Interrelations of Ecosystem Services and Rural Population Wellbeing in an Ecologically-Fragile Area in North China

Yan Yan, Chunli Zhao, Yuan Quan, Huiting Lu, Yi Rong and Gang Wu
Additional contact information
Yan Yan: State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
Chunli Zhao: State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
Yuan Quan: State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
Huiting Lu: State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
Yi Rong: State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
Gang Wu: State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China

Sustainability, 2017, vol. 9, issue 5, 1-12

Abstract: Ecosystem services (ES) are indispensable contributors to rural population wellbeing (RPWB). Understanding the relationship between ES and RPWB is important to human welfare and conserving ecosystem services. Ecologically-vulnerable areas are widely distributed in China and are concentrated with impoverished people. This study explored the relations of ES and RPWB in an ecologically-fragile area, and provided some recommendations for regional improvement. We developed an evaluation framework, analyzed the spatio-temporal characteristics of services and RPWB, and examined their relations. Results showed that: (1) the level of RPWB in an ecologically-vulnerable area was lower than that in the downstream region; however, the wellbeing gap between regions has narrowed over time; (2) Regions with a higher ecosystem service capacity had higher levels of rural population wellbeing, and vice versa; (3) In addition to the food supply, other ES indicators were closely associated with RPWB in the region. Specifically, the net income and living space were closely related to food supply, while rural-urban income ratio and water environment were more relevant to the other services. Lastly, it is important to address environment and poverty issues simultaneously.

Keywords: ecological fragile areas; ecosystem service; rural population wellbeing (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/709/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/709/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:5:p:709-:d:97127

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().