policy on Main Ecosystem Services in Rural East China

by
Kun Zhang
1,2,
Xuehui Sun
1,2,3,
Tingjing Zhang
1,2,
Xiaozheng Zhang
1,2,
Renqing Wang
1,2,
Peiming Zheng
1,2,4,5,
Hui Wang
1,2,* and
Shuping Zhang
1,2,*
1
Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity, School of Life Sciences, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China
2
Shandong Provincial Engineering and Technology Research Center for Vegetation Ecology, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China
3
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3, Canada
4
Qingdao Forest Ecology Research Station of National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China
5
Qingdao Key Laboratory of Forest and Wetland Ecology, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(4), 1529; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041529
Submission received: 22 October 2024 / Revised: 5 February 2025 / Accepted: 10 February 2025 / Published: 12 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental and Social Sustainability in Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The growing need for food provision and materials challenges the maintenance of ecosystem services. Understanding the composition of ecosystem services and the factors that affect the services are critical to improving rural development. An assessment of ecosystem services in the densely populated rural areas of East China has been conducted. The results show the average value of rural ecosystem services was 34.99 thousand RMB/ha. The average value of provision services was 30.01 thousand RMB/ha, which was the main part of ecosystem services. The relationships between provision services and ecosystem services were complex. Provision (nutrition) services had no significant correlation with regulation services and provision (material) services. Provision services were mainly influenced by forest cover, proportion of arable land, and rural population (adjusted R2 = 0.36). Social factors and land use factors also had a significant impact on nutrition provision services and material provision services. Land and economic policies could regulate the rural ecosystem service value by changing land use types, population mobility, and rural income. Our findings may shed light on the synergetic development of ecosystem services, provision services, and village development in densely populated rural areas worldwide.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services as the benefits that humans directly or indirectly derive from ecosystems [1]. Since the birth of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program, there has been a rapid growth in the number of studies on the topic of ecosystem services [2,3,4,5,6]. The integration of ecosystem and economic accounting means that information on ecosystem services is now a part of mainstream decision-making, in all areas, from strategic planning at the national level to management at the sub-national level [7]. However, over the past two decades, the combined impact of economic growth and rapid urbanization has led to a reduction in ecosystem services, particularly in rapidly developing rural areas worldwide [8,9,10,11].
As a global trend, urbanization poses a significant threat to local ecological environments and their functioning [12,13]. Cropland and pastureland, as the largest terrestrial biomes on Earth, have also been impacted by urbanization and economic development [14]. Accompanied by the development of rural areas and the rapid advancement of urbanization, cropland, and pastureland are facing profound conflicts in terms of production and ecological functions [15,16]. As a result, one of the biggest challenges for rural areas is meeting growing food demand while maintaining functioning ecosystem services [17,18]. Such challenges represent a common problem in rural areas; the rural characteristics of some villages are slowly transforming to include more urban properties as rural dwellers accept urban lifestyles and move away from agriculture and traditional practices, which can also impact food production and ecosystem services [19,20]. In contrast, changes in the services provided by agro-ecosystems may have a significant impact on those rural residents directly dependent on these services for their survival and livelihoods [21].
As a transition zone from natural to urban, rural areas are crucial to maintaining diverse ecosystem services [22,23]. In light of the impacts of rapid urbanization, a number of researchers have focused on ecosystem services in rural areas. The authors of existing studies have identified the spatio-temporal patterns of ecosystem services and their coupling with urbanization [24,25,26]. Ecosystem service bundles have been used to successfully detect trade-offs and synergies across urban–rural complexes [27,28]. This understanding of the relationships between diverse services at ecosystem, landscape, and regional scales provides new insights into the sustainable development of both rural and urban areas [24,29]. Land use, urbanization, and development models have been taken into account as important factors influencing ecosystem services and their change [30,31]. Agricultural systems have a significant impact on ecosystem services by changing land use and the ways in which people gain benefits from ecosystem services. Thus, it is important to understand how land use and other factors can promote synergies between ecosystem services such as food provision and ecosystem services [17].
Over the past three decades, China has undergone a process of extremely rapid urbanization [32,33]. Before the 1980s, China’s pursuit of economic growth neglected the impacts of said growth on the environment, resulting in the destruction of natural and semi-natural ecosystems and a severe reduction in the quality of ecosystem services [34]. Since the 1980s, however, the Chinese government has gradually realized the importance of environmental protection and has implemented a series of ecological and environmental protection programs to reinstate farmland governance in addition to the protection of natural forests and wetlands [35].
Socio-ecological interactions related to different components of ecosystem services are not yet fully understood [36,37]. Existing ecosystem service valuation frameworks seldom holistically evaluate potential trade-offs and synergies between different forms of ecosystem services in rural and fringe landscapes [38]. More recently, some villages have been paying more attention to regulation services due to the environmental protection policies advocated. However, the provision of services, especially food supply, always plays an important role in villages in densely populated areas. In order to meet the requirements of food production in villages in densely populated areas, some decision-makers have ignored regulation services and vigorously developed crop cultivation.
As highlighted by the Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform On Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, there are often trade-offs in the production and use of nature’s contributions. Coupled with the rapid increase in agricultural production, the regulation and non-material services of nature have declined. Land use and social factors may, directly and indirectly, drive these negative changes in nature. The synergies between biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human beings are critical to achieving conservation and sustainability goals for 2030 and beyond [30]. However, the relationships between provision and regulation services in densely populated rural areas remain poorly understood. Under the general trend of environmental protection policies in particular, there is still insufficient research on how to coordinate the relationship between food output and other issues, including environmental protection. However, understanding these relationships and their driving factors is crucial to balance provision and ecosystem services and to improve human well-being and ecosystem management.
As part of this study, we set out to understand the relationships between ecosystem services and provision services and the potential driving factors, such as land use and social factors. A total of 96 villages east of the Hu Huanyong Line, where the majority of the population of China lives, were selected for an ecosystem service assessment. Through this study, we aimed to answer the following four questions: (1) What is the composition of ecosystem services in densely populated areas of China? (2) Do trade-offs/synergies exist between ecosystem services, provision services, and village development in densely populated rural areas of China? (3) How do land use and social factors affect ecosystem services, provision services, and their relationships? (4) What are the impacts of land use and economic policies in villages on rural ecosystem services? In answering these questions, the results presented herein provide suggestions for balancing ecosystem services and improving human well-being in China’s densely populated rural areas. These suggestions are also applicable to the rural areas of other rapidly developing countries.

2. Methods

2.1. Research Area and Village Sampling Strategy

The famous Hu Huanyong Line, stretching from Aihui (present-day Heihe City) in Heilongjiang Province to Tengchong in Yunnan Province, is an important economic and geographical line, partitioning China into the densely populated southeast and the less populated northwest. The area southeast of the Hu Huanyong Line supports 96% of the Chinese population in 36% of the territory. This geographical line has been of practical significance for China’s regional development, especially with regard to population, natural resources, and environmental protection [39,40,41]. According to simulations of China’s population density, based on population statistics, census data, land use data, DMSP/OLS light remote sensing data, and other new data, the population distribution ratio on both sides of the Hu Huanyong Line is expected to remain stable [42].
Since the 1990s, the rural area in the southeast, under the Hu Huanyong Line, has been experiencing significant conflicts between food provision and regulation services due to trade-offs between arable land and natural ecosystems. To evaluate ecosystem services at the village scale in densely populated rural China, a field investigation and data collection were conducted in 96 selected traditional villages (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). Villages located in densely populated areas were sampled according to their topography and proximity to central cities. In addition, considering the influence of urbanization and distance from the central city on rural ecosystems, the sampled villages spanned between 20 and 120 km from the central city. Thus, the sampled villages are representative of the present conditions of densely populated areas in China, namely rural areas to the southeast of the Hu Huanyong Line and the surrounding area (Figure 1).

2.2. Indicator Framework for Ecosystem Service Assessment at the Village Scale

Based on the characteristics of rural ecosystems and the socio-economic situation in rural areas, an indicator framework for ecosystem service assessment at the village scale was developed, informed by the classification methods of Costanza [1], de Groot [43] and Haines-Young [44]. In the indicator framework, eleven categories of ecosystem service were assessed. These services comprise water resources, biodiversity resources, vegetation resources, water supply, food supply, raw material supply, local species, gas regulation, water conservation, climate regulation, soil conservation, and waste management (Table 1). The assessment methods of ecosystem service are shown in the Supplementary Materials, Table S2.
All of the selected indicators can reflect the status of ecosystem services in rural areas and are applicable to rural ecosystem service assessment for the management of these ecosystem services [45,46,47]. Although cultural ecosystem services are an indispensable part of ecosystem services, they are generally non-monetary, and monetary valuation methods are not appropriate in these circumstances [48]. Therefore, statistical analyses of cultural ecosystem services were not conducted. Because the villages included in this study varied in size from 11.33 to 4458.33 ha, a comparison of differences in ecosystem services between villages, based on ecosystem service value per hectare per year for each village, was performed.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Face-to-face questionnaire interviews were conducted with village committee leaders in each of the 96 villages in East China from February to March 2014, as the village committee is responsible for collecting and keeping village data. In order to ensure consistency in the data, land use, social factors, and other related data from the same year were used for ecosystem service accounting. In addition, taking into consideration the impact of economic factors such as distance from central cities on rural ecosystems, the sampled villages spanned from 20 to 120 km from the central city. The sampled villages cover all types of villages included in the Guidelines for the Construction of Beautiful Villages (GB/T 32000-2015 by the Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China). To prevent personal differences from impacting the collected data, all researchers participating in the survey were trained in standard questionnaire survey procedures during a workshop in January 2014. In addition, all researchers communicated through instant messaging, telephone communication, and email to avoid any possible issues during the survey. Our surveys were approved and performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent to participate in the surveys was obtained from all subjects. Our surveys do not involve any experiments on humans or the use of human tissue samples.
To ensure the adequacy of data acquisition, our interviews were mainly divided into three parts. The first part of the interviews mainly covered basic environmental information and demographics, in addition to information about rural incomes and population data (Supplementary Materials, Table S3). The second part of the interviews mainly covered land use type (Supplementary Materials, Table S4). Lastly, the third part mainly covered crop yield (Supplementary Materials, Table S5). These data were used to conduct a primary analysis of land use and rural income and to calculate the value of each ecosystem service category. The total ecosystem service value is the sum of material provision service value, nutrition provision service value, and regulation service value. Databases generated and analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its Supplementary Materials.
Based on the National Standard for Current Land Use Classification (GB/T 21010-2017) in China, land use in the 96 participating villages was divided into cultivated land, orchard, forest land, grassland, commercial land, industrial and storage land, residential land, public management, and service land, special land, transportation land, area under water, and water conservancy facilities land, and other land (such as saline–alkali land and sandy land). Because the villages varied in area from 11.33 to 4558.33 ha, data were analyzed based on ecosystem service value per hectare per year. In light of the large number of villages and the variation in their condition and based on the results of previous research [31], K-means clustering analysis on the investigated villages was conducted based on the ecosystem service value in order to further understand the characteristics of the ecosystem service component of different villages (Figure 2).

2.4. Factors Influencing Ecosystem Services

Regarding the characteristics of rural areas and the Standard for Basic Terminology of Urban Planning (GB/T 50280-98), we chose the proportion of migrant workers, rural population, and rural income as the social factors reflecting urbanization level to accurately reflect the impact of social factors on ecosystem services. Based on basic environmental information and the National Standard for Current Land Use Classification (GB/T 21010-2017) in China, we chose five common land use types in rural areas as indicators of land use. To identify the factors affecting ecosystem services, five indicators of land use and three social factors were used to conduct correlation and regression analyses (Supplementary Materials, Table S7). In order to further understand the relationship between factors and ecosystem services, structural equation modeling (SEM) of the investigated villages was conducted based on the ecosystem service value (Figure 2). The four indicators of land use were forest cover, the proportion of arable land, the proportion of water, and the proportion of construction land. The three social factors were the proportion of migrant workers, the rural population, and rural income. All analyses were calculated using R version 4.2.2.

3. Results

3.1. An Overview of Ecosystem Services in the Investigated Villages

In consideration of the vast differences in the area between the investigated villages, ecosystem service values per hectare were calculated (Figure 3A). Total ecosystem services per hectare ranged from 0.75 thousand to 132.03 thousand RMB/ha, with an average value of 34.99 thousand RMB/ha. Total provision value per hectare ranged from 0.56 thousand to 120.41 thousand RMB/ha, with an average value of 30.01 thousand RMB/ha. The material provision service value per hectare was between 0.06 thousand and 50.84 thousand RMB/ha, with an average value of 11.32 thousand RMB/ha. The nutrition provision service value per hectare was between 0.50 thousand and 114.26 thousand RMB/ha, with an average value of 18.69 thousand RMB/ha (Supplementary Materials, Table S6).
The regulation service value per hectare was found to be between 0.19 thousand RMB/ha and 15.87 thousand RMB/ha, with an average value of 4.98 thousand RMB/ha (Figure 3A). The regulation service value is lower than the total provision value (Supplementary Materials, Table S6).
In the surveyed villages, the average proportion of provision service value in total ecosystem service value was 0.86, indicating that provision services play an important role in rural ecosystem service. The ratio of regulation service value to the total ecosystem services was 0.14 on average, indicating that regulation services are not the main ecosystem services provided in rural areas for most villages (Figure 3B).
Based on the results of the K-means clustering analysis of the investigated villages based on components of ecosystem service values, four village type categories and their ecosystem service component characteristics were determined (Figure 4A). Provision services play an important role in rural ecosystem services in all of the categories. Regulation services are not the main ecosystem services provided in rural areas for most villages (Figure 4B,C).

3.2. Relationships Between Ecosystem Services, Land Use, and Social Factors

Although provision service value takes precedence over regulation service value in most villages, the correlation analysis results show complex relationships between provision service value and ecosystem service value. Provision service value shows a positive relationship with provision (nutrition) services (Pearson’s r = 0.71; p-values < 0.01), provision (material) service value (Pearson’s r = 0.60; p-values < 0.01), and regulation services (Pearson’s r = 0.34; p values < 0.01); however, provision (nutrition) services are not significantly correlation with provision (material) service value and regulation services. A significant trade-off between provision (material) services and regulation services (Pearson’s r = 0.41; p values < 0.01) was directly observed.
Forest cover has a positive impact on ecosystem services; however, we found no significant relationship with provision (nutrition) services. In contrast, we found a negative correlation between the proportion of construction land and ecosystem services, with no significant relationship with provision (nutrition) services. The proportion of arable land has a negative impact on total ecosystem services, provision (material) services, and regulation services; however, there is no significant relationship between provision services (Figure 5, Table 2).
Compared to land use factors, the relationship between social factors and ecosystem services is more complex. There is a positive relationship between the proportion of migrant workers, the rural population, and rural income with provision (nutrition) services (Figure 5, Table 2).
Land use and social factors exhibit complex relationships with ecosystem services. The correlation analysis results revealed the potential impacts of land use and social factors on different types of ecosystem services.

3.3. The Impacts of Land Use and Social Factors on Ecosystem Services and Provision Services

Our regression analysis results showed that the proportion of construction land, forest cover, the proportion of arable land, the proportion of migrant workers, and the rural population are the factors that influence total ecosystem services (adjusted R2 = 0.36). The proportion of construction land and forest cover are the most significant influencing factors. The proportion of construction land and the proportion of arable land have a negative impact on total ecosystem services (Figure 6A). The factors are significant at the 1% level, and their collinearity tolerance meets specified requirements. A collinearity test was also conducted, resulting in a VIF of less than 5.
Provision services, as the main rural ecosystem services, are mainly influenced by forest cover, the proportion of arable land, and rural population (adjusted R2 = 0.32) (Figure 6B). The proportion of arable land, rural income, and the proportion of migrant workers are the key factors that influence nutrition provision services (adjusted R2 = 0.31). The proportion of arable land is the greatest influencing factor (Figure 6C). Material provision services are mainly influenced by forest cover and rural population (adjusted R2 = 0.71) (Figure 6D). Forest cover has the greatest impact on provision services and material provision services (Figure 6B,D). These factors are significant at the 1% level, and their collinearity tolerance meets the specified requirements. A collinearity test was also conducted, resulting in a VIF of less than 5. Both land use types and social factors influence the rural ecosystem service values.

3.4. Land Use and Economic Policy Influencing Ecosystem Services

Due to the requirements for grain production in rural areas, the arable land was generally protected. Based on our SEM results, the land use and economic policies of the villages are interdependent and influence the value of ecosystem services. The proportion of construction land has a negative impact on both provision service value and regulation service value. As the rural income increases, the value of regulation services will also decrease. With the increase in forest cover, rural population, and the proportion of migrant workers, ecosystem service values will significantly increase (Figure 7).
In order to increase rural income, land use policies tend to reduce forest cover, whereas economic policies tend to increase rural population, resulting in complex impacts on ecosystem services (Figure 7). Members of village management need to carefully consider the relationship between ecosystem services and village development when formulating plans.

4. Discussion

By assessing the provision and regulation services of 96 villages in the most densely populated rural areas of China, it was found that the average provision service value was significantly higher than the average regulation service value. The extreme imbalance between provision and regulation services is mediated by trade-offs between land use and social factors, mainly forest cover. Members of village management could not only change the ecosystem service values through land use types but also through other economic policies such as making changes to the number of migrant workers.
The main findings imply that the need for nutrition provision derived from arable land is dominant in densely populated areas despite the marginalization of agriculture as an economic sector [17]. With the aim of ensuring the arable land area, managers can change the ecosystem service values, especially provision services, by making changes to land use and adjusting demographic policies. The success of these approaches to improving ecosystem services has already been documented in other countries [49,50].

4.1. Relationships Between Provision Service Value and Ecosystem Services

Humans continuously modify ecosystems to meet their needs, obtain economic benefits, or adapt to social and environmental change [51,52,53]. However, the results of numerous studies have shown that the provision services of the ecosystem are more likely to be neglected than regulation services or cultural services [54,55,56]. In contrast with studies conducted on ecosystem services at the regional scale, our results show that the provision service values of most villages take overwhelming precedence over regulation service values [57,58]. However, the relationships between provision and regulation services are complex. Conflicts are mainly observed between provision (nutrition) and ecosystem services. There is also a complex relationship between nutrition provision services and materials provision services in total provision services. However, due to the importance of food supply in rural areas, nutrition provision services remain the primary ecosystem services for most villages.
Nutrition provision services are mainly influenced by the proportion of arable land. Rural income and the proportion of migrant workers as social factors have an impact on provision (nutrition). In contrast, regulation services are related to forest cover, the proportion of arable land, and the proportion of construction land. Material provision services are mainly affected by forest cover. Food provision in densely populated areas is of particular importance. At the village scale, ecosystem services are highly susceptible to the influence of rural land use types and economic policies. The transformation of ecological land use, such as forests and wetlands, into farmland, increases the supply of food, wood, and other products but reduces biodiversity and regulation services [59,60]. However, regulation services can offset the negative ecological consequences of social and economic development in developed areas [61,62]. More developed regulation services not only enhance ecosystem services but also contribute to the improvement of biodiversity, which is beneficial for biomass accumulation [63]. These findings also indicate that the conflict between provision services and ecosystem services is not irreconcilable.
The assessment of ecosystems is beneficial for managers in understanding the environmental status of villages [64]. Due to the complex relationship between regulation services and provision services, the finding implies that those responsible for land use management should consider the balance and the interactions between ecosystem services and village development. There are already many successful practices that improve ecosystem services by managing land use and adjusting economic policy. For example, Fanggan Village has improved its ecosystem service value by increasing forest cover and developing eco-tourism. These experiences should be applied to the ecosystem service management of densely populated rural areas [65,66,67].

4.2. Factors Affecting Ecosystem Services

Changes in climate and rapid urbanization have led to changes in ecosystem services [68,69]. Changes in rural ecosystem services are closely related to the rural residents [70]. Such factors require those in charge of rural management to balance the development of ecosystem services and villages’ economies in the policy-making process.
Compared with social factors, land use factors have a clearer impact on rural ecosystem services, especially urban construction land and forest land. Forests can enhance the capacity of ecosystem services through carbon sequestration, climate regulation, water conservation, and other functions [71,72]. Forests provide many regulation services, and regarding the potential for ecosystem services, forests provide more than any other land type [73,74]. With urbanization and the increase in construction land, ecosystem service values will decrease, which is consistent with the results of other studies [75,76,77]. Due to the strict restrictions imposed on arable land in rural areas, optimizing land use policy and balancing the proportion of forest land and construction land are effective means to improve the ecosystem service values in the land use policy-making process.
Rural population and the proportion of migrant workers, as social factors, also influence rural ecosystem services. Migrant workers will lead to population flow, which also reflects the lifestyle change in some villagers against the backdrop of urbanization, and this change will also promote the change in ecosystem services [78]. The increase in population will increase the demand for ecosystem services, which will lead to an increase in ecosystem service value.

4.3. Factors Affecting Provision Services

With the ongoing growth in global food demand, the provision service value of ecosystem services is becoming increasingly important [79,80,81]. Because of its marketability and direct contribution to rural income, the nutrition provision service provided by farmland is usually highly valued. As an example, some small farmers are particularly dependent on food and material provisions for their livelihood. An increase in arable land can significantly affect the food supply service and further promote nutrition provision in densely populated areas of China [82].
Forest cover, the proportion of arable land, and rural population have a significant impact on provision services. Forest cover has a significant positive impact on material provision, as it includes the accumulation of wood and the supply of biomass. An increase in forest land will significantly enhance biodiversity [83]. The diversity of plants significantly increases soil richness, thereby enhancing soil conservation functions and improving ecosystem services [84]. Arable land is generally managed to maximize the potential delivery of provisioning services [85]. Arable land serves a function in food production, which is also the source of provision services.
Rural population also plays an important role in provision value. As the population grows, so too does the demand for food and ecosystem services, often leading villages to increase their provision services [86]. Migrant workers and rural income have a significant impact on provision (nutrition) services. Provision (nutrition) value is the main source of income for most villages, which also leads to more efforts being directed toward developing provision (nutrition) value in order to increase rural income. Migrant work may change the lifestyle of villages, affecting the economic policies of villages and further impacting the ecosystem services.

4.4. The Impacts of Land Use and Economic Policy on Rural Ecosystem Services

Based on the IPBES’s 2050 plan, the protection of biodiversity needs to take into account economic activities for long-term sustainability; therefore, it is particularly important to better understand the relationship between household income and various ecosystem services at the rural level. Based on our SEM results, we found that there is a trend of improved provision services with increases in rural income. Since provision services are the main services of rural ecosystem services, the increase in household income and the improvement in ecosystem services do not completely conflict at the village level.
However, economic policies that tend to increase household income will lead to the implementation of land use policies that reduce forest cover. In rural areas, particularly at the village scale, it is difficult for both material provision and regulation services produced by forest land and water land to contribute to rural incomes due to their non-market attributes [87]. Residents of villages with a high forest cover often find it difficult to obtain a sufficient rural income despite having more ecosystem services. A higher forest cover can also reduce the proportion of construction land, which can lead to numerous issues, such as homestead erosion and the abolition and disorderly expansion of homesteads [88]. Such changes will also lead to a reduction in the rural population, which in turn affects ecosystem services [89].
However, some material provision services, such as water resources, have entered the market and generated rural incomes via regional-scale trade in water rights and ecological compensation [90,91]. In addition, biodiversity resources, vegetation resources, and some regulation services can improve rural incomes through the development of eco-tourism, recreation, health, and education activities [92]. Although eco-tourism and recreation services form cultural ecosystem services, they are critically dependent on the maintenance of material provision and regulation services [93]. Residents of villages with a higher forest cover often have greater development potential to increase their income. Thus, both material provision services and regulation services are potentially important resources of rural income mediated by practical market pathways. Strategic planning of ecosystem services can reduce the trade-off between environmental quality and development [94]. Those in charge of village management can gradually explore new ways to promote sustainable development in the village while ensuring increases in rural income and provision services.

5. Conclusions

The relationships between food provision and ecosystem services have led to challenges in development planning and ecosystem management in densely populated rural areas worldwide. A balance between land and economic policies is critical to coordinating and improving ecosystem services in densely populated rural areas. In the densely populated rural areas of East China, the average rural ecosystem service value is 34.99 thousand RMB/ha. The average value of provision services is 30.01 thousand RMB/ha, accounting for 85.77% of the rural ecosystem service value. However, the relationship between provision services, regulation services, and village development remains complex. With the improvement of provision services, rural income can be increased; however, our results show that there is no direct connection between regulation services and provision services. Forest cover, the proportion of construction land, the proportion of migrant workers, and rural population are important factors affecting rural ecosystem services; in addition, the proportion of arable land is an important factor affecting nutritional provision services. An area’s economic policy will impact the forest cover in land use, thereby affecting rural ecosystem services. It is imperative to place greater focus on the balance between land use policies and economic policies. By leveraging the potential provided by ecosystem services, rural income can be increased through the development of eco-tourism, entertainment, health, and educational activities. Improving crop planting and cultivation techniques, enhancing provision services, and thereby increasing rural income and village development may aid in developing more precise and practical village management strategies, which can promote synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being in densely populated rural areas worldwide.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17041529/s1, Table S1: Basic village information including socio-economic and demographic data; Table S2: Indicator framework and methods for village scale ecosystem services assessment; Table S3: Questionnaire content. Part A: Basic village information; Table S4: Questionnaire content. Part B: Village natural resources; Table S5: Questionnaire content. Part C: Village crops; Table S6: Ecosystem service value of each village and each individual service value; Table S7: Methods of data analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.Z. and X.S.; Methodology, K.Z.; Software, X.S.; Validation, K.Z. and S.Z.; Formal analysis, K.Z.; Investigation, X.S., T.Z. and X.Z.; Resources, R.W., P.Z., H.W. and S.Z.; Data curation, X.S., T.Z. and X.Z.; Writing—original draft, K.Z. and H.W.; Writing—review & editing, K.Z., R.W., P.Z., H.W. and S.Z.; Visualization, K.Z.; Supervision, R.W., P.Z., H.W. and S.Z.; Project administration, S.Z.; Funding acquisition, K.Z. and S.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by the National Key Technology R&D Program (No. 2013BAJ10B0403) and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong (No. ZR2023QC215).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to neither “Ethical Review Methods for Life Science and Medical Research Involving Human Subjects” (https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2023-02/28/content_5743658.htm (accessed on 25 June 2024)) nor “Measures for Ethical Review of Science and Technology (Trial)” (https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/202310/content_6908045.htm (accessed on 25 June 2024)) were issued. Our surveys do not involve any experiments on humans or the use of human tissue samples.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

We thank Hua Zheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Qian Cao of Shandong University for their critical comments on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farberl, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neil, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Corvalán, C.; Hales, S.; McMichael, A.J. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Health Synthesis; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, World Health Organization, Eds.; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; de Groot, R.; Lomas, P.L.; Montes, C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1209–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Verburg, P.H.; Crossman, N.; Ellis, E.C.; Heinimann, A.; Hostert, P.; Mertz, O.; Nagendra, H.; Sikor, T.; Erb, T.H.; Golubiewski, N.; et al. Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene 2015, 12, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ding, Q.; Chen, Y.; Bu, L.; Ye, Y. Multi-scenario analysis of habitat quality in the yellow river delta by coupling flus with invest model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Matthew, G.K.; Joanna, Z.; Alister, J.S. Ecosystem service multifunctionality and trade-offs in English Green Belt peri-urban planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 2024, 67, 101620. [Google Scholar]
  7. La Notte, A.; Vallecillo, S.; Maes, J. Capacity as “virtual stock” in ecosystem services accounting. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. DeFries, R.S.; Foley, J.A.; Asner, G.P. Land-use choices: Balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chettri, N.; Aryal, K.; Thapa, S.; Uddin, K.; Kandel, P.; Karki, S. Contribution of ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: A case study from the eastern Himalaya. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yan, Y.X.; Yang, Y.Y.; Yang, Y.M. Unravelling the non-linear response of ecosystem services to urban-rural transformation in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China. Ecol. Inform. 2024, 81, 102633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, X.; de Vries, S.; Assmuth, T.; Dick, J.; Hermans, T.; Hertel, O.; Jensen, A.; Jones, L.; Kabisch, S.; Lanki, T.; et al. Research challenges for cultural ecosystem services and public health in (peri-)urban environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 2118–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Qiao, X.; Gu, Y.; Zou, C.; Xu, D.; Wang, L.; Ye, X.; Yang, Y.; Huang, X. Temporal variation and spatial scale dependency of the trade-offs and synergies among multiple ecosystem services in the Taihu Lake Basin of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wen, X.; Wang, J.J.; Han, X.J. Impact of land use evolution on the value of ecosystem services in the returned farmland area of the Loess Plateau in northern Shaanxi. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 163, 112119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, J.; Sun, W.; Li, M.; Meng, L. Coupling coordination degree of production, living and ecological spaces and its influencing factors in the Yellow River Basin. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fu, J.; Bu, Z.; Jiang, D.; Lin, G.; Li, X. Sustainable land use diagnosis based on the perspective of production–living–ecological spaces in China. Land Use Policy 2022, 122, 106386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Accatino, F.; Tonda, A.; Dross, C.; Léger, F.; Tichit, M. Trade-offs and synergies between livestock production and other ecosystem services. Agric. Syst. 2019, 168, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tao, J.Y.; Zhang, J.H.; Dong, P.; Lu, Y.Q.; Wang, T.; Qian, Z.R.; Ma, X.B.; Sun, F. Spatial heterogeneity in cropland multifunctionality trade-offs and their drivers: A case study of the Huaihai Economic Zone, China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2024, 107, 107569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zabel, F.; Delzeit, R.; Schneider, J.M.; Seppelt, R.; Mauser, W.; Václavík, T. Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, X.; Li, X. China’s agricultural land use change and its underlying drivers: A literature review. J. Geogr. Sci. 2021, 31, 1222–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Murali, R.; Suryawanshi, K.; Redpath, S.; Nagendra, H.; Mishra, C. Changing use of ecosystem services along a rural-urban continuum in the Indian trans-Himalayas. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 40, 101030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Costanza, R. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, S.; Chen, H.; Yang, R.J.; Ye, Y.N. Linking social-ecological management and ecosystem service bundles: Lessons from a peri-urban agriculture landscape. Land Use Policy 2023, 131, 106697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gebre, T.; Gebremedhinb, B. The mutual benefits of promoting rural-urban interdependence through linked ecosystem services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 20, e00707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tian, Y.; Zhou, D.; Jiang, G. Conflict or Coordination? Multiscale assessment of the spatio-temporal coupling relationship between urbanization and ecosystem services: The case of the Jingjinji Region, China. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lorenza, N.; Alessandro, S.; Massimo, S.; Elvira, B.; Pier, P.F.; Fausto, M. Modeling regulating ecosystem services along the urban–rural gradient: A comprehensive analysis in seven Italian coastal cities. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 165, 112161. [Google Scholar]
  27. Baró, F.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Haase, D. Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: Insights for landscape planning and management. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 24, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liao, Q.; Li, T.; Wang, Q.Y.; Liu, D.E. Exploring the ecosystem services bundles and influencing drivers at different scales in southern Jiangxi, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 148, 110089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, J.Y.; Cao, Y.; Fang, X.Q.; Li, G.Y.; Cao, Y. Identification of the trade-offs/synergies between rural landscape services in a spatially explicit way for sustainable rural development. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 300, 113706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bongaarts, J. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Popul. Dev. Rev 2019, 45, 680–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, K.; Sun, X.H.; Jin, Y.Q.; Liu, J.; Wang, R.Q.; Zhang, S.P. Development models matter to the mutual growth of ecosystem services and household incomes in developing rural neighborhoods. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 115, 106363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, Y.; Jia, L.; Wu, W.; Yan, J.; Liu, Y. Urbanization for rural sustainability: Rethinking China’s urbanization strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 580–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xu, C.; Jiang, W.Y.; Huang, Q.Y.; Wang, Y.T. Ecosystem services response to rural-urban transitions in coastal and island cities: A comparison between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cao, S.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Yu, Z.; Liu, X. Net value of farmland ecosystem services in China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 2291–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, R.P.; Xu, Q.R.; Yu, J.; Chen, L.; Peng, Y.H. Multiscale assessment of the spatiotemporal coupling relationship between urbanization and ecosystem service value along an urban–rural gradient: A case study of the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration, China. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 160, 111864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Landuyt, D.; Broekx, S.; Goethals, P.L.M. Bayesian belief networks to analyse trade-offs among ecosystem services at the regional scale. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xing, L.; Hu, M.; Xue, M. The effect of urban–rural construction land transition on ecosystem services: A theoretical framework and empirical evidence for China. Habitat Int. 2022, 124, 102576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rana, K.; Goyal, N.; Prakash Sharma, G. Staging stewards of agro-ecosystems in the ecosystem services framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 33, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yuan, H. Study on the rationality of chinese population distrbution. Geogr. Res. 1993, 12, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fan, J.; Tao, A.J.; Lv, C. The coupling mechanism of the centroids of economic gravity and population gravity and its effect on the regional gap in China. Prog. Geogr. 2010, 29, 87–95. [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu, Y.; Stillwell, J.; Shen, J.; Daras, K. Interprovincial migration, regional development and state policy in China, 1985–2010. Appl. Spat. Anal. Polic. 2014, 7, 47–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Qi, W.; Liu, S.H.; Zhao, M.F. Study on the stability of Hu Line and different spatial patterns of population growth on its both sides. Acta Geol. Sin. 2015, 4, 551–566. [Google Scholar]
  43. de Groot, R.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4. Nottingham: Report to the European Environmental Agency. 2013. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/GCComments/CICES_Report.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  45. Xu, Z.; Chau, S.N.; Chen, X.; Zhang, J.; Liu, J. Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time. Nature 2020, 577, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, H.; Deng, W.; Zhang, S.Y.; Peng, L.; Liu, Y. Impacts of urbanization on ecosystem services in the Chengdu-Chongqing Urban Agglomeration: Changes and trade-offs. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 139, 108920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Luo, K.; Wang, H.W.; Yan, X.M.; Ma, C.; Zheng, X.D.; Wu, J.H.; Wu, C.R. Study on trade-offs and synergies of rural ecosystem services in the Tacheng-Emin Basin, Xinjiang, China: Implications for zoning management of rural ecological functions. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 363, 121411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fish, R.; Church, A.; Winter, M. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, W.; Zhan, J.; Zhao, F.; Yan, H.; Zhang, F.; Wei, X. Impacts of urbanization-induced land-use changes on ecosystem services: A case study of the Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region, China. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, X.K.; Lin, L. Evaluating rural sustainable land use from a system perspective based on the ecosystem service value. Reg. Sustain. 2023, 4, 96–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Reyers, B.; Biggs, R.; Cumming, G.S.; Elmqvist, T.; Hejnowicz, A.P.; Polasky, S. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: A social-ecological approach. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockstrom, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Yu, Y.; Li, J.; Han, L.Q.; Zhang, S.J. Research on ecological compensation based on the supply and demand of ecosystem services in the Qinling-Daba Mountains. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Castro, A.J.; Martín López, B.; García Llorente, M.; Aguilera, P.A.; López, E.; Cabello, J. Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region. J. Arid Environ. 2011, 75, 1201–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Matzek, V.; Wilson, K.A.; Kragt, M. Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yu, L.; Lu, W.J.; Choguill, C.; Li, M. Liangshan Bank, A hybrid model of payment for ecosystem services governance in rural development: The case of Baofu, China. Habitat Int. 2023, 138, 102879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ouyang, Z.Y.; Zhu, C.Q.; Yang, G.B.; Xu, W.H.; Zheng, H.; Zhang, D.; Xiao, Y. Gross ecosystem product: Concept, accounting framework and case study. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 6747–6761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xie, G.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, L.; Chen, W.; Li, S. Improvement of the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area. J. Nat. Resour. 2015, 30, 1243–1254. [Google Scholar]
  59. Li, J.; Dong, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Li, F. Effects of land use change on ecosystem services in the China-Mongolia-Russia economic corridor. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 360, 132175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Du, J.L.; Gong, Y.; Xi, X.; Liu, C.C.; Qian, C.Y.; Ye, B. The study on the spatiotemporal changes in tradeoffs and synergies of ecosystem services and response to land use/land cover changes in the region around Taihu Lake. Heliyon 2024, 10, e33375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lawler, J.J.; Lewis, D.J.; Nelson, E.; Plantinga, A.J.; Polasky, S.; Withey, J.C.; Helmers, D.P.; Martinuzzi, S.; Pennington, D.; Radeloff, V.C. Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 7492–7497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jiang, J.; Cai, J.W.; Peng, R.; Li, L.P.; Chen, W.R.; Xia, Y.N.; Deng, J.S.; Zhang, Q.Y.; Yu, Z.L. Establishment and optimization of urban ecological network based on ecological regulation services aiming at stability and connectivity. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 165, 112217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhao, C.Y.; Su, S.; Gong, Z.Q.; Lv, C.K.; Li, N.Z.; Luo, Q.X.; Zhou, X.W.; Li, S.C. Effectiveness of protected areas in the Three-river Source Region of the Tibetan Plateau for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lanfranchi, M.; Giannetto, C.; De Pascale, A.; Hornoiu, R.I. An Application of Qualitative Risk Analysis as a Tool Adopted by Public Organizations for Evaluating ‘Green Projects’. Amfiteatru Econ. J. 2015, 17, 872–890. [Google Scholar]
  65. Joppa, L.N. Ecosystem services: Free lunch no more. Science 2012, 335, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lu, C.; Zhao, T.; Shi, X.; Cao, S. Ecological restoration by afforestation may increase groundwater depth and create potentially large ecological and water opportunity costs in arid and semiarid China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 1213–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alfnes, F.; Ardebili, A.T.; Viciunaite, V. Exploring consumer segments for online food provisioning services: Online supermarkets vs. alternative food networks. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 47, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pan, Z.; Gao, G.; Fu, B.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.; He, J.; Liu, D. Exploring the historical and future spatial interaction relationship between urbanization and ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Basin, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 428, 139401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rafael, A.A.; Agustín, R.M.; Adrián, B.; Angelina, M.Y.; Enrico, A.Y.; Juan, C.A. Climate-induced changes to provisioning ecosystem services in rural socioecosystems in Mexico. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2023, 41, 100583. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chen, C.; Matzdorf, B.; Zhen, L.; Schröter, B. Social-network analysis of local governance models for China’s eco-compensation program. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Alejandra, M.O.; Aitor, A.; Miquel, D.C.; Sergio, D.M.; François, L.; Lluís, B.; Lluís, C. Future trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in Mediterranean forests under global change scenarios. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101174. [Google Scholar]
  72. Laco, I. Assessment of the Selected Regulating Ecosystem Services Using Ecosystem Services Matrix in Two Model Areas: Special Nature Reserve Obedska Bara (Serbia) and Protected Landscape Area Dunajske Luhy (Slovakia). Land 2021, 10, 1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zheng, H.; Peng, J.; Qiu, S.; Xu, Z.; Zhou, F.; Xia, P.; Adalibieke, W. Distinguishing the impacts of land use change in intensity and type on ecosystem services trade-offs. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 316, 115206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Yang, Y.; Yuan, X.F.; An, J.J.; Su, Q.J.; Chen, B. Drivers of ecosystem services and their trade-offs and synergies in different land use policy zones of Shaanxi Province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 452, 142077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gong, Y.; Cai, M.; Yao, L.; Cheng, L.; Hao, C.; Zhao, Z. Assessing changes in the ecosystem services value in response to land-use/land-cover dynamics in Shanghai from 2000 to 2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Wang, C.; Wang, L.Y.; Zhan, J.Y.; Liu, W.; Teng, Y.M.; Chu, X.; Wang, H.H. Spatial heterogeneity of urbanization impacts on ecosystem services in the urban agglomerations along the Yellow River, China. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 182, 106717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Xie, Y.Q.; Dai, W.C.; Xiang, S.J.; Deng, H.; Wang, Z.F.; Li, Y.J.; Wang, Z.S.; Zhou, M.; Gao, M. Supply and demand of ecosystem services and their interaction with urbanization: The case of Chengdu-Chongqing urban agglomeration. Urban Clim. 2024, 55, 101978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jantz, C.A.; Manuel, J.J. Estimating impacts of population growth and land use policy on ecosystem services: A community-level case study in Virginia, USA. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Antonelli, M.; Siciliano, G.; Turvani, M.E.; Rulli, M.C. Global investments in agricultural land and the role of the EU: Drivers, scope and potential impacts. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 98–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. OECD; FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023–2032; OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook; FAO: Rome, Italy; OECD: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  81. Bouyssou, C.G.; Jensen, J.D.; Yu, W.S. Food for thought: A meta-analysis of animal food demand elasticities across world regions. Food Policy 2024, 122, 102581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Falk, T.; Spangenberg, J.H.; Siegmund-Schultze, M.; Kobbe, S.; Feike, T.; Kuebler, D.; Settele, J.; Vorlaufer, T. Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management: Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 32, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Amponsah, A.; Nasare, L.I.; Tom-Dery, D.; Baatuuwie, B.N. Land cover changes of Atewa Range Forest Reserve, a biodiversity hotspot in Ghana. Trees For. People 2022, 9, 100301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Eisenhauer, N.; Hines, J.; Isbell, F.; Plas, F.; Hobbie, S.E.; Kazanski, C.E.; Lehmann, A.; Liu, M.Y.; Lochner, A.; Rillig, M.C.; et al. Plant diversity maintains multiple soil functions in future environments. Elife 2018, 7, 41228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Laura, V.V.; Bert, R.; Steven, B.; Pieter, D.F.; Victoria, N.; Paul, P.; Kris, V. Ecosystem service delivery of agri-environment measures: A synthesis for hedgerows and grass strips on arable land. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 244, 32–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mertz, O.; Ravnborg, H.M.; Lövei, G.L.; Nielsen, I.; Konijnendijk, C.C. Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 2729–2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Barrett, C.B.; Travis, A.J.; Dasgupta, P. On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 13907–13912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Qu, Y.; Zhan, L.; Jiang, G.; Ma, W.; Dong, X. How to Address “Population Decline and Land Expansion (PDLE)” of rural residential areas in the process of Urbanization: A comparative regional analysis of human-land interaction in Shandong Province. Habitat Int. 2021, 117, 102441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ma, L.B.; Liu, S.C.; Tao, T.M.; Gong, M.; Bai, J. Spatial reconstruction of rural settlements based on livability and population flow. Habitat Int. 2022, 126, 102614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Henning, B.; Jennifer, M. Factors affecting water prices in a rural water market: A South Australian experience. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34, 1563–1570. [Google Scholar]
  91. Duro, J.A.; Lauk, C.; Kastner, T.; Erb, K.H.; Haberl, H. Global inequalities in food consumption, cropland demand and land-use efficiency: A decomposition analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2020, 64, 102124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Drius, M.; Bongiorni, L.; Depellegrin, D.; Menegon, S.; Pugnetti, A.; Stifter, S. Tackling challenges for Mediterranean sustainable coastal tourism: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 16, 1302–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Fu, B.; Xu, P.; Wang, Y.; Yan, K.; Chaudhary, S. Assessment of the ecosystem services provided by ponds in hilly areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 642, 979–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bai, Y.; Wong, C.P.; Jiang, B.; Hughes, A.C.; Wang, M.; Wang, Q. Developing China’s Ecological Redline Policy using ecosystem services assessments for land use planning. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 01529 g001
Figure 1. A map of China with population distribution data showing the locations of the 96 investigated villages (solid black dots). The population spatial distribution (people/km2) across the country in 2015 is noted with reference to http://www.resdc.cn/DOI (accessed on 25 June 2024), 2017. The spatial and population data are derived from the Resources and Environmental Science Data Center according to the standard official map of China. The “Hu line” is a widely agreed dividing line between the densely populated eastern area and the sparsely populated western area of China.
Figure 1. A map of China with population distribution data showing the locations of the 96 investigated villages (solid black dots). The population spatial distribution (people/km2) across the country in 2015 is noted with reference to http://www.resdc.cn/DOI (accessed on 25 June 2024), 2017. The spatial and population data are derived from the Resources and Environmental Science Data Center according to the standard official map of China. The “Hu line” is a widely agreed dividing line between the densely populated eastern area and the sparsely populated western area of China.
Sustainability 17 01529 g001
Sustainability 17 01529 g002
Figure 2. An integrated step-by-step methodology, from data collection to data analysis. Face-to-face interview questionnaires were conducted to collect data. K-means clustering analysis was used to further understand the characteristics of the ecosystem service component of different villages. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted to identify the impacts of the factors on ecosystem services. In order to determine the impact of the above factors on ecosystem services, a structural equation model was used to demonstrate how land use and economic policies affect ecosystem services.
Figure 2. An integrated step-by-step methodology, from data collection to data analysis. Face-to-face interview questionnaires were conducted to collect data. K-means clustering analysis was used to further understand the characteristics of the ecosystem service component of different villages. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted to identify the impacts of the factors on ecosystem services. In order to determine the impact of the above factors on ecosystem services, a structural equation model was used to demonstrate how land use and economic policies affect ecosystem services.
Sustainability 17 01529 g002
Sustainability 17 01529 g003
Figure 3. Bar chart showing the average value of ecosystem services per hectare per year (A) and the proportion of ecosystem services (B) in the 96 investigated villages. The bar chart demonstrates that provision service value and, in particular, the nutrition provision service value exhibit a significant precedence over the regulation service value. Error bars are shown with standard deviations.
Figure 3. Bar chart showing the average value of ecosystem services per hectare per year (A) and the proportion of ecosystem services (B) in the 96 investigated villages. The bar chart demonstrates that provision service value and, in particular, the nutrition provision service value exhibit a significant precedence over the regulation service value. Error bars are shown with standard deviations.
Sustainability 17 01529 g003
Sustainability 17 01529 g004
Figure 4. Village classification was performed through K-means clustering divided into four categories (A). The bar chart shows an average of the total ecosystem service values per hectare per year and the components of ecosystem service values for each category of the investigated villages (B,C). The numbers on the top of each bar indicate the numbers of the village belonging to the corresponding category. The bars are ordered according to the average of total ecosystem service values per hectare per year. Except for villages of type C, the provision (nutrition) service value is dominant in the three other village types. Provision value occupies the main position in all villages.
Figure 4. Village classification was performed through K-means clustering divided into four categories (A). The bar chart shows an average of the total ecosystem service values per hectare per year and the components of ecosystem service values for each category of the investigated villages (B,C). The numbers on the top of each bar indicate the numbers of the village belonging to the corresponding category. The bars are ordered according to the average of total ecosystem service values per hectare per year. Except for villages of type C, the provision (nutrition) service value is dominant in the three other village types. Provision value occupies the main position in all villages.
Sustainability 17 01529 g004
Sustainability 17 01529 g005
Figure 5. Pearson correlation coefficients between land use, social factors, and ecosystem services. Non-significant p-values are shown as ‘x’ > 0.05. A blue block indicates a positive correlation, whereas an orange block indicates a negative correlation*.
Figure 5. Pearson correlation coefficients between land use, social factors, and ecosystem services. Non-significant p-values are shown as ‘x’ > 0.05. A blue block indicates a positive correlation, whereas an orange block indicates a negative correlation*.
Sustainability 17 01529 g005
Sustainability 17 01529 g006
Figure 6. The impact of different land use and social factors on ecosystem services based on linear regression. Significant p-values are shown as ‘*’ < 0.05. On the right-hand side of the graph are the impacts of factors on different ecosystem services, with positive impacts greater than zero and negative impacts less than zero. The bar chart on the left-hand side of the graph shows the contribution values of factors to different ecosystem services. Land use factors and social factors jointly affect ecosystem services (A), provision services (B), nutrition provision services (C), and material provision services (D).
Figure 6. The impact of different land use and social factors on ecosystem services based on linear regression. Significant p-values are shown as ‘*’ < 0.05. On the right-hand side of the graph are the impacts of factors on different ecosystem services, with positive impacts greater than zero and negative impacts less than zero. The bar chart on the left-hand side of the graph shows the contribution values of factors to different ecosystem services. Land use factors and social factors jointly affect ecosystem services (A), provision services (B), nutrition provision services (C), and material provision services (D).
Sustainability 17 01529 g006
Sustainability 17 01529 g007
Figure 7. Land use policies and economic policies affect rural ecosystem services based on SEM results. Land use policies and economic policies affect rural ecosystem services by changing land use types, population mobility, and rural income.
Figure 7. Land use policies and economic policies affect rural ecosystem services based on SEM results. Land use policies and economic policies affect rural ecosystem services by changing land use types, population mobility, and rural income.
Sustainability 17 01529 g007
Table 1. The indicator framework, indicator explanations, and related references are listed. The property of marketization of each category of ecosystem services is also provided. This framework was produced with reference to the classification methods of Costanza [1], de Groot [43], and Haines-Young [44], taking into consideration the characteristics of rural ecosystem services.
Table 1. The indicator framework, indicator explanations, and related references are listed. The property of marketization of each category of ecosystem services is also provided. This framework was produced with reference to the classification methods of Costanza [1], de Groot [43], and Haines-Young [44], taking into consideration the characteristics of rural ecosystem services.
ClassCategoryDefinitionReferencesMarketable (Yes/No)
Material provision Water resourcesWater resources include non-potable surface and underground water [44]No
Biodiversity resourcesSpecies, genetic variation, and ecosystem complexity[1]No
Vegetation resourcesThe sum of vegetation in the biosphere[44]No
Nutrition provisionWater supplyPotable water[44]Yes
Food supplyEdible substances[44]Yes
Raw material supplyRaw materials for human production[43]Yes
RegulationGas regulationThe role of ecosystems in biogeochemical cycles[43]No
Climate regulationThe influence of land cover and biologically mediated processes on climate [43]No
Water conservationThe regulation of rainfall and river flow[1]No
Soil conservationOrganic matter accumulation, nutrient cycling, and accumulation[1]No
Waste treatmentRemoval and degradation of excess or extraneous nutrients and compounds[43]No
Table 2. Pearson correlation (two-tailed) coefficients between ecosystem services and other factors. Significant p-values are shown as follows: ‘**’ <0.01 and ‘*’ <0.05, indicating extremely significant and significant correlations between corresponding variables, respectively.
Table 2. Pearson correlation (two-tailed) coefficients between ecosystem services and other factors. Significant p-values are shown as follows: ‘**’ <0.01 and ‘*’ <0.05, indicating extremely significant and significant correlations between corresponding variables, respectively.
Ecosystem ServicesProvision
Services		Provision (Nutrition)Provision (Materials)Regulation
Services
Proportion of migrant workersPearson’s r0.180.180.21 *0.070.09
Prob > F0.080.080.040.500.38
Rural populationPearson’s r0.060.170.28 **0.02−0.12
Prob > F0.560.08<0.010.840.26
Rural incomePearson’s r0.010.180.28 **0.02−0.20
Prob > F0.920.07<0.010.820.05
Forest coverPearson’s r0.50 **0.49 **−0.170.83 **0.38 **
Prob > F<0.01<0.010.10<0.01<0.01
Proportion of arable landPearson’s r−0.23 *−0.070.37 **−0.39 **−0.45 **
Prob > F0.020.05<0.01<0.01<0.01
Proportion of construction landPearson’s r−0.36 **−0.22 *−0.05−0.21 *−0.51 **
Prob > F<0.010.040.610.04<0.01
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, K.; Sun, X.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, X.; Wang, R.; Zheng, P.; Wang, H.; Zhang, S. The Influences of Land Use and Economic Policy on Main Ecosystem Services in Rural East China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041529

AMA Style

Zhang K, Sun X, Zhang T, Zhang X, Wang R, Zheng P, Wang H, Zhang S. The Influences of Land Use and Economic Policy on Main Ecosystem Services in Rural East China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(4):1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041529

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Kun, Xuehui Sun, Tingjing Zhang, Xiaozheng Zhang, Renqing Wang, Peiming Zheng, Hui Wang, and Shuping Zhang. 2025. "The Influences of Land Use and Economic Policy on Main Ecosystem Services in Rural East China" Sustainability 17, no. 4: 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041529

APA Style

Zhang, K., Sun, X., Zhang, T., Zhang, X., Wang, R., Zheng, P., Wang, H., & Zhang, S. (2025). The Influences of Land Use and Economic Policy on Main Ecosystem Services in Rural East China. Sustainability, 17(4), 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041529

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop