Identifying the Changes in Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being under Agricultural Transformation Contexts in Peri-Urban Areas: A Case Study of the Xi’an Metropolitan Zone, China

Abstract

Agricultural transition and specialization in PUAs have reshaped the ecological landscape, economic structure, and rural cultural values worldwide. There is a gap in how to analyze the linkages of ecosystem services (ES) and human well-being (HWB) and how to clearly identify the differences on the dimension (primary concerns) of HWB from a comprehensive perspective. Thus, we selected three typical agricultural transformation modes in the Xi’an metropolitan zone in China, employing social surveys, field mapping, ecosystem service assessment methods, and qualitative analysis methods, and proposed an analytical framework from a comprehensive perspective of “ecological-social-cultural” contexts to examine the changes and mechanism between ES and HWB. The results indicated the following: (1) Agricultural transition has driven the changes not only in ecological landscape, agricultural structure planting and practice modes, and rural economic structure, but also the shift in rural social relationships and cultural values together restructured rural society during agricultural specialization. (2) Due to triggering by the agricultural transition and specialization, great changes occurred in “ecological-social-cultural” contexts in PUAs, the changes of HWB not only reflected in its degree (level), but more importantly, in its dimension (primary concerns). (3) With agricultural transition and specialization, the total value of ES increased, while the HWB rose in three transition modes. (4) The analytical frameworks proposed in the study are suitable to analyze the mechanisms of ES and HWB, and helpful to address the issues on the relation of ES to HWB inevitably being combined with the nature–land system. The approach proposed in the study on distinguishing the differences among the dimensions of well-being based on grounded theory could clearly identify the differences among different “ecological- social-cultural” contexts.

1. Introduction

Urbanization is rapidly rising globally, with an urbanization rate of 56% in 2021. It is projected that by 2050, the urban population will increase by 2.2 billion, and the level of urbanization will reach 68% [1]. More than two-thirds of the population will reside in cities [2]. Urban agglomeration regions have become pivotal areas of global population concentration, economic intensity, and high socio-cultural development [3]. The rapid expansion of urban agglomerations has widespread and far-reaching impacts on economic, social, and ecological development of peri-urban areas (PUAs) [4,5]. In particular, the large-scale and diversified demand for agricultural products in cities has driven the shifts from traditional monoculture farming (mainly grain crops) to multifunctional modern agriculture [6,7]. While that promotes the rapid advancement of the local economy and society, the unlimited sprawl of urban land and the frequent adjustment of agricultural planting structures have led to the fragmentation of landscapes [8,9], and the changes in ecosystem composition, structure, processes, and patterns. Further, these significantly impact ecosystem services and human well-being in PUAs [10,11]. Previous studies have shown that agricultural areas worldwide, especially in Asia, are undergoing significant changes due to the combined impacts of human activities and natural environmental factors [12,13], involving a shift in production from monocultural grain towards more diversified agricultural activities [14], such as cultivating fruits, vegetables, and seedlings, and incorporating agricultural harvesting with leisure tourism. This transformation has driven the changes and restructuring of agricultural land use and its cultivation structure, significantly impacting agricultural ecosystem services [15]. Furthermore, urbanization has facilitated the development and reconfiguration of rural economies, improved the infrastructure and public service levels, altered the agricultural practice modes, and shifted the belief and dominant values of the rural areas due to the urban cultural dissemination, ultimately exerting a profound influence on the well-being of rural residents [16,17].

The term well-being is often used interchangeably with “quality of life”, “welfare”, “happiness”, and “life satisfaction” [18]. Still, no accepted concept of human well-being has been put forward [19]. Well-being is multidimensional, encompassing both material and non-material aspects [20]. To quantify human well-being, various assessment frameworks have been developed, and different frameworks often emphasize distinct dimensions of well-being, such as the Human Development Index [21], which mainly focuses on objective measures (e.g., residents’ income and educational attainment) and the Happy Planet Index [22], which places more emphasis on the subjective well-being dimensions (e.g., residents’ life satisfaction and life expectancy). Also, some assessment frameworks of human well-being focus on input (as the determinants) and component (as the final benefits) measurement, for instance, the Inclusive Wealth Index argues that human well-being were determined by the three economic stocks, namely, manufactured capital, human capital, and natural capital [23], and the Human Development Index emphasized that human well-being were mainly composed of the final benefits in terms of health, economy, and education [21]. Nevertheless, despite all the studies conducted, there remains no general measurement on well-being [24]. The International Wellbeing Group (2013) examined over 1200 instruments that claim to measure well-being in some form and argued that many of these measures are limited due to a focus on specific groups. This suggests that the well-being assessment frameworks may have to be based on the needs and insights of particular stakeholders and the specific ecological circumstances confronting the individual or group [25]. In other words, what elements contribute to human well-being are determined by the respondents rather than by the researchers [26].

Actually, all factors including natural and socio-economic factors, will affect human well-being covering objective and subjective aspects. Good ecosystem health can improve well-being, for instance, Methorst et al. found that the species diversity of birds in Europe had a positive effect on the subjective well-being of the residents, and the effect degree was close to that of their income (an objective factor) [27]. There is also evidence that ecosystem disruption can reduce well-being. For example, drought is associated with reduced life satisfaction [28], and dryland salinity increased hospital admissions for depression [29]. In addition, Huang et al. argued that more than 90% of the variance of subjective well-being between different social classes was attributed to socio-economic status at the individual level in the Baiyangdian Basin of China [30]. Duku et al. found that in the southeastern coastal region of Ghana, individual socio-economic status significantly impacts well-being [31]. Since MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) proposed a framework for assessing the interrelationships between ecosystem services and human well-being [32], many scholars have conducted research on the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being, including correlation analysis, influence pathways explored by model simulations, and contribution studies using social surveys [33,34,35]. In particular, the concept informing the understanding of cultural ecosystem services has remained the subject of ongoing debate in recent years, since they are typically constructed, intangible, and interpretative in character and difficult to assign a monetary value [36,37]. However, cultural ecosystem services matter, as they are more directly experienced and intuitively appreciated by people than other ecosystem services [38,39]. Liu et al. found that socio-economic well-being was positively correlated with provisioning and cultural services by linear regression and constraint line analysis at the provincial scale in China [33]. The interviews conducted by Lyytimaki with Finnish farmers showed that the cultural services significantly contributed to the well-being of local farmers, while the contribution of provisioning services received little attention from the residents and the regulating services were hardly mentioned [40]. Also, few scholars have explored the interactive impacts of ecosystem services on human well-being at the village scale in the context of agricultural transformation in urbanizing areas [16,41].

In general, current research on the impacts of ecosystem services on human well-being has been more limited to quantitative analyses of the relationship between them, with few on the mechanisms (namely, their interaction) between ecosystem services and human well-being. Some research suggests that ecosystem services are closely related to ecosystem types, and also the differences in human well-being among social groups, especially its scaling effects, are highly dependent on the social–cultural context or status of the group lived [42,43]. This suggests that the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being are essentially determined by the “ecological-social-cultural” system of a social group in a specific region, totally including the state of the ecosystem, environmental health status, dominant economic sectors or economic development, and social culture. Therefore, the fundamental context of an “ecological-social-cultural system” existing in a specific region strongly affected the provision of ecosystem services (e.g., by the change of land use or land cover, the demand for ecosystem services) and fundamentally forming the objective and subjective aspects of human well-being (e.g., residents’ income, a sense of fairness), is crucial to objectively and systematically reveal the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being. However, current research mainly focuses on measuring ecosystem services provision according to ecosystem status and human well-being based on selected indicators usually representing economic and social development and analyzing the relation between ecosystem services and human well-being by statistic or simulation models. Little research has been conducted on the relationship (or mechanism) between ecosystem services and human well-being by systematically taking consideration of the “ecological-social-cultural” context in a specific region. It has been argued that alternative and context-specific conceptualizations and metrics of human well-being can be more appropriate in social-ecological systems, especially when there is poverty and high dependence on ecosystem services [44]. However, a large gap exists on insight into the mechanism between ecosystem services and human well-being scientifically combined within a specific regional context.

The PUAs in developing countries, currently and historically, have been undergoing an agricultural transformation [45,46]. For instance, in China, the agricultural transformation, namely urban agricultural development or special agricultural development in PUAs, was driven by the planning of agricultural zoning and layout policies by the government and the pursuit of agricultural economic benefits by farmers in the long term [47]. The most representative policy is “one village, one product”, which refers to taking the village as a unit and making full use of local resource advantages to develop a characteristic and localized leading industry or product in accordance with domestic and foreign market demand [48]. By the end of 2014, the total area of household contracted cultivated land in China was 268.67 km², and the total area used for growing food crops after the conversion was only 152.67 km² [48]. Moreover, the main data bulletin of China’s third national land survey (2021) shows that after the second survey (2007), 74,667 km² of cultivated land were transferred to forest land, and 42,000 km² were transferred to garden land. As farmers’ incomes increase, the government also pays more attention to rural education, improves the cultural literacy of rural residents, actively cultivates new professional farmers, and promotes endogenous growth in rural development. There has been a shift from traditional grain planting to diversified modern agriculture and spatial specialization. This not only leads to changes in landscape patterns such as land use, crop types, and cultivation structures, but more importantly, results in changes to the economic structure of farming households, the agricultural practice modes, the trade network of agricultural products, the social relationship networks of the rural areas, the farmers’ enthusiasm for agricultural production, and the values of the farmers [16,49,50]. Thus, from a broad human–land coupling system perspective, namely a comprehensive transformation of “ecological-social-cultural” contexts triggered by agricultural transition, how to understand and discern the changes in ecosystem services and human well-being, especially the differences in the dimensions (describing the primary concerns of farmers) and the degree or level (representing the perception value of farmers) of human well-being between different agricultural specialization regions, and in particular, how to understand the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being, is a crucial scientific issue in PUAs [11]. Addressing these issues is not only helpful for a deeper understanding of the human–land coupling mechanism in PUAs, but also for agricultural restructuring, the high-quality socio-economic development, and the ecological construction in a similar region.

Therefore, using the typical villages developing the specializing agriculture of the Xi’an metropolitan zone in China as an example, employing social surveys, ecosystem service assessment methods, and qualitative analysis techniques, the paper aims to investigate the impact of the regional differentiation in agriculture on ecosystem services and human well-being at the village scale in urban agglomeration areas. The objectives of this research are as follows: (1) analyze the impacts of agricultural regional differentiation on ecosystem services; (2) clarify the impacts of agricultural regional differentiation on human well-being (especially on dimensions and levels of well-being) based on grounded theory; and (3) explore the interacting mechanisms between ecosystem services and human well-being under different agricultural transition modes from an integrated “ecological-social-cultural” perspective.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Xi’an metropolitan zone is located in the middle of Guanzhong Plain in the Northwest of China, with a land area of 20,600 km², a population of 18 million in 2020, and an urbanization rate of over 72%. It is mainly composed of three landforms: the loess hilly and gully area and loess tableland in the north, the Weihe alluvial plain in the middle, and the Qinling mountains in the south. It belongs to the warm temperate semi-humid monsoon climate area, with an annual precipitation of 522.4~719.5 mm and annual average temperature of 13.0~13.7 °C. This area is dominated by brown soil and cinnamon soil, with productive land, a lot of well-developed canals, and rivers for irrigation. Due to the superior agricultural development conditions, historically, this is an important grain-producing region in China. With the rapid urbanization and agricultural modernization since the 1980s, the region has transitioned from traditional large-scale grain cultivation to diversified urban agriculture, forming the fruit (e.g., apple, cherry, kiwifruit), the vegetables, the seedlings and flowers, and the grain planting modes, as well as agricultural tourism (agriculture combined with rural sightseeing tour). By 2020, a total of 178 modern agricultural parks at or above the municipal level have been established in Xi’an, with the contribution rate of agricultural science and technology progress reaching 60%, the comprehensive mechanization rate of major crops exceeding 95%, and the agricultural trade volume reaching 117 million yuan. A spatial development pattern of “one district, three belts and seven sectors” has been initially formed. The agricultural transition has driven and restructured the rural “ecological-social-cultural” contexts in PUAs, such as changes in cultivated structure, agricultural practices, household income, farmers’ attitudes to agriculture, and rural residents’ values, which has led to significant changes in ecosystem services and human well-being. With the process of agricultural transformation, diversified transformation models have emerged that match regional advantages; the different villages as the basic geographical region derived from different agricultural functional areas and rural development have shown obvious spatial and temporal differences. So, the village scale is best suited to reveal the essence of ecosystem services, human well-being, and their relationship under agricultural transformation contexts. In this study, three typical agricultural cultivation types, namely grain, kiwifruit, and cherry planting mixed with tourism and six specialized and typical villages were selected (

Table 1. Changes in agricultural transformation and typical villages.

Transformation Modes	Typical Villages	Agricultural Transformation Process	Agricultural Planting Structures	Household Income	Agricultural Practices and Farmers’ Value
“grain-grain”	Nianyang and Quanzhong	Historically, the dominant crops were wheat, corn, and other cereal crops, and they still remain planted (Figure S1).	Now, wheat and corn cover 70% of arable land, with smaller areas planting pear trees (1.7%), walnut trees (0.2%), and vegetables (e.g., pakchoi cabbage and peppers, by 0.6%).	Most of the household income was earned from grain production before, and now, from full-time or part-time work in the city, accounting for 70% of total income and only 20% from agricultural production.	Unified cultivars of wheat and corn, mechanized cultivation, and well water irrigation. Lower risk, lower gains. Aging labor force, lower enthusiasm, lack of confidence in agricultural development, geographic linkage (neighborly relations) and kindred or consanguinity ties.
“grain-kiwifruit”	Zhouyi and Wangfang	Before the 1990s, the main crops were apples and cereals, then shifted to fruit planting in the 2000s, mainly including kiwifruit and grapes. Presently, 92% of farmers participate in kiwifruit planting (Figure S2).	Kiwifruit covers over 70% of total land, grapes and cherry tomatoes make up 12% and 0.8%, respectively. Wheat and corn account for about 10% of the total. Very few are intercropped with kiwifruit and corn.	Most income came from grain production before and now is earned from the kiwifruit and grapes planting, fruit wholesale, and labor income in kiwifruit orchards and the city. The income relevant to kiwifruit planting makes up about 70% of household earnings.	Introducing better cultivars of kiwifruit and grapes, adopting standardized practices, plowing and weeding with machines. High input, high output and higher gain, higher risks, more intensive and commoditized. Younger labor force with wider knowledge and adaptability to new ideas, industrial ties (working relationship), geographic connection and kindred ties, more freedom in making decisions and more confidence in agricultural development.
“grain-cherry + tourism”	Xiazhai and Nanzhi	Before 1980, the main crops were cereals, in 2009–2012, the land entirely shifted to cherry planting and the cherry plant combined with the picking-up and sightseeing due to the influence of tourism development in the surrounding areas (e.g., Bailuyuan and Whale Valley) (Figure S3).	Area of cherry accounts for 50% of total land, cereal crops and strawberries make up 10% and 3.8% each, and very small areas cultivate grapes and walnuts.	Now, up to 50% of income comes from wholesale and retail fruit, and income from working in cherry orchards or strawberry fields, with approximately 10% coming from tourism.	Introducing the early-maturing and dwarfing fruit trees, adopting standardized management modes, transporting for freshness by cold chain logistics, and integrating rural sightseeing tourism. Fruit wholesale, online sales, and picking-up tourism. More natural disaster risks. Strong modern agricultural awareness and market-oriented thoughts, industrial ties (working relationship), geographic connection and kindred ties, more strong confidence in agricultural development.

(Notes: “grain-grain” represents the shifting of grain planting to modern grain planting, “grain-kiwifruit” represents the shifting of grain planting to kiwifruit planting, and “grain-cherry + tourism” represents the shifting of grain planting to cherry planting mixed with tourism).

, Figure 1).

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Measurement of Ecosystem Services

According to the crop types and the specific characteristics of production and management in the Xi’an metropolitan zone, as well as the multifunctionality of urban agriculture [51,52,53], five ecosystem services of agroecosystems, including economic production services (EPS), water conservation services (WCS), air purification services (APS), carbon sequestration and oxygen release services (CSORS), and tourism and leisure services (TLS), were selected in the study. The assessment methods are shown in

Table 2. Assessment methods of ecosystem services.

Ecosystem Services	Methods	Meaning of Indicators
EPS	V1$={{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}s\times a\times v$	V1 represents the value of EPS; s represents the area of different agricultural types; a represents the yield per unit area; v is the price of different agricultural products [54].
WCS	V2 = P1 + P2 P1 $=W\times C$ P2 $=(Q_1 +Q_2 +Q_3)\times C$	V2 represents the value of WCS; P1 is the supply value of WCS provided by cultivated land; P2 represents the value of WCS by woodland, orchard, and grassland; W is the amount of water conserved by cultivated land; C is the average cost of a construction reservoir (0.67 yuan/m3); Q1 is the amount of water intercepted by the forest canopy; Q2 is the water-holding capacity of the litter layer; Q3 is soil water storage [55,56,57].
APS	V3$={\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^5{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^4{A}_{ij}\times P_j\times S_i$	V3 represents the value of APS; Aij represents the value of absorption or purification of the j-th pollutants (including SO2, NOX, HF, and dust) per unit area of the i-th agricultural type; Pj represents the cost of treatment of the j-th pollutants per unit mass; Si is the area of the i-th agricultural type [58,59].
CSORS	$V_{ci}=1.63\times NP{P}_i\times R_c\times P_c\times S_i$ $V_{oi}=1.19\times NP{P}_i\times P{o}_2\times S_i$	Vci and Voi refer to the amount of fixed C and released O2, respectively, per unit area of the i-th agricultural type; NPPi refers to the net primary productivity of the i-th agricultural type; Rc is the content of the C element in CO2 (27.27%); Pc and PO2 are the price of C and O2; Si represents the area of different agricultural types [60].
TLS	$V_4={{\displaystyle \sum }}^{}{V}_i\times S_i$	V4 represents the value of TLS; Vi is the service-value coefficient per unit area of the i-th landscape; Si is the area [61].

.

2.2.2. Semi-Structured Interview and Field Mapping

The social survey was conducted in July and August in 2022, and involved in the semi-structured interview and the mapping of the agricultural planting type of six villages (Nianyang, Quanzhong, Xiazhai, Nanzhi, Zhouyi, and Wangfang) in 2000 and 2020. We conducted semi-structured interviews with farmers to acquire their perception of human well-being face to face. The interview topics covered household information, sources of income, agricultural activities, farmers’ perceptions of agricultural and socio-economic development, environmental conditions, and social relationships in the village. Each interview lasted 30–40 min, was documented in writing, and recorded with the consent of the farmers. A total of 30 interviews were conducted, with 29 being valid (

Table 3. Sample size and distribution of farmers by semi-structured interview.

Feature	Classification	Grain- Grain		Grain- Kiwifruit		Grain- Cherryf + Tourism
		n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender	Male	3	30.00	4	44.44	4	40.00
	Female	7	70.00	5	55.56	6	60.00
Age	<30	0	0.00	1	11.11	0	0.00
	30–50	1	10.00	2	22.22	2	20.00
	50–60	1	10.00	3	33.33	4	40.00
	>60	8	80.00	3	33.33	4	40.00
Educational experience	Primary school	5	50.00	4	44.44	2	20.00
	Junior high school	4	40.00	4	44.44	5	50.00
	Senior high school	1	10.00	1	11.11	3	30.00
	University and above	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
Household income from agriculture (1000 yuan/year)	<30	4	40.00	1	11.11	2	20.00
	30–80	5	50.00	2	22.22	4	40.00
	80–150	1	10.00	5	55.56	3	30.00
	150–200	0	0.00	1	11.11	1	10.00
	>200	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
Total		10	100.00	9	100.00	10	100.00
		29

). Of these, 10 are for the “grain-grain” transformation, 9 are for the “grain-kiwifruit”, and 10 are for the “grain-cherry + tourism”. All interview records were transcribed into text, totaling 130,000 words. In the investigation, the land use map, interpreted from high-definition remote sensing images of six villages, was used as the base map. The agricultural planting types of the villages in 2000 and 2020 were mapped in the field through surveys conducted with villagers aged over 50.

2.2.3. Approach on Building the Dimension of HWB

This study aims to distinguish the cognition differences of human well-being in the different agricultural transformations, especially from the aspects of the dimensions (indicators); grounded theory and NVivo 11 software were employed for coding. The analysis involved three stages following Strauss’s methodology [62]: (1) open coding, which involved dissecting the original data, labeling, conceptualizing, and categorizing the interview content [63]; (2) axial coding, which involved the hierarchical or casualization of subcategories to identify categories with connections or potential logical relationships; (3) selected coding, involving the elaboration on the meanings and logical relationships within individual categories to construct the theoretical framework for well-being perception under different agricultural transitions (

Table 4. Open coding examples.

Original Statement	Labeling	Conceptualizing	Categorizing
“That is the big cabinet installed by village. Daily water expenses are mainly covered by the village. Even though we use cards to make payments, if the account are deficits and that will be recharged by village, farmers themselves don’t have to pay.”	The village provides a subsidy for daily water usage	Water usage subsidy	Social security
“The government gives us a subsidy of 70 yuan per mu (0.067 hm2) of land this year.”	There is an annual land subsidy	Agricultural subsidy
“The air quality improved well than five years before. In the past few years, the haze has been more serious. In recent years, the government has been governing our environment.”	Serious haze in the past years	Air quality	Safety of rural living Environment
“Regarding the social security situation in our village, it is good. Moreover, in recent years, there have been no criminal accidents. We have installed surveillance cameras for social security, which fully cover our village.”	The social security condition is good and monitored by cameras throughout the village	Social security of village

).

2.2.4. HWB Assessment Methods

The theoretical framework (or assessment indicators) for human well-being perception was built respectively based on grounded theory and qualitative analysis methods under three different agricultural transitions. Subsequently, according to the built assessment indicators, the questionnaire survey for well-being perception was conducted in September of 2022 in six villages (

Table 5. Sample size and distribution of farmer questionnaire surveys.

Feature	Classification	Grain–Grain		Grain–Kiwifruit		Grain–Cherry + Tourism
		n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender	Male	22	47.83	20	51.28	17	40.48
	Female	24	52.17	19	48.72	25	59.52
Age	<30	3	6.52	5	12.82	5	11.90
	30–50	6	13.04	6	15.38	4	9.52
	50–60	10	21.74	8	20.51	13	30.95
	>60	27	58.70	20	51.28	20	47.62
Educational experience	Primary school	23	50.00	22	56.41	21	50.00
	Junior high school	20	43.48	15	38.46	14	33.33
	Senior high school and above	3	6.52	2	5.13	7	16.67
Household size	≤4	19	41.30	25	64.10	27	64.29
	>4	27	58.70	14	35.90	15	35.71
Total		46	100.00	39	100.00	42	100.00
		127

). The questionnaire was divided into 5 grades: extremely dissatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, and very satisfied. Finally, the perception values of human well-being in farmers were quantitatively assessed under three agricultural transitions.

2.2.5. Data Sources and Processing

The data in this study mainly include remote sensing images, NPP, socio-economic data, and documents of the human well-being perception survey. The remote sensing images of TM on 31 May 2000 and the Gaofen-1 on 8 July 2020 is respectively downloaded from the U.S. Geological Survey (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) and Geospatial Data Cloud (https://www.gscloud.cn/). The NPP of Mod17A3 with a 500 m resolution is from NASA’s official website. The socio-economic data mainly include information on the area of crop planting, yield, price, agricultural development status, and other information is derived from the Xi’an Statistical Yearbook for 2001 and 2021, local yearbook and statistical bulletins of Baqiao District, Lintong District, Hu Yi District, and Zhouzhi County, etc. The well-being perception documents of farmers were obtained through semi-structured interview and questionnaire surveys. The crops’ planting maps in 2000 and 2020 were produced by field mapping based on the interpretation of remote sensing images and interview with farmers.

3. Results

3.1. Changes in Ecosystem Services

All three agricultural transformations increased the value of ecosystem services from 2000 to 2020 (

Table 6. Changes in the ecosystem services value between 2000 and 2020 (10⁴ yuan/ha, %).

	“Grain-Grain”			“Grain-Kiwifruit”			“Grain-Cherry + Tourism”
	2000	2020	Change	2000	2020	Change	2000	2020	Change
EPS	1.24	2.38	91.62	1.89	14.40	661.94	1.12	5.88	423.31
CSORS	0.18	0.22	23.82	0.25	0.32	27.22	0.18	0.23	26.53
WCS	0.20	0.09	−55.48	0.42	1.00	140.20	0.29	0.78	163.17
APS	0.04	0.03	−38.82	0.07	0.15	111.82	0.05	0.12	116.08
TLS	0.01	0.03	352.42	0.02	0.11	586.97	0.01	0.09	869.95
Total value	1.68	2.75	64.06	2.64	15.98	505.15	1.66	7.09	326.84

and Figure 2). The “grain-kiwifruit” transformation saw the highest increase in the total value of ecosystem services by more than five times, followed by the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation, and the “grain-grain” transformation had the lowest increase, at only 64.06%. Specifically, under the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, EPS increased by 6.6 times, while CSORS increased by 27.22%. In the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation, WCS increased by 163.17%, APS by 116.08%, and TLS by 8.7-fold, at the largest increase. However, the “grain-grain” transformation showed a low pace of increase in the value of the individual ecosystem service compared to the other two transitions, with WCS (−55.48%) and APS (−38.32%) even experiencing negative growth. These results suggest that agricultural transition of grain cultivation to cherry and tourism, as well as to fruits like kiwifruit in the Xi’an metropolitan zone, will largely promote the growth of all ecosystem services and there is a relatively low increase in maintaining grain planting in total.

Under the “grain-grain” transformation from 2000 to 2020, the total value of ecosystem services increased from 16,800 yuan/ha to 26,700 yuan/ha, marking a 58.48% increase. The growth was primarily driven by a significant increase in the value of TLS (up by 352.42%) and EPS (up by 91.62%), due to the increases in grain yields and the rise of recreational activities in rural areas in past decades. Conversely, both WCS and APS values declined, with WCS experiencing the largest decrease of 55.48%. This decline was mainly a result of the conversion of orchards, woodlands, and grasslands into built-up land, and the large loss of the ecological land (Figure 2a).

The “grain-kiwifruit” transformation experienced a remarkable increase of 511.26% in total ecosystem services. The value of EPS surged from 18,900 yuan/ha to 144,000 yuan/ha, a nearly 14-fold rise. The large growth can be primarily attributed to the significant conversion of arable land and orchards into kiwifruit cultivation (Figure 2b). Kiwifruit cultivation has experienced a rapid development over several decades, achieving large-scale planting and improved varieties, and industrialization, and the significant improvement in kiwifruit quality and the growth of yield and prices compared to cereal crops. The value of TLS increased by 586.97%, as kiwifruit gardens offered a wider range of ornamental and recreational activities, conducive to citizens’ physical and mental relaxation compared to grain cultivation. Kiwifruit trees also provided superior WCS and APS values, with increases of 140.20% and 111.82%, respectively. The most significant increase (27.22%) was observed in CSORS, primarily due to the larger leaf area, high-density canopy, and coverage of kiwifruit trees, enhancing photosynthesis capacity.

The value of TLS under the transformation of “grain-cherry + tourism” increased the most, from 16,600 yuan/ha to 70,100 yuan/ha, due to the rapid development of cherry (or strawberry) picking leisure tourism depending upon the advantages of cherry and strawberry cultivation (Figure 2c) in recent decades. This attracts a large number of citizens to visit, increasing the sales of cherries, saving sale costs, and adding extra income to farmers. In addition, the yield per hectare of cherries and strawberries and their prices are higher than those of grain crops, thus the EPS also increased by 423.31%. Cherry trees have a long growing period, developed root system, and strong retention capacity of groundwater, while the canopy of fruit trees as well as the layer of withered branches and fallen leaves can contain more water, and thus, the WCS increased by 163.17%. The value of APS increased by 116.08%, due to the cherry tree with a higher adsorbing, degrading, assimilating capacity for air pollutants, e.g., SO₂, HF, NO_X, and dust, than herbaceous crops such as wheat and corn.

3.2. Human Well-Being Measurement Results

3.2.1. Perception Differences in Dimensions of Well-Being

NVivo 11.0 software was employed to code farmer interview texts for each of the three agricultural transformations. After iterative comparisons and discussions, a total of 454 well-being-related segments were identified in the “grain-grain” transformation interviews, 599 in the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, and 638 in the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation.

After open coding, numerous well-being-related concepts were identified for each agricultural type, including 68 for the “grain-grain” transformation, 69 for the “grain-kiwifruit”, and 76 for the “grain-cherry + tourism” type. These concepts were then summarized to derive the well-being subcategories that farmers focused on under each agricultural transition (Figure 3). To highlight the representativeness and comparability between different agricultural transitions, well-being categories with a frequency ratio of less than 3% were excluded from this study.

The results show that some well-being domains (or categories) are highly shared by all agricultural transformations, including environmental sanitation (ES), health (H), educational resources (ER), and neighborhood relations (NS). However, there are significant differences in the well-being categories among different agricultural transitions. Under the “grain-grain” transformation, farmers are particularly concerned for agricultural income (AINC), shopping convenience (SC), food variety (FV), medical resources (MR), life expectation (LE), and free agricultural decision making (FAD). Because of the low income earned from grain cultivation and relatively less labor input and with the young people leaving the village for the city and the elderly being left to undertake the agricultural labor forces, they pay more attention and are sensitive to income, health, and healthcare resources and conveniences for shopping and agricultural practice. In addition, they rely on the traditional social network of acquaintances. These represent the key aspects of their well-being. In the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, farmers were mainly concerned about family income (FI), professional relationships (PR), provision of energy (PE), and recreational activities (RA). Kiwifruit cultivation in the Xi’an metropolitan zone has a long history with high production and good quality where the household may be rich in planting experience and earns large revenue. Kiwifruit cultivation is attracting many buyers and input material providers nationwide who have brought the information and ideas of market economies and established close connections with local farmers, changing local traditional values and interpersonal relationships. Thus, the key aspects of well-being that farmers focus on are expressed in income, professional relationships, and energy resources maintaining kiwifruit production. For farmers in the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation, their key aspects of well-being mainly focused on convenient transportation (CT), agricultural inputs (AINP), agricultural labor intensity (ALI), spare time (ST), social justice (SJ), mean of livelihood (ML), and crime prevention and control (CPC). Given the development of cherry orchards mixed with tourism, convenient transportation is crucial. And tourists have high expectations for cherry quality, in addition to the high and necessitating input, for instance, input in applying more organic fertilizers and plant nutrients to ensure the taste and appearance of cherries. The farmers earn more than kiwifruit planting and require input from more labor forces and hard work in picking during the summer season, but in their spare time they are off the farm and work in the nearby city. Under the “grain-cherry + tourism” transition, the buyers and the tourists are mainly from the central city, and the farmers have been working in the city part time to bring urban culture and value to the village; here, the farmers have strong modern agricultural awareness and market-oriented minds, and have stronger confidence in agricultural development. Their social network focuses on the professional ties (working relationship), the geographic connection and kindred ties. Therefore, the farmers’ key aspects (or dimensions) of well-being are wider than that of the “grain-grain” and the “grain- kiwifruit”, focusing more on the pursuit of advanced demands, such as easier job, long spare time, high social security, and justice.

To identify the primary well-being categories among farmers in each agricultural transformation area, axial coding was applied to the previously mentioned subcategories. It is evident that in these three agricultural transitions, the well-being category that all farmers are commonly concerned with is the resource economic situation. However, in the “grain-grain” and “grain- kiwifruit” transformations, villagers express more concern about well-being categories of health, safety, and social public services. And in the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation, farmers prioritize the well-being categories of environmental safety, and cultural and spiritual aspects, as well as health and spare time (

Table 7. Axial coding results.

Transition Modes	Categories	Subcategories	Frequency
“grain-grain”	Health and safety	Residential security, environmental sanitation, and health.	131
	Resource economic situation	Urban–rural gap, agricultural income, agricultural infrastructure, types of food, and shopping convenience.	123
	Social public services	Social security, educational and medical resources.	100
	Psychological and mental status	Family relationships, neighborly relationship, free agricultural decision making, and life expectation.	76
“grain-kiwifruit”	Health and safety	Risks in agricultural production, environmental sanitation, residential security, health status, recreational activity, and agricultural labor intensity.	226
	Resource economic situation	Sale of agricultural products, agricultural infrastructure, provision of energy, family income, and urban–rural gap.	166
	Social relationships	Neighborly relationship, professional relationship, and social justice.	66
	Social public services	Social security and educational resources.	61
“grain-cherry + tourism”	Resource economic situation	Agricultural inputs, mean of livelihood, sale of agricultural products, transportation, and shopping convenience.	186
	Environment and safety	Risks in agricultural production, environmental sanitation, crime prevention and control, and social security.	184
	Culture and spirit	Social relationship, educational resources, family relationship, and social justice.	140
	Health and spare time	Health, agricultural labor intensity, and spare time.	69

). Furthermore, the themes, namely, the cognitive system of well-being, were obtained by selective coding. It indicated that the three agricultural transformations have led to great differences in farmers’ practice modes, social networks, values of culture, and expectations in agricultural development, further resulting in significant variations in the perception dimensions of farmers’ well-being (or in key aspects of well-being).

3.2.2. Quantitative Assessment of Human Well-Being

Based on the results of the previous qualitative analysis, the categories and subcategories of farmers’ perceptions to human well-being under three agricultural transitions were proposed, these categories and subcategories can describe the differences of well-being that farmers mainly focused on under three agricultural transitions, namely, these essentially expressed the differences of dimension and indicators of well-being under different agricultural transitions, which further promoted and shaped the differentiation “ecological-social -cultural” context in specific areas. To express the level of well-being and make the assessment results comparable under different agricultural transition areas, a unified assessment of indicators for well-being was established and employed to quantitatively assess the degree of variations in human well-being by integrating the categories and subcategories proposed above (

Table 8. The unified assessment indicators of human well-being and its weights.

Dimension/Categories	Indicators/Subcategories	Conceptualization	Weights
Resource economic situation	Agricultural income	Agricultural income satisfaction	0.0332
	Agricultural inputs	Agricultural input acceptance	0.0333
	Family income	Family income satisfaction	0.0333
	Urban–rural gap	Perception of urban–rural gap	0.0332
	Agricultural infrastructure	Accessibility of agricultural infrastructure	0.0334
	Shopping convenience	Shopping convenience	0.0333
	Mean of livelihood	Food Variety	0.0334
		Accessibility of water, electricity, and fuel	0.0333
Health	Health status	Satisfaction with physical health	0.0333
		Degree of psychological pressure	0.0327
	Agricultural labor intensity	Perception of work fatigue	0.0333
	Environmental sanitation	Air quality	0.0334
		Water quality	0.0334
		Sewage and waste disposal	0.0333
Safety	Risks in agricultural production	Natural disaster risk	0.0332
		Market price fluctuation	0.0332
	Crime prevention and control	Village security satisfaction	0.0337
Social public services	Social security	Agricultural subsidies satisfaction	0.0332
		Government social security satisfaction	0.0332
	Educational resources	Educational resources satisfaction	0.0334
	Medical resources	Medical resources satisfaction	0.0334
	convenient transportation	Accessibility of transportation	0.0334
Psychological and mental status	Social relationships	Family reunion	0.0335
		Harmonious neighborhood relationship	0.0335
		Frequency of business network interaction	0.0335
	Social justice	Equity of subsidies and grants	0.0332
	Recreational activities	Leisure and entertainment satisfaction	0.0334
	Free agricultural decision making	Farmers’ autonomy satisfaction	0.0335
	Life expectation	Confidence in Life	0.0335

). The assessment indicators encompass five dimensions with a total of 30 concepts. The concepts’ weights were determined following Zhou et al.’s research and its values were obtained by scales based on a social survey conducted in September of 2022 [16]. We adopted Cronbach’s α to evaluate the reliability of questionnaire data, α = 0.820 > 0.7, with high data reliability [64].

Well-being scores were computed for each agricultural type (

Table 9. Human well-being scores.

Dimension	“Grain-Grain”			“Grain-Kiwifruit”			“Grain-Cherry + Tourism”
	2000	2020	Change (%)	2000	2020	Change (%)	2000	2020	Change (%)
Resource economic situation	7.26	8.80	21.12	6.40	8.13	27.10	6.47	9.13	41.24
Health	5.14	6.01	16.92	4.97	6.84	37.58	5.41	7.01	29.62
Safety	5.14	6.54	27.23	4.24	5.58	31.64	5.07	5.55	9.48
Social public services	5.61	6.48	15.48	4.38	6.58	50.38	5.41	6.35	17.28
Psychological and mental status	8.97	10.85	20.89	9.28	12.02	29.57	9.84	11.59	17.68
Total score	32.13	38.68	20.37	29.26	39.15	33.80	31.67	39.82	25.75

). The results indicated that human well-being improved in all three agricultural transitions from 2000 to 2020. The “grain-kiwifruit” transition saw the most significant increase at 33.80%, followed by the “grain-cherry + tourism” at 25.75% and the “grain-grain” at 20.37%.

Under the “grain-grain” transformation, the safety of well-being dimension rose by 27.23%, mainly due to relatively lower agricultural risks, for instance, the low natural disasters in the Guanzhong plain, low market risks for gradually rising grain yields per unit area, and unchanged prices in recent years, and also, good social order for crime prevention and control in a simple rural society with a high proportion of elderly people and traditional social values. The resource economic situation increased by 21.12% due to higher economic incomes earned by rising yields and improved the means of livelihoods. The psychological and mental status of farmers have also improved considerably (20.89%), with harmonious family relations, e.g., filial piety of children, better neighborhood relationships and stronger cohesion of villagers, and the elderly left behind having more spare time and an easier life. The well-being dimensions of social public services and health increased by 15.48% and 16.92%, respectively. The local infrastructure of sewage and garbage treatment is still poor, causing a decline in air and water quality, and resulting in the slower increase in well-being perception on health and social public services. Farmers are more satisfied with the various pension subsidy policies, but the rising cost of medical insurance and the confusion about the reimbursement mechanism caused great burden and dissatisfaction among farmers over the years.

Under the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, all dimensions of human well-being have notably increased, especially the social public services, which increased the most at 50.38%. The well-developed local social security system, including the subsidies for the elderly, the disabled and others, such as subsidies for water bills and winter heating, the annual bonus from kiwifruit cooperative, and the educational security of a robust nine-year compulsory education system, promoted the great growth of the social public services. Farmers expressed satisfaction with health (+37.58%) and safety (+31.64%), primarily attributed to the pleasant environmental quality near the Qinling Ecological Reserve Area and providing comfortable living conditions. Despite kiwifruit cultivation being vulnerable to severe weather, e.g., high-temperature disasters and droughts, bacterial canker and market price fluctuations, local farmers’ efforts to control the uncertain risks in production by introducing newly and diversified kiwifruit varieties, enhancing agricultural infrastructure and purchasing agricultural insurance. In terms of the psychological and mental status of well-being (+29.57%), farmers have the chance to significantly expand their social network of relationships by establishing professional ties with merchants nationwide during kiwifruit planting and sales. Moreover, some cultural and recreational amenities, such as plazas, swimming pools, and physical exercise facilities, were built in the village and provided ample leisure opportunities. The resource economic situation of well-being rose by 27.10%, primarily attributed to the transition to fruit cultivation, which boosted farmers’ income.

Farmers’ satisfaction with the resource economic situation significantly increased under the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation by 41.24%. This improvement primarily stemmed from higher economic benefits generated by online cherry sales and cherry-picking gardens. However, safety satisfaction saw the least increase, almost by 9.50%. Challenges in cherry cultivation, including vulnerability to natural disasters and unstable cherry quality, contributed to this modest improvement. The development of cherry-picking tourism also faced challenges due to tourists’ high expectations, leading to income instability. Health satisfaction improved (29.62%), partly due to enhancements in public service facilities such as medical resources (17.28%). The psychological and mental status of well-being increased by 17.68% as neighbors usually shared cherry planting experiences and helped each other during busy farming seasons, fostering strong community cohesion. However, due to the short duration (cherries ripening in summer) of cherry picking and leisure tourism, and primarily catering to Xi’an citizens and supplying fresh cherries to urban markets, their social network of relationships was mainly affected by nearby citizens and deeply influenced by urban culture, and farmers strongly conscious of modern agriculture and market economies with confidence in agricultural development.

3.3. Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being

Comparing the changes in ecosystem services and human well-being under the three different agricultural transformations, Figure 4 indicates that there is a strong relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being (Figure 4). Between 2000 and 2020, the value of ecosystem services experienced the most growth (505.15%) in the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, while the largest growth of well-being was observed (33.80%). The value of ecosystem services and human well-being significantly rose by 64.06% and 20.37%, respectively, in the “grain-grain” transformation. And in the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation, a similar increase in well-being occurred as in the “grain-grain” transformation, but a larger increase occurred in the ecosystem service value (326.84%). The results indicated that the agriculture transformation in the Xi’an metropolitan zone from grain cultivation (mainly including wheat and maize) to cherry-picking tourism and to fruit (kiwifruit) led to a significant increase both in ecosystem services and well-being, especially in the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation. These suggested that the transition from traditional agriculture to urban agriculture (e.g., fruit or fruit planting combining with tourism, vegetables planting.) would fully improve ecosystem services and human well-being.

Compared with three agricultural transitions, the ecosystem services have been correlated to a certain extent with human well-being (Figure 5, Table S1). Both the “grain-kiwifruit” and “grain-cherry + tourism” transformations led to a vast increase in key several ecosystem services and well-being from 2000 to 2020. Notably, the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation could be observed and the most significant growth was in the services of CSORS and EPS and with the well-being rise in health and social services (Figure 5a–d). In contrast, the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation experienced the greatest increase in the services of TLS, APS, and WCS (Figure 5e–g), along with the largest increase in well-being of the resource economic situation. However, under the “grain-grain” transformation, all services showed slight increases along with a small rise in well-being, except for safety and psychological and mental status having experienced a greater rise. In general, these indicated that the agricultural transitioning from grain cultivation to fruit could contribute to enhancements in both ecosystem services and human well-being in urbanizing areas, and retaining grain production has made only small contributions to the improvement of ecosystem services and human well-being.

4. Discussion

4.1. Changes in “Ecological-Social-Cultural” Context

Gaining an in-depth understanding of the interactions between ecosystem services and human well-being is a crucial scientific issue in the field of human–land coupling systems [65]. The transformation from traditional agriculture to multifunctional modern agriculture driven by urbanization profoundly affects both agricultural land use and landscape structure in PUAs, namely, impacting ecosystem components, structures, processes, and patterns, and further leading to changes in ecosystem services. Simultaneously, the agricultural transformation triggers a significant restructuring of the economy, the production modes, the lifestyles and the dominant social values and cultures in rural areas, which further profoundly affect the human well-being of the village. In turn, the changes to human well-being are directly or indirectly fed back to the ecosystem services. Therefore, to explore the interactions between ecosystem services and well-being, which are essentially rooted in the ecological, economic, social, and cultural contexts of the rural areas, there must be deep insight into the changes to the “ecological-social-cultural” system. The rapid urbanization in China began at least three decades ago; the largest changes in PUAs occurred in land use change (decrease in arable land and increase in built-up land) and agricultural transformation (differentiation in practices modes and zoning), and that resulted in the change to “economic-social-cultural” contexts; for instance, the peasants are divided into the “Liangnong” group specializing in grain planting, the “Guonong” group specializing in fruit planting, and the “Cainong” group specializing in vegetable planting. From an “ecological-social-cultural” comprehensive perspective, the study selected three representative agricultural transformation modes in the Xi’an metropolitan zone, employed field surveys, ecosystem service assessment models, and qualitative analysis methods, and investigated the changes in ecosystem services and human well-being and particularly explored the interactions between them, that can provide insights for adjusting agricultural structures, promoting the socio-economic development of high quality, and advancing ecological construction in the region. In this study, an analytical framework which integrated the “ecological-social-cultural” contexts for the linkage analysis of “agricultural transformation-ecosystem services-human well-being” and a measurement method of human well-being based on grounded theory which could distinguish the dimension and degree of human well-being were proposed. The study indicated that this framework is suitable to apply to analyze the interaction between ecosystem services and human well-being from a broader ecological-social-cultural context and are of great significance in order to deeply understand the mechanisms governing coupled human-environment systems in PUAs.

4.2. Changes in Ecosystem Services

The study revealed that there are great changes in the agricultural cultivation structure, practice modes, income structure of households, and rural values, and there are significant impacts on ecosystem services and human well-being in the surrounding area of Xi’an city (Figure 6). The greatest growth of ecosystem services was observed in the “grain-kiwifruit” transition, followed by the “grain-cherry + tourism” transition, while the “grain-grain” transition showed the least increase. In the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, approximately 70% of arable land shifted to orchards, replacing grain crops (e.g., wheat and corn) with cash crops such as kiwifruit and grapes. More agricultural labor mainly comprised of the young with a strong desire and ability to acquire new knowledge outside. The fruit yield vastly increased by timely introducing high-quality fruit varieties and adopting agricultural production technology. In the “grain-cherry + tourism” transition in 2020, more than half of the total land planting with cherry accounted for 10% with wheat and corn. To ensure the cherry freshness and profitable prices and rising income, farmers adopted diverse sales strategies, including online sales, picking gardens, and mall sales, but the “grain-grain” transition mainly relied on an elderly labor force with low enthusiasm for agricultural production, and the grain crop yield and agricultural income were slightly increased. In general, the “grain-kiwifruit” and “grain-cherry + tourism” transitions witnessed significant increases (by 6.61 and 4.23 times) in EPS, while the “grain-grain” transition was observed to only rise by 91%. Compared with grain planting, orchards offered more opportunities for recreational activities and enhanced physical and mental relaxation, especially the fruit-picking activities in the “grain-cherry + tourism” transition, which made a great contribution to the growth of TLS. And similarly, the CSORS showed the most significant increase in the “grain-kiwifruit” transition, primarily due to the large leaf area and high coverage of kiwifruit trees [66], but the negative growth in WCS and APS was also observed in the “grain-grain” transition. Because of the fruit trees’ longer growing periods, well-developed root systems with stronger groundwater retention capacity, and larger leaf areas that more effectively absorb air pollutants, the shift from grain planting to fruit trees generally promoted the growth of ecosystem services.

4.3. Changes in Human Well-Being

With regard to human well-being, the resource economic situation is the most commonly shared dimension of well-being by farmers in all three transitions; these indicated that accessing enough resources and earning a high income are extremely important for farmers and are both seen as fundamental and key aspects of well-being [67]. Therefore, this dimension observed the largest growth in the “grain-cherry + tourism” transition due to the large growth of a household’s income and village’s economy, with the farmer willingly acquiring the practice modes of modern agriculture and market economic values and having the courage to develop the cherry-picking tourism and expand the rural industrial convergence, thus promoting the pace of economic increases and well-being improvement. In the “grain-grain” transition, farmers pay more attention to the health and safety aspects of well-being, as a result of this having the highest proportion of the elderly labor force, where well-being and health are closely related; this link could become increasingly important at older ages, if only because the prevalence of chronic illness increases with advancing age [68]. In addition, the elderly often mentioned that the local environmental sanitation was poor during the interview, caused by air and water pollution, posing a threat to their well-being. And, in the “grain-kiwifruit” transition, farmers attach greater importance to social relationships of well-being. The process of field management of kiwifruit production including seed selecting, artificial pollination, fertilizing, and pesticide spraying, being very important to improve the yield and quality, promotes the farmers’ communication with each other who can actively acquire agricultural knowledge and advanced production techniques, frequently sharing experiences and assisting each other during busy farming seasons, thus strengthening their cohesion. Moreover, in the process of kiwifruit production, farmers have established close relations with many buyers and providers (supplying agricultural inputs). The social network of relationships is quite important for kiwifruit planting. The differences of human well-being are essentially determined by a specific environmental and cultural context of social groups, namely, the nature–land system; these suggested that the differences of human well-being between any two social groups were reflected in two aspects of the dimension (primary focuses) and degree (level) of well-being. However, how to measure the dimension differences of well-being is still rare in research approaches. In the study, an approach on distinguishing the dimensions of well-being based on grounded theory and qualitative analysis methods was put forward. The results prove that the approach clearly identifies the differences of well-being between different agricultural transition contexts and are suitable to apply to similar research.

4.4. The relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being

Most studies have shown that ecosystem services offer many benefits to human well-being [69,70]. In the “grain-grain” transformation, economic production services have directly or indirectly impacted on four dimensions of well-being. First, increased economic production services led to higher income for farmers and promoted socio-economic development in rural areas. This, in turn, improved field infrastructure and living quality, enhancing the well-being in the resource economic dimension. With farmers’ basic material needs met, they then prioritized the pursuit of public social services such as education, healthcare, and social security, with a particular eagerness on improving health care. After these desires which generate the largest uncertainties of life in rural areas are fed, the psychological pressure on farmers will be largely relieved and their life expectation will be boosted [71]. Second, air purification services are vital for maintaining fresh air, as a fundamental factor for sustaining life. A pleasant environment also positively influences their psychological health and well-being [72]. Third, water conservation services could increase the water resource, improve the ecological environment, and reduce irrigation costs. Last but not least, carbon sequestration and oxygen release services are linked to crop yields, air quality, health, safety, and resource economic status of well-being. Recreational services play a crucial role in physical and mental health (Figure 6a).

In the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, economic production services could improve the resource economic condition, social public services, health and security of well-being, and further improve the social relations. Air purification and water conservation services could enhance environmental quality, thereby improving farmers’ health. The ornamental value of kiwifruit orchards and fruit-picking activities promotes farmer’s health and harmony of the neighborhood (Figure 6b). And in the “grain-cherry + tourism” transformation, the growth of tourism and leisure services significantly boosts farmers’ income through cherry orchard sightseeing tours and picking activities, improving the resource economic condition of well-being. Learning about cherry planting, management, and marketing techniques could enhance farmers’ agricultural knowledge. The high ornamental value of cherry trees could positively influence farmers’ physical and mental health aspects of well-being. Water conservation and carbon sequestration and oxygen release services could positively impact on the well-being in resource economics, the environment, safety, health, and leisure. Air purification services primarily enhance the dimensions of environmental safety and health and leisure in well-being (Figure 6c).

Figure 6. The coupled analysis framework of “agricultural transformation—ecosystem services—human well-being”.

Figure 6. The coupled analysis framework of “agricultural transformation—ecosystem services—human well-being”.

4.5. Recommendations to Policy

Based on the research findings, in order to promote environmental protection and human well-being improvement, the following recommendations are put forward to policymakers: (1) Innovate agricultural cultivation methods according to local conditions to increase farmers’ income. Increased investment in agricultural research is necessary to ensure the simultaneous improvement of agricultural yields and the reduction of environmental harm. Furthermore, it is essential to enhance agricultural incentives and protection policies, diversify sales channels, and actively explore the ecological and cultural values inherent in agriculture. (2) Improve the rural landscape and enhancing human well-being. Accelerating the development of basic infrastructure, including village roads, fitness facilities, cultural squares, and entertainment venues. Greening and beautifying the village environment, promoting the improvement of public services in education and healthcare, and addressing issues related to elderly care in rural areas. Striving towards a harmonious vision of thriving industries, a pleasant living environment, social etiquette and civility, effective governance, and prosperity.

4.6. Limitations and Prospect

In this study, we quantitatively evaluated the degree of human well-being using indicator weights referenced from Zhou et al.’s research determined by the five types of agriculture in the Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration [16]. A similar meaning of farmers’ descriptions matching the indicators and their weights between this study and the reference could enhance the comparability of three agricultural transitions. In our analysis, based on three representative agricultural transitions (taking six agricultural specialization villages as an example) at the village scale, we examined the changes and the interaction in ecosystem services and human well-being employing semi-structured interviews, perception surveys, and field mapping; these could reveal, in detail, the linkages between agricultural transformation, ecosystem services, and human well-being from their rooting contexts of the “ecological -social -cultural” system. However, it is essential to note that the impact of agricultural transformation on ecosystem services and human well-being and their interactions is a complex process. Further analysis could be conducted in more detail in semi-structured interviews and increase the number of farmers surveyed, transformation modes, and types of services, extensively investigate the intermediate links between the influence of ecosystem services and human well-being, and consider several disservices in agricultural practices, directly or indirectly related to human well-being.

5. Conclusions

(1)

The agricultural transition in PUAs has not only driven the changes in the ecological landscape, agricultural structure planting and practices modes, and rural economic structure, but also the shift in rural social relationships and cultural values, for instance, a farmer’s lifestyle, values, and life expectation, and rural social networks; these have together restructured the rural society in the process of agricultural specialization. From 2000 to 2020, the crop planting structure shifted gradually from predominantly staple crops to more profitable cash crops (including fruits). Production became more intensive, commercialized, and specialized, and there was a continuous enhancement of farmers’ awareness of modern agricultural market economics.

(2)

Due to a triggering by the agricultural transition and specialization, great changes occurred in “ecological-eco-social and cultural” contexts in PUAs; the changes to human well-being not only reflected in its degree (level) of well-being, but also more importantly in the dimension (primary concerns) under different agricultural transitions. The results indicated that the resource economic condition of well-being commonly focused on by farmers was in three transition modes, namely, the health and safety, psychological and mental status, and public social services modes, are paid more attention to in the “grain-grain” transition, and the environmental and safety, cultural sprits, health and leisure aspects are more focused on in the “grain-cherry + tourism” modes, and the health and safety, social relationship, and social public services are of most concern in the “grain-kiwifruit” modes.

(3)

With the process of agricultural transition and specialization in PUAs, the total value of ecosystem services increased, while the human well-being rose in three transition modes. The value of ecosystem services increased the most in the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, followed by the “grain-cherry + tourism” and “grain-grain” transformations. The total value of human well-being increased the most in the “grain-kiwifruit” transformation, followed by the “grain-cherry + tourism” and “grain-grain” transformation. The transition from traditional agriculture to more diversified urban agriculture has a significant impact on ecosystem services and human well-being.

(4)

From a comprehensive perspective of “ecological- social and cultural” contexts, the analytical framework proposed in this study is suitable to describe and understand the mechanisms of ecosystem services and human well-being, and is helpful to address the issues inevitably being combined with the “nature-land” system on the research of ecosystem services related to human well-being. The approach proposed in the study on distinguishing the differences on dimensions of well-being based on grounded theory and qualitative analysis methods could clearly identify the differences among different agricultural transitions and its contexts and be suitable to apply in similar areas.