Perceptions of human well-being across diverse respondents and landscapes in a mountain-basin system, China

Applied Geography 85 (2017) 176e183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

Perceptions of human well-being across diverse respondents and landscapes in a mountain-basin system, China Bojie Wang a, b, Haiping Tang a, b, *, Ying Xu a, b a b

State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Process and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China College of Resource and Technology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 26 November 2016 Received in revised form 22 May 2017 Accepted 23 May 2017

Human well-being is an important concept for human-nature interactions and affected by social, ecologic, and personal factors. There is increasing consensus about the importance of public perceptions of human well-being, but studies on this are still scarce. Here, we conducted 445 face-to-face interviews to assess subjective well-being across diverse respondents and landscapes in the Huailai mountain-basin system, China. The results suggest the actualization process of human well-being is similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. We found that mental health was disregarded by most respondents, while basic material for a good life was most valued. Moreover, our results show differences of well-being across different socio-demographic and landscapes characteristics. Apart from good social relations, elderly respondents had highest levels of human well-being in all other four dimensions; respondents from mountainous land with a high level of ecological conservation had the lowest level of well-being. We discuss the factors contribution to well-being and its implications for local management and policies. Understanding the implications of respondents and landscapes characteristics on human well-being can help managers to develop efficient and specific policies. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Subjective well-being Landscape management Natural-human system Sustainability Socio-demographic characteristics

1. Introduction Human well-being, as an endpoint and central yardstick for sustainability, is widely recognized as an important issue, but is difficult to be studied empirically (Kazana & Kazaklis, 2009; Summers & Smith, 2014). One approach is to consider the needs of local residents, and subjective measures have been proven meaningful to assess human well-being (Iniesta-Arandia, Garcíapez, 2014; Oswald & Wu, Llorente, Aguilera, Montes, & Martín-Lo 2010; Smith, Case, Smith, Harwell, & Summers, 2013). Management to promote human well-being across diverse landscapes while achieving sustainability is increasingly demanded by researchers and land managers (Bieling, Plieninger, Pirker, & Vogl, 2014; Quintas-Soriano, Castro, Castro, & García-Llorente, 2016; Villamagna & Giesecke, 2014). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) provides a new insight into the linkages between human well-being and ecosystem services (MA, 2005). Hereby,

* Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Process and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Wang), [email protected] (H. Tang), [email protected] (Y. Xu). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.05.006 0143-6228/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

human well-being presents a powerful bridge between humans and the natural environment. In this context, assessing human well-being and its dependency on the state of the natural environment has made substantial progress (Abunge, Coulthard, & Daw, 2013; Balmford & Bond, 2005; Xu, Tang, Wang, & Chen, 2016). However, it is still difficult to understand the linkages between natural landscapes and human well-being. Perceptions of human well-being from stakeholders are still lacking, particularly at the local level (Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014; MA, 2005). Moreover, studies involving linkages between human well-being and natural capital and provisioning services have been documented at the local level (Abunge et al., 2013; Pereira, Queiroz, Pereira, & Vicente, 2005; Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2016). While few studies have sought to stress the spatial differences of human well-being across diverse landscapes (Fagerholm et al., 2016; Villamagna & Giesecke, 2014), although such an approach is important in terms of landscape management and policy-making. Human well-being is a complex concept based on five dimensions: basic material for a good life, heath, security, good social relations, and freedom of choice and action (MA, 2005). Ecosystem services provide human well-being; however, other factors are of equal importance, such as socio-demographic condition, personal factors, life experience, and other contextual factors (Butler &

B. Wang et al. / Applied Geography 85 (2017) 176e183

Oluoch-Kosura, 2006; Carpenter et al., 2009; Dong et al., 2015; Yang, Dietz, Kramer, Chen, & Liu, 2013). For instance, recent studies proposed gender gaps should be taken into account in the measurement of well-being (Klasen, 2007), while income and education levels also have implications for human well-being (Dai et al., 2014; Kapuria, 2016; Scopelliti et al., 2016). Human well-being across diverse socio-demographic characteristics of respondents should be taken into account in order to balance well-being of different social groups and enable targeted promotion. Previous studies have used ecological units or administrative boundaries as areas for evaluation of human well-being (Pereira et al., 2005; Summers et al., 2014; Villamagna & Giesecke, 2014; Yang et al., 2013). Hereby, ecological units are more suitable to link the status of the natural environment and human well-being, while administrative boundaries are subject to policies, management, and social factors. Assessment of human well-being combined of both ecological units and administrative boundaries is a more comprehensive and effective approach. In this study, we combined the two factors administrative boundary (towns) and natural boundary (mountain-basin system) to assess local human well-being, using interviews and questionnaires. A mountain-basin system is a unique landscape in the farmingpastoral region, which is a transitional zone between arid and semiarid pastoral grassland and an ecologically fragile region. Human activities, including resource exploitation, are vital for environment and human well-being, but also significantly impact this region. The mountain-basin system (MBS), defined by Zhang (2001), features mountains and basins alternations. Tang and Zhang (2003) proposed a paradigm for the Huailai mountain-basin system, which includes three layers and five function regions: mountain land (mountain region for ecological conservation), low hills (hilly region for pastures and raising livestock), and the intermountain basin (reservoir and efficient economic region in the valley plain). This paradigm is an empirical study combining ecological management with local landscape characteristics. There is a spatial distribution of well-being (Pierewan & Tampubolon, 2014; Smith, 1977), this diverse landscape contributes to the spatial differences of ecosystem function and socio-economic characteristics, and further effect the level of human well-being (Su, Xiao, Jiang, & Zhang, 2012; Xu et al., 2016). Currently, the studies on mountain basins are still scarce, esp. in the context of human-wellbeing. We therefore extended the previous work and combined this approach with empirical investigation on human well-being. Hereby, we investigated the perceptions of human well-being to (i) assess subjective human well-being at the local level, (ii) analyze differences related to socio-demographic variables, and (iii) integrate human well-being into landscape characteristics and ecological management systems. 2. Study sites Our study focused on the Huailai mountain-basin system in the southeast of the farming-pastoral area in northern China (Fig. 1). The region has a complex topography and is located between 394 and 1978 m above sea level, covering a total area of 1083 km2. The climate is temperate semi-arid continental monsoonal climate with a mean annual precipitation of 383 mm and a mean annual tem
perature of 9.2 C. Huailai county is a rural area and a major agricultural production base with corn cultivation being the most traditional and widely used agricultural practice, followed by the special cultivation of grapes. In recent years, emigration, particularly male and young emigration increased because of land shortage and farm products sales decline. Different ecosystem and landscape types, including geomorphology, land uses, ecosystem function, industry, and

177

demographics may generate different nature-human relationships. In order to comprehensively analyze human-wellbeing in the Mountain-basin system, we selected typical townships which have representative landscape characteristics of the three ecological management zones, respectively. The main characteristics of the townships are summarized in Table 1. 2.1. Sunzhuangzi Sunzhuangzi is a typical township in the south mountain land. Urbanization is restricted by the geography of the mountain, and the livelihoods of local residents are based on agro-pastoralism and outside employment. Millet and potato are the main crops and sheep is the most important livestock. Forest and small villages are characteristics for the landscape. The main function of the region is ecological conservation, with water and soil conservation having been carried out since the 1950s. 2.2. Dahuangzhuang Danghuangzhuang is a highly efficient agricultural region with fertile soils, a large variety of crops, and a dense population, representing the main characteristics of the valley plain. Besides the water reservoir, farmland, orchards, and large villages are typical landscape characteristics. 2.3. Wangjialou Wangjialou is a representative site of the north mountain land; the main activity in this region is ecological conservation, esp. afforestation of barren mountains and forestry farms. Besides mountainous vegetation, cultivated land and small villages are typical landscape characteristics. Urbanization is restricted by geography, similar to the south mountain region, but precipitation levels are higher. 2.4. Sangyuan Sangyuan has the typical landscape characteristics of the low hills, with its high crop production, mainly grapes, and livestock raising. The fruit picking activities attract a large number of tourists. Soil desertification and landscape fragmentation are prominent issues in this region. 2.5. Shacheng Shacheng is a special township of the valley plain; it is highly urbanized and densely populated. It is also a highly efficient economic region, and livestock raising has a higher significance than agricultural production. The main landscape characteristic is construction land. 3. Methods 3.1. Human well-being index We explored human well-being through a set of 19 indicators related to five dimensions defined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), namely basic material for a good life, health, security, good social relations, and freedom of choice. The 19 indicators were selected based on the MA framework and characteristics of our study area. For instance, the indicator natural disaster was selected for its close relation with agricultural production, since most respondents in our study site were farmers and herdsmen. The indicator convenience of traffic was selected

178

B. Wang et al. / Applied Geography 85 (2017) 176e183

Fig. 1. Huailai county-combined landscape and administrative boundary.

Table 1 Characteristics of the five townships in the Huailai mountain-basin system. Sunzhuangzi

Dahuangzhuang

Wangjialou

Sangyuan

Shacheng

Characteristic landscapes Ecosystem management zones

Mountain land, forests, orchards Ecological conservation

Valley plain, farmland, orchards Highly efficient agricultural cultivation

Mountain land, Forest

Low hills, orchards

Ecological conservation

Populationa Agricultural/livestock output valuea Main farm products

4981 1.04

18,286 2.04

8190 1.66

Highly efficient agricultural cultivation and livestock raising 27,303 8.38

Valley plain, construction land Highly efficient economy

Apricots, millet, sheep

Chinese dates, rice, sunflowers

Green beans, millet

Grapes, corn, goats

a

95,749 0.28 Livestock products, Corn

Data derived in 2012.

because mountain and hills are the main landscape types. 3.2. Interviews and questionnaires We conducted face-to-face interviews and questionnaires with 445 respondents from five typical townships between July and September 2014. The main sections of the interviews were: 1) Social-demographic information, Table 2 shows the characteristics of the sample, and 2) Exploring the respondents’ well-being related to the five dimensions of human well-being defined in the MA. After a brief introduction of the interviewer and obtaining permissions, we explained the meaning of each indicator to our local respondents. Because most of the respondents were farmers with low literacy skills, we implemented face-to-face interviews using

local languages. The interviewees were asked to answer 19 questions related to the five dimensions of human well-being, using a five-point Likert scale (i.e., strongly disagree, mildly disagree, unsure, mildly agree, and strongly agree). The respondents were then asked about their age, education level, and income. The interviews lasted from 5 to 20 min. Some respondents often provided their ideas and advices to improve local well-being. We directly noted or transcribed these ideas after the interviews. 3.3. Index weights Few well-being indices consider what people value in the context of well-being and decision-making (Smith et al., 2013).

B. Wang et al. / Applied Geography 85 (2017) 176e183 Table 2 Respondents characteristics. Total Sex Age

Education

Income (yuan/household/year)

Male Female <30 years 30e49 years 50e69 years 70 years None Primary Secondary University <10,000 10,000e30000 30,001e50000 >50,000

226 219 61 140 161 71 83 148 190 24 178 165 67 35

However, public persons are the direct stakeholders of human wellbeing and ecosystem services. In our study, the relative importance values as weights to evaluate human well-being were decided on by local residents. We randomly selected 100 respondents in each typical township; each of them was asked to identify the importance values of the indicators. An ordinal ranking scale ranging from 1 (least important) to 10 (most important) was used to determine the weights (Fig. 2). 3.4. Data analysis Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20. All responses were coded in the order from the lowest score of 1 to the highest score of 5. A higher score represented a higher level of human wellbeing. The weights of each indicator were determined by relative importance value. The value of all 5 domains were weighted equally to overall well-being (Sullivan, Meigh, & Fediw, 2002). The weighted average approach was used for calculating each dimension of well-being and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare different respondent groups. Each indicator was standardized on a scale of 0e1 and used to create radar plots for each typical township to compare the distribution of domains, using the following equation: Scaled indicator value ¼ (valued observed e minimum observed value) / (maximum observed value e minimum observed value).

4. Results 4.1. Perceptions of human well-being at the local level According to the human well-being index and the questionnaires, we identified the weights as listed in Table 3. The great majority of respondents reported that health, farming yields, and education levels are most related to human well-being. In terms of basic materials for a good life, respondents considered communication facilities (i.e., phone and internet) and convenient public transport as important for well-being. However, electrical facilities (i.e., televisions and freezers) were of less concern. In terms of health, mental health and a variety of food were considered as being not important by the respondents. The importance values of four items of security were similar. With regard to good social relations, the respondents placed great emphasis on family relations rather than neighborhood relations and social activities. As for freedom of choice and action, the freedom to choose a certain education was considered to be a powerful driver of human well-

179

being. Our results suggest that the five dimensions differently contribute to local human well-being (Table 3). Security and good social relations contributed less to well-being than other dimensions. Basic material was most satisfied by the respondents. As for the indicators of each dimension, we found that respondents were less satisfied by housing conditions, the public health system, social activities, and education choices. Conversely, public security and mental health were rated higher. Due to the heavy dependence on agricultural production and farming, the respondents were sensitive to natural hazards. 4.2. Differences in human well-being among respondent groups The interview results differed in socio-economic and demographic characteristics between the different respondent groups. In terms of gender-specific responses, our data showed significant differences (P  0.05) in the domain of basic material for a good life, security, and freedom of choice (Table 4). Herein all other factors than good social relations, overall well-being in males tended to be higher than in females. Our results also indicate that age is an important demographic factor in determining human well-being. Besides good social relations, elderly respondents had the highest levels of well-being in the other dimensions. Nevertheless, there was a downward trend in good social relations with higher age, because family members and communication between them were less in the group of elderly people. We found distinct differences between all five dimensions with different age groups. There were no significant differences in terms of basic material for a good life, health, and freedom of choice between different education levels. However, there were highly significant differences in terms of security (KruskaleWallis, c2 ¼ 52.058, P-value ¼ 0.000) and good social relations (Kruskale Wallis, c2 ¼ 14.265, Pvalue ¼ 0.003) between the four education levels. Similarly, household income was related to human well-being. The four household income groups differed strongly (P  0.01) in terms of security, good social relations, and freedom of choice. The respondent group with an income above 50,000 Yuan/year had the highest level of good social relations and freedom of choice, while security well-being was the lowest. 4.3. Human well-being across characteristic landscapes The five typical townships are characterized by agricultural production and land use and belong to different landscape forms and ecosystem management zones. We found differences in human well-being between the north and the south mountain region (Fig. 3). Wangjialou, located in the north mountain land, rated lower in all five dimensions of well-being than Sunzhuangzi, located in the south. Based on small distance between Dahuangzhuang, Sangyuan, and Shacheng, we found that four dimensions of well-being (basic material for a good life, heath, security, and good social relations) rated similar in Shacheng and Sangyuan. Nevertheless, Shacheng threated lowest in these four dimensions. With respect to landscape, Shacheng and Dahuangzhuang townships are located in the valley plain, while low hills being the dominant landscape in Sangyuan. Land use types and natural conditions (e.g., soil conditions) are also different across the landscape, which contributed to the variability between townships. Although Shacheng is close to Dahuangzhuang, both townships belong to the valley landscape, with lower well-being levels because of urbanization and industrial production. Our data also show the differences between mountain land and

180

B. Wang et al. / Applied Geography 85 (2017) 176e183

Fig. 2. Example of survey questions used to determine the weights as perceived by local respondents.

Table 3 Weight value, mean and its standard deviation (S.D.) of the set of 19 items related to the five components of human well-being. Dimension of well-being

Item statement

Weight value

Mean (S.D.)

Basic material for a good life

Satisfaction with housing Affordability to basic electrical facilities Affordability to communication facilities Convenience of traffic Total Perfection of public health system Medical insurance Physical health Mental health Variety of food Total Public security Food security Quality of Drinking water Natural hazard happened in the region (landslides, hail, drought, etc.) Total Good relations among the neighbors Good relations among the family members Enthusiasm in social activities (wedding party, public square dancing, etc.) Total Ability to achieve the willingness of education (enrollment, school, major, etc.) Ability to achieve the willingness of job Ability to achieve the needed living goods Total

0.2505 0.2236 0.2633 0.2626

3.276 3.493 3.508 3.567 3.459 3.240 3.364 3.412 3.886 3.385 3.429 3.986 3.315 3.446 2.987 2.912 3.129 3.073 2.181 2.912 3.114

Health

Security

Good social relations

Freedom of choice and action

low hill ranges. People in Sangyuan, which is located in the low hills, reached a considerably higher score in four dimensions of well-being (basic material for a good life, heath, good social relations, and freedom of choice and action), whilst security wellbeing was slightly higher. Due to landscape characteristics, Sangyuan has better water and soil conditions, which influenced related economic activities and products. 5. Discussion 5.1. Perceptions of human well-being through interviews This study presents an approach regarding a rapid assessment of human well-being. Here, human well-being is seen as a powerful bridge between natural ecosystems and the human society (Balmford & Bond, 2005; Bieling et al., 2014; Butler & OluochKosura, 2006). One approach is to listen to the direct needs of local residents, which can be seen as stakeholders of human wellbeing and ecosystem services (Abunge et al., 2013; IniestaArandia et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015; Oswald & Wu, 2010). At the same time, taking into account the social perspectives of local residents can lead to more reliable and qualitatively higher environmental decision making. Valuating public perception is essential for decision-making and, consequently, positively impacts human well-being, yet it is still in its infancy (Quintas-Soriano et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2013). Our approach weighted each indicator by a relative importance value scored by stakeholders; in addition, we conducted face-to-

0.2252 0.2216 0.2438 0.1488 0.1605 0.2319 0.2580 0.2589 0.2512 0.3763 0.4195 0.2042 0.3843 0.3345 0.2811

(1.131) (1.036) (0.997) (1.087) (0.804) (1.125) (1.040) (1.115) (1.167) (1.177) (0.744) (1.105) (1.371) (1.216) (1.236) (0.740) (1.555) (1.198) (1.457) (0.979) (1.198)

3.172 (1.747) 3.470 (1.001) 3.251 (0.851)

face interviews with different respondent groups. The responses considerably improved our understanding of how the public perceives human well-being, esp. in terms of which factors of wellbeing are most important and need to be significantly improved. For instance, ability to achieve a certain education level was rated as extremely important, but the respondents were highly unsatisfied with this issue; similar responses were achieved in terms of natural hazards. In previous studies, achievement of education has been considered as an especially important indicator for this wellbeing constituent (Hamann, Biggs, & Reyers, 2016; MA, 2005), higher levels of education are associated with higher levels of wellbeing achievement (Kapuria, 2016). Other studies also used natural hazard as variable to assessment human well-being (Tian, Brown, Bao, & Qi, 2015). Therefore, policy makers will need to guarantee better education choices and improve hazard protection systems. With this study, we provide an empirical demonstration of the human well-being index based on the MA conceptual framework and combined with a local socio-ecological context; such an approach is not restricted to Huailai county, but can be applied in other rural regions. 5.2. Human well-being, sustainability, and hierarchy of human needs The concept of human well-being is complex and multidimensional, expanding traditional ecology to the relationship of the environment, people, and biology. Sustainability is an anthropocentric concept, focusing on meeting human needs of current and

B. Wang et al. / Applied Geography 85 (2017) 176e183

181

Table 4 Differences between the respondent groups in terms of gender, age, education, and income.

Sex

Male Female

c2 Age

<30 years 30-49 years 50-69 years 70 years

Education

None Primary Secondary University

c2

c2 Income (Yuan/household/year)

<10,000 10,000e29999 30,000e49999 >50,000

c2

Basic material for a good life

Heath

Security

Good social relations

Freedom of choice

3.53 3.45 4.446* 3.40 3.33 3.53 3.60 9.923* 3.27 3.50 3.53 3.43 4.275 (ns) 3.38 3.47 3.63 3.56 3.592 (ns)

3.48 3.39 3.394 (ns) 3.13 3.36 3.44 3.72 24.372** 3.48 3.48 3.40 3.13 5.809 (ns) 3.43 3.41 3.49 3.43 1.110 (ns)

3.50 3.32 6.237* 3.13 3.15 3.50 3.92 64.650** 3.69 3.60 3.16 3.24 52.058** 3.50 3.38 3.41 3.09 12.950**

2.87 2.94 0.532 (ns) 3.33 2.99 2.74 2.68 19.649** 2.68 2.75 3.09 3.20 14.265** 2.67 2.97 3.17 3.32 22.933**

3.32 3.13 4.679* 3.28 3.04 3.21 3.42 13.194** 3.14 3.21 3.23 3.27 0.504 (ns) 3.04 3.27 3.38 3.50 13.588**

** and * indicate statistical significance at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels, respectively.

future generations within the limits of the environment (Wu, 2013). Human well-being, as an endpoint and central yardstick for sustainability, has been widely recognized (Dietz, Rosa, & York, 2012; Kazana & Kazaklis, 2009; Smith et al., 2013; Summers & Smith, 2014). Nevertheless, most indicators of sustainability have not included the measurement of well-being, and indicators of human well-being have typically failed to account for sustainability in the same way (Neumayer, 2007). Only a few studies have integrated these two factors. Hereby, the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) represents an earlier attempt to integrate sustainability into a well-being indicator (Neumayer, 2007). Sustainability of human well-being relates to the potential for changes in well-

being through time and space, which is described as equity spatially (social equity) and temporally (intergenerational equity) (Summers & Smith, 2014). Developing a well-being index which integrates sustainability is one of the current challenges and requires further studies; and tradeoff human well-being of intergeneration and socio-economic groups to achieve sustainable wellbeing. Maslow's hierarchy framed human needs into six levels, in a descending order of prepotency: physiology, safety, love and belonging, esteem, self-actualization, and self-transcendence (Koltko-Rivera, 2006; Maslow, 1954). Human well-being depends on the basic material needs met by ecosystem services and other

Fig. 3. Differences of human well-being across landscapes.

182

B. Wang et al. / Applied Geography 85 (2017) 176e183

social factors. Once these basic human needs are met, people have greater flexibility to consider the needs of future generations in a rapidly changing world (Kofinas & Chapin, 2009). Our results show that although the needs for basic material for a good life and health are met, well-being in terms of higher levels (security, good social relations, and freedom of choice) is still relatively low. We also found that indicators of mental health were disregarded by most respondents. Our results suggest the actualization process of human well-being is similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (Gorman, 2010; Hagerty, 1999; Summers, Smith, Case, & Linthurst, 2012); they also indicate that the overall level of human well-being in Huailai county is still low, being in its infancy of satisfaction of physiology. Future policy of sustainable decision-making should take into account security, good social relations, and freedom of choice to address human well-being. Although Maslow's hierarchy of needs has a wide influence, it is also controversial, as it mainly focuses on individual well-being, yet sustainability measurements should encompass a broad public. Most components of human well-being are closely related to Maslow's hierarchy, yet could not be necessarily organized hierarchically (Wu, 2013). Improving wellbeing in terms of basic material for a good life and health and simultaneously considering security, good social relations, and freedom of choice will help to develop policies and management strategies in the context of sustainable development. Future analyses that combine human well-being with human needs are needed to realize sustainable well-being. 5.3. Implications for management and policy in the context of human well-being The multidimensional nature of human well-being means is can be affected by natural, social, and economic factors. With the advent of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), the impacts of ecosystem services on human well-being have received much attention (Abunge et al., 2013; Butler & Oluoch-Kosura, 2006; Ciftcioglu, 2017; Summers et al., 2012). Ecosystem services necessarily contribute to human well-being, yet not sufficient for it (Butler & Oluoch-Kosura, 2006). Human well-being can be defined in different ways, depending on socio-economic and demographic characteristics, life experience, and a variety of other factors (Aslam & Corrado, 2012; Kofinas & Chapin, 2009; Yang et al., 2013). In this study, we explored the socio-demographic characteristics of human well-being, taking a step forward in the assessment of human well-being at the local level. Our results indicate that the factors age, gender, education, and income all significantly impact human well-being. We found significant differences in the five dimensions of human well-being particularly between different age groups. Apart from good social relations, elderly respondents (70) expressed the highest level of well-being in other dimensions. While the phenomenon of migrant workers or attending school outside the region is almost ubiquitous, it also increases the percentage of aged people. In this context, researchers and policymakers need to pay close attention to the well-being of aged people. In term of good social relations, we found overall well-being in females tended to be higher than in males. This finding was not totally unexpected, because women attended social activities more frequently and were more familiar with their neighborhoods in our region. The gender differences should be taken into account in sustainable well-being. We also found that the dimensions of social relations and freedom of choice showed increased scores with ascending education and income values. This result is interesting and suggests that improving the level of education and income can help to enhance high-level well-being. Human well-being cannot be considered as separate from the natural environment, which is now commonplace in discussions on

these issues (Balmford & Bond, 2005; Summers et al., 2012). Yet, the linkage between landscapes and human well-being has rarely been considered (Bieling et al., 2014). The differences across landscapes can indirectly effect human well-being through changes of land use and ecosystem services (Balmford & Bond, 2005; Fagerholm et al., 2016; Fu, Li, Yang, Wu, & Zhang, 2015; Hamann, Biggs, & Reyers, 2015; Xu et al., 2016). In this study, we selected typical sites in the context of a mountain-basin system to explore the linkage between landscape and human well-being. We found that human well-being differed across the landscape. Respondents living in the low hills with orchards, farmland, and large villages as landscape characteristics had the highest levels of human wellbeing. Human well-being of respondents from the valley plain was higher than that of inhabitants of mountainous land, as mountainous land is characterized by forests, orchards, and small villages instead of a variety of farmland, orchards, and larger villages. The difference in well-being could be explained by the characteristics of the different crop types, public transport, and environmental conditions across landscapes. Previous studies of Bieling et al. (2014) and Villamagna and Giesecke (2014) also found differences across different landscapes. Different management measures may generate on environmental and human well-being outcomes (Posner, Getz, & Ricketts, 2016; Silvestri, Zaibet, Said, & Kifugo, 2013). Hence, policy-making and the development of management strategies should take different landscapes into account. In the context of our results, managers should place significant emphasis on the well-being of the elderly population and on gender equality. Future policies should aim to improve education and, consequently, income levels to enhance human well-being. In addition, populations on mountain regions with the function of ecological conservation have the lowest level of well-being. Landplanning strategies need to make tradeoffs between ecological conservation and human well-being, with the aim of landscape optimization. 6. Conclusion and future work In this study, we performed interviews to assess human wellbeing on landscape and socio-demographic characteristics. We provide an empirical quantification of subjective well-being at local level and were able to combined well-being with landscape management. Our results support the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The results suggest that attempts to safeguard and advance human well-being should pay close attention to socio-demographic and landscapes characteristics for tradeoff different human groups and regions. Our work is a starting point for an evaluation of the linkages between landscape and human well-being at a local level, and further work on this issue is needed. Future studies should quantify ecosystem services (such as water regulation, carbon storage, and tourism) and their values across different landscapes, combined with local perceptions of human well-being, realizing the combination of individual, local, and landscape well-being. Therefore, linking human well-being and landscape can help us to adopt specific policies to realize sustainable well-being in land decision and management. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the people who kindly responded to the questionnaires. We would like to thank Xiao Lan and Tianpei Gu for their help with the field work. The research was funded by the National Basic Research Program of China (No. 2014CB954303), the Project Supported by State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface

B. Wang et al. / Applied Geography 85 (2017) 176e183

Processes and Resource Ecology (No. 2017-KF-20) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41371186). References Abunge, C., Coulthard, S., & Daw, T. M. (2013). Connecting marine ecosystem services to human well-being: Insights from participatory well-being assessment in Kenya. Ambio, 42(8), 1010e1021. Aslam, A., & Corrado, L. (2012). The geography of well-being. Journal of Economic Geography, 12, 627e649. Balmford, A., & Bond, W. (2005). Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecology Letters, 8(11), 1218e1234. Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., & Vogl, C. R. (2014). Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19e30. Butler, C. D., & Oluoch-Kosura, W. (2006). Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 30. Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., et al. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(5), 1305e1312. Ciftcioglu, G. C. (2017). Assessment of the relationship between ecosystem services and human wellbeing in the social-ecological landscapes of Lefke Region in North Cyprus. Landscape Ecology, 32, 897e913. Dai, G. S., Ulgiati, S., Zhang, Y. S., Yu, B. H., Kang, M. Y., Jin, Y., et al. (2014). The false promises of coal exploitation: How mining affects herdsmen well-being in the grassland ecosystems of Inner Mongolia. Energy Policy, 67, 146e153. Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2012). Environmentally efficient well-being: Is there a Kuznets curve? Applied Geography, 32, 21e28. Dong, X., Dai, G., Ulgiati, S., Na, R., Zhang, X., Kang, M., et al. (2015). On the relationship between economic development, environmental integrity and wellbeing: The point of view of herdsmen in northern China grassland. PloS One, 10(9), e0134786. Fagerholm, N., Oteros-Rozas, E., Raymond, C. M., Torralba, M., Moreno, G., & Plieninger, T. (2016). Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Applied Geography, 74, 30e46. Fu, Q., Li, B., Yang, L. L., Wu, Z. L., & Zhang, X. S. (2015). Ecosystem services evaluation and its spatial characteristics in central Asia's arid regions: A case study in Altay prefecture, China. Sustainability, 7(7), 8335e8353. Gorman, D. (2010). Maslow's hierarchy and social and emotional wellbeing. Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal, 34(1), 27e29. Hagerty, M. R. (1999). Testing Maslow's hierarchy of needs: National quality-of-life across time. Social Indicators Research, 46(3), 249e271. Hamann, M., Biggs, R., & Reyers, B. (2015). Mapping socialeecological systems: Identifying “green-loop” and “red-loop” dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use. Global Environmental Change, 34, 218e226. Hamann, M., Biggs, R., & Reyers, B. (2016). An exploration of human well-being bundles as identifiers of ecosystem service use patterns. PloS One, 11(10), e0163476. pez, B. Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P. A., Montes, C., & Martín-Lo (2014). Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: Uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecological Economics, 108, 36e48. Kapuria, P. (2016). A human well-being perspective to the measurement of quality of life: Findings from the city of Delhi. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11, 125e145. Kazana, V., & Kazaklis, A. (2009). Exploring quality of life concerns in the context of sustainable rural development at the local level: A Greek case study. Regional Environmental Change, 9(3), 209e219. Klasen, S. (2007). Gender-related indicators of well-being. In M. McGillivray (Ed.), Human well-being: Concept and measurement (pp. 167e192). London: Palgrave. Kofinas, G. P., & Chapin, F. S. (2009). Sustaining livelihoods and human well-being during social-ecological change. In F. S. Chapin, G. P. Kofinas, & C. Folke (Eds.), Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world (pp. 55e75). New York: Springer. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302. Li, C., Zheng, H., Li, S., Chen, X., Li, J., Zeng, W., et al. (2015). Impacts of conservation and human development policy across stakeholders and scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7396e7401. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington D.C: Island Press. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Neumayer, E. (2007). Sustainability and well-being indicators. In M. McGillivray (Ed.), Human well-being: Concept and measurement (pp. 193e213). London: Palgrave. Oswald, A. J., & Wu, S. (2010). Objective confirmation of subjective measures of

183

human well-being: Evidence from the USA. Science, 327(5965), 576e579. Pereira, E., Queiroz, C., Pereira, H. M., & Vicente, L. (2005). Ecosystem services and human well-being: A participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecology and Society, 10(2), 14. Pierewan, A. C., & Tampubolon, G. (2014). Spatial dependence multilevel model of well-being across regions in Europe. Applied Geography, 47, 168e176. Posner, S., Getz, C., & Ricketts, T. (2016). Evaluating the impact of ecosystem service assessments on decision-makers. Environmental Science & Policy, 64, 30e37. Quintas-Soriano, C., Castro, A. J., Castro, H., & García-Llorente, M. (2016). Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services and implications for human well-being in Spanish drylands. Land Use Policy, 54, 534e548. Scopelliti, M., Carrus, G., Adinolfi, C., Suarez, G., Colangelo, G., Lafortezza, R., et al. (2016). Staying in touch with nature and well-being in different income groups: . Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, The experience of urban parks in Bogota 139e148. Silvestri, S., Zaibet, L., Said, M. Y., & Kifugo, S. C. (2013). Valuing ecosystem services for conservation and development purposes: A case study from Kenya. Environmental Science & Policy, 31, 23e33. Smith, D. M. (1977). Human geography: A Welfare approach. London: Edward Arnold. Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., Harwell, L. C., Smith, H. M., & Summers, J. K. (2013). Development of relative importance values as contribution weights for evaluating human wellbeing: An ecosystem services example. Human Ecology, 41(4), 631e641. Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., Smith, H. M., Harwell, L. C., & Summers, J. K. (2013). Relating ecoystem services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a US index. Ecological Indicators, 28, 79e90. Sullivan, C., Meigh, J. R., & Fediw, T. S. (2002). Derivation and testing of the water poverty index phase 1, Final Report. UK: Department for International Development. Summers, J. K., & Smith, L. M. (2014). The role of social and intergenerational equity in making changes in human well-being sustainable. Ambio, 43(6), 718e728. Summers, J. K., Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., & Linthurst, R. A. (2012). A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio, 41(4), 327e340. Summers, J. K., Smith, L. M., Harwell, L. C., Case, J. L., Wade, C. M., Straub, K. R., et al. (2014). An index of human well-being for the US: A TRIO approach. Sustainability, 6(6), 3915e3935. Su, S., Xiao, R., Jiang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Characterizing landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes for urbanization impacts at an eco-regional scale. Applied Geography, 34, 295e305. Tang, H., & Zhang, X. (2003). Establishment of optimized eco-productive paradigm in the farming-pastoral zone of northern China. Acta Botanica Sinica, 45(10), 1166e1173. Tian, Q., Brown, D. G., Bao, S., & Qi, S. (2015). Assessing and mapping human wellbeing for sustainable development amid flood hazards: Poyang lake region of China. Applied Geography, 63, 66e76. Villamagna, A., & Giesecke, C. (2014). Adapting human well-being frameworks for ecosystem service assessments across diverse landscapes. Ecology and Society, 19(1), 11. Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 999e1023. Xu, Y., Tang, H., Wang, B., & Chen, J. (2016). Effects of land-use intensity on ecosystem services and human well-being: A case study in Huailai county, China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(5), 1e11. Yang, W., Dietz, T., Kramer, D. B., Chen, X., & Liu, J. (2013). Going beyond the Millennium ecosystem assessment: An index system of human well-being. PloS One, 8(5), e64582. Zhang, X. S. (2001). Ecological restoration and sustainable agricultural paradigm of mountain-oasisecotone-desert system in the north of the Tianshan Mountains. Acta Botanica Sinica, 12, 1294e1299. mez-Baggethun, E., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Grau-Satorras, M., Kalla, J., Demps, K., Go García, C., et al. (2016). Contribution of natural and economic capital to subjective well-being: Empirical evidence from a small-scale society in Kodagu (Karnataka), India. Social Indicators Research, 127, 919e937.

Bojie Wang is a Ph.D. student at College of Resource and Technology, Beijing Normal University. Her research currently focuses on human well-being and ecosystem services in the context of climate change.

Haiping Tang is a professor at College of Resource and Technology, Beijing Normal University. Her research concerns ecosystem services, landscape sustainable management and eco-productive paradigm of semi-arid region.

Ying Xu is a Ph.D. student at College of Resource and Technology, Beijing Normal University. Her research interests are effects of land-use on human well-being and ecosystem services.