A socio-spatial exploration of rural livability satisfaction in megacity Beijing, China
特大城市北京乡村宜居满意度的社会空间探索

2.1. Definitions and measurements of rural livability
2.1. 农村宜居性的定义和测量

Currently, the enhancement of quality of life and happiness has emerged as a paramount objective in the progression of human society. Correspondingly, inhabitants of rural areas have also begun to pursue improved living conditions, leading to an escalating significance of livability as a determining factor in the quality and appeal of rural life (Hu et al., 2023, Huang et al., 2022, Su et al., 2023). According to Newman (1999), livabilty can be defined as the “outcome of multifaceted influences and an expression of environmental sustainability that enables residents to achieve an acceptable quality of life”. Evans proposed that livability encompasses both the sustainability of human existence and ecological aspects (Evans, 2002), subsequently leading to the consideration of livability as an indicator of residents' well-being. Some scholars argue that livability is closely linked to quality of life, as it represents the direct impact of favorable living conditions and environment on residents' lives. Some scholars have also proposed that a livable village can be defined as a place where residents can fulfill their needs and have no desire to relocate (Mouratidis & Yiannakou, 2022). Rural livability, as stated earlier, refers to a range of conditions and factors that contribute to the well-being in rural areas.
目前，提高生活质量和幸福感已成为人类社会进步的首要目标。相应地，农村地区的居民也开始追求改善生活条件，导致宜居性作为农村生活质量和吸引力的决定性因素的重要性不断上升（胡 et al.， 2023， Huang et al.， 2022， Su et al.， 2023）。根据Newman（1999）的说法，宜居性可以定义为“多方面影响的结果和环境可持续性的表达，使居民能够实现可接受的生活质量”。埃文斯提出，宜居性包括人类生存的可持续性和生态方面（埃文斯，2002年），随后导致将宜居性作为居民福祉的指标。一些学者认为，宜居性与生活质量密切相关，因为它代表了有利的生活条件和环境对居民生活的直接影响。一些学者还提出，宜居村庄可以定义为居民可以满足其需求并且不想搬迁的地方（Mouratidis & Yiannakou，2022）。如前所述，农村宜居性是指有助于农村地区福祉的一系列条件和因素。

Rural livability is assessed using diverse indicators and perspectives due to its complex nature (Alijani et al., 2020, Kutty et al., 2022). Indicators such as pollution levels, green coverage, and natural landscapes evaluate the ecological environment (Savari & Moradi, 2022). Economic factors include employment, cost of living, income, and welfare, while social factors encompass rural governance, security, and interactions (Chen et al., 2016, Paul and Sen, 2018). Infrastructure, public services, education, and healthcare are vital aspects of the regional spatial environment (Yurui et al., 2020). Note that evaluation criteria vary across regions due to the influence of historical and cultural contexts (Ruth & Franklin, 2014).
由于农村宜居性的复杂性，使用不同的指标和视角来评估农村宜居性（Alijani et al.， 2020， Kutty et al.， 2022）。污染水平、绿色覆盖率和自然景观等指标评估生态环境（Savari & Moradi，2022 年）。经济因素包括就业、生活成本、收入和福利，而社会因素包括农村治理、安全和互动（Chen et al.， 2016， Paul and Sen， 2018）。基础设施、公共服务、教育和医疗保健是区域空间环境的重要组成部分（Yurui et al.， 2020）。请注意，由于历史和文化背景的影响，评估标准因地区而异（Ruth & Franklin，2014）。

2.2. Determinants of residents' satisfaction with rural livability
2.2. 居民对农村宜居性满意度的决定因素

Livability in rural areas is influenced by various factors, and understanding these factors is crucial for promoting residents' satisfaction and well-being. Studies highlight the significant impact of economic development on livability, suggesting that economic factors play a central role in determining livability. According to Simon Kuznets's inverted U curve hypothesis, as living standards improve during economic development, people tend to prioritize enhancing livability. Economic factors contribute to regional infrastructure development and environmental optimization, but they also lead to increased economic inequality, particularly affecting rural residents in metropolitan areas. These residents face higher costs of production, living expenses, education, and healthcare, placing a greater burden on their lives (Ogneva-Himmelberger et al., 2013).
农村地区的宜居性受到各种因素的影响，了解这些因素对于提高居民的满意度和幸福感至关重要。研究强调了经济发展对宜居性的重大影响，表明经济因素在决定宜居性方面起着核心作用。根据西蒙·库兹涅茨（Simon Kuznets）的倒U曲线假说，随着经济发展过程中生活水平的提高，人们倾向于优先考虑提高宜居性。经济因素有助于区域基础设施发展和环境优化，但也导致经济不平等加剧，特别是影响大都市地区的农村居民。这些居民面临着更高的生产成本、生活费用、教育和医疗保健成本，给他们的生活带来了更大的负担（Ogneva-Himmelberger et al.，2013）。

The theories of environmental psychology and health indicate that a good physical environment has a positive impact on the physical and mental health and well-being of residents, thus promoting life satisfaction. Conversely, a poor environment reduces residents' subjective experience and can potentially harm human health, such as the impact of air and water pollution on the respiratory and digestive systems, respectively, thereby affecting livability satisfaction (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). The physical environment encompasses the natural environment and the artificially built environment. The natural environment, including the degree of environmental pollution such as air, water, and noise, significantly influences livability (Barbier, 2020, Chen et al., 2017, Zhu et al., 2021). A study by Rehdanz & Maddison (2008) examining the relationship between environmental quality and life satisfaction found that severe air and noise pollution reduces residents' subjective well-being. Additionally, environmental construction plays a crucial role in rural livability (Wang et al., 2019). The attractiveness of village appearance primarily stems from factors like green vegetation, sanitation, and cleanliness (De Vos et al., 2016, Węziak-Białowolska, 2016).
环境心理学和健康理论表明，良好的物理环境对居民的身心健康和福祉有积极影响，从而提高生活满意度。相反，恶劣的环境会降低居民的主观体验，并可能损害人类健康，例如空气和水污染分别对呼吸和消化系统的影响，从而影响宜居性满意度（Kaplan&Kaplan，1989）。物理环境包括自然环境和人工建筑环境。自然环境，包括空气、水和噪音等环境污染程度，对宜居性有显著影响（Barbier， 2020， Chen et al.， 2017， Zhu et al.， 2021）。Rehdanz & Maddison（2008）的一项研究考察了环境质量与生活满意度之间的关系，发现严重的空气和噪音污染会降低居民的主观幸福感。此外，环境建设对农村宜居性起着至关重要的作用（Wang et al.， 2019）。村庄外观的吸引力主要源于绿色植被、卫生和清洁等因素（De Vos et al.， 2016， Węziak-Białowolska， 2016）。

In addition to the physical environment, the social environment is also a critical component contributing to overall livability satisfaction. It encompasses non-material factors such as social structure, social inclusion, social management, social culture, social order, and a sense of belonging (De Vos et al., 2016, Węziak-Białowolska, 2016). Residents living in inclusive, open, harmonious villages with a strong sense of belonging tend to evaluate their livability more positively. Public participation is another influential factor emphasized in this context. Residents, as the main actors, play a guiding role in the planning and design of rural development through expressing their needs, which greatly contributes to the construction of livable villages. Studies have shown that satisfaction with livability is related to various social safety factors, including crime rates and traffic safety (De Vos et al., 2016, Ibem and Aduwo, 2013, Marans and Stimson, 2011, Martínez et al., 2015).
除了物理环境外，社会环境也是影响整体宜居满意度的关键组成部分。它包括非物质因素，如社会结构、社会包容、社会管理、社会文化、社会秩序和归属感（De Vos et al.， 2016， Węziak-Białowolska， 2016）。生活在包容、开放、和谐、具有强烈归属感的村庄的居民往往会更积极地评价自己的宜居性。在这方面强调的公众参与是另一个影响因素。居民作为主要参与者，通过表达自己的需求，在乡村发展的规划设计中发挥指导作用，极大地促进了宜居乡村的建设。研究表明，对宜居性的满意度与各种社会安全因素有关，包括犯罪率和交通安全（De Vos et al.， 2016， Ibem and Aduwo， 2013， Marans and Stimson， 2011， Martínez et al.， 2015）。

Note that Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory explains that residents' living needs encompass physical and social aspects. Therefore, in rural construction, it is essential to focus on improving infrastructure and public services to enhance livability. Infrastructure provides residents with safe water, roads, communication, and drainage systems, addressing their physiological needs and directly influencing the construction of livable villages (Sharp et al., 2002). Complete infrastructure creates a more convenient life for residents, improves mobility, and saves travel time, especially in densely populated metropolitan areas (Ji and Gao, 2010, Tao et al., 2014). Water safety facilities, such as water supply and drainage, along with garbage collection and treatment facilities, are prerequisites for meeting residents' basic living needs and significantly contribute to life satisfaction (Mohit et al., 2010). Public services are crucial for residents' participation in economic, political, and social activities. They reflect the quality of public facilities perceived by rural residents, including shopping, education, medical care, culture, entertainment, and other facilities that meet their social needs. These aspects are closely related to the quality of life and life satisfaction (De Vos et al., 2016, Tao et al., 2014). Rural health centers, as the foundation of China's rural health system, need to provide basic health services and disease prevention to promote and ensure residents' health (Xing et al., 2015).
请注意，马斯洛的需求层次理论解释说，居民的生活需求包括身体和社会方面。因此，在农村建设中，必须着力改善基础设施和公共服务，提高宜居性。基础设施为居民提供安全的水、道路、通信和排水系统，满足他们的生理需求，并直接影响宜居村庄的建设（Sharp et al.， 2002）。完善的基础设施为居民创造了更便利的生活，改善了流动性，节省了出行时间，特别是在人口稠密的大都市地区（Ji and Gao， 2010， Tao et al.， 2014）。供水和排水等水安全设施以及垃圾收集和处理设施是满足居民基本生活需求的先决条件，并大大提高了生活满意度（Mohit et al.，2010）。公共服务对于居民参与经济、政治和社会活动至关重要。反映了农村居民对公共设施的感知质量，包括购物、教育、医疗、文化、娱乐等满足其社会需求的设施。这些方面与生活质量和生活满意度密切相关（De Vos et al.， 2016， Tao et al.， 2014）。农村卫生院作为中国农村卫生体系的基础，需要提供基本的卫生服务和疾病预防，以促进和保障居民的健康（Xing et al.， 2015）。

Nonetheless, it is worth acknowledging that within the current landscape of research, a predominant focus on material aspects has been observed, often coupled with an excessive emphasis on socio-economic factors. Although certain studies have endeavored to incorporate a diverse array of elements into their analyses, a conspicuous gap remains conspicuously evident - the absence of a comprehensive, all-encompassing framework that would enable the thorough and nuanced examination of the multifaceted factors that influence rural livability. This gap not only highlights an existing void but also underscores the current limitations in our understanding of the intricate concept of rural livability, signaling a clear need for more holistic research approaches and a broader perspective to comprehensively address this issue.
尽管如此，值得承认的是，在当前的研究环境中，人们主要关注物质方面，往往过分强调社会经济因素。尽管某些研究努力将各种因素纳入其分析中，但仍然存在着明显的差距——缺乏一个全面、包罗万象的框架，无法对影响农村宜居性的多方面因素进行彻底和细致入微的审查。这一差距不仅凸显了现有的空白，也凸显了我们目前对农村宜居性这一复杂概念的理解的局限性，表明我们显然需要更全面的研究方法和更广阔的视角来全面解决这一问题。

Then, existing studies have primarily emphasized simple linear relationships that influence rural livability, overlooking the interrelationships between variables and mediation effects. For instance, the natural environment significantly affects the construction of rural appearance by coupling with the production and life of rural settlements and the psychological needs of residents (Xu et al., 2023). Then, infrastructure construction and the environment exhibit a notable correlation, particularly in terms of sanitation infrastructure like garbage disposal and manure disposal, which impact residents' demand for environmental cleanliness and satisfaction with the area's appearance (Doyle and Havlick, 2009, Jack et al., 2022).
然后，现有的研究主要强调影响农村宜居性的简单线性关系，而忽略了变量与中介效应之间的相互关系。例如，自然环境通过与农村聚落的生产生活和居民的心理需求耦合，显著影响乡村外观的建设（Xu et al.， 2023）。然后，基础设施建设与环境表现出显着的相关性，特别是在垃圾处理和粪便处理等卫生基础设施方面，这会影响居民对环境清洁度的需求和对该地区外观的满意度（Doyle 和 Havlick，2009 年，Jack 等人，2022 年）。

Furthermore, it is important to note that disparities exist within the present landscape of research on rural livability. Notably, rural areas situated within mega-cities or core urban areas often find themselves underrepresented or overlooked when compared to their counterparts in more remote rural regions. This imbalance in research focus highlights an asymmetry in our understanding of rural livability, as the unique challenges and dynamics faced by communities situated at the urban–rural interface, or those that are part of expanding metropolitan regions, are distinct from those of isolated rural communities.
此外，需要注意的是，在目前的农村宜居性研究领域存在差异。值得注意的是，与偏远农村地区的农村地区相比，位于特大城市或核心城市地区的农村地区往往被忽视或被忽视。这种研究重点的不平衡凸显了我们对农村宜居性理解的不对称性，因为位于城乡交界处的社区或作为不断扩大的大都市地区一部分的社区所面临的独特挑战和动态与孤立的农村社区不同。

From this, the aim of this research is threefold. Firstly, it aims to identify the key considerations necessary for establishing a comprehensive measurement index system for rural livability from socio-spatial perspective. Secondly, the research aims to construct an appropriate theoretical framework that can uncover the determinants and influence pathways of rural livability (Fig. 1). This framework will provide insights into the factors that significantly contribute to rural livability and the ways in which these factors interact and influence residents' satisfaction. Thirdly, the research seeks to investigate the differences in influencing factors and mechanisms of rural livability. It aims to uncover region-specific considerations that impact rural livability, providing a more nuanced understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities faced by residents in different geographical contexts.
由此，本研究的目的有三个。首先，它旨在从社会空间角度确定建立农村宜居性综合测量指标体系所需的关键考虑因素。其次，本研究旨在构建一个合适的理论框架，以揭示农村宜居性的决定因素和影响途径（图1）。该框架将深入了解对农村宜居性有重大贡献的因素，以及这些因素相互作用和影响居民满意度的方式。第三，本研究旨在探究乡村宜居性影响因素和机制的差异。它旨在揭示影响农村宜居性的特定区域考虑因素，对居民在不同地理环境中面临的独特挑战和机遇提供更细致入微的理解。

1. Download: Download high-res image (219KB)
   下载： 下载高分辨率图像 （219KB）
2. Download: Download full-size image
   下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework of satisfaction with rural livability.
图 1.农村宜居性满意度理论框架.

3.1. Study area 3.1. 研究区域

In the Chinese context, regional development is strongly guided by policy. The introduction of the “Rural Revitalization Strategy” by the Chinese government in 2017 has significantly emphasized the importance of 'rural livability' in enhancing regional sustainable development. However, existing studies predominantly focus on macro-level analyses at the national or provincial scale, neglecting the exploration of rural livability at the highly urbanized areas. Therefore, this study chooses Beijing as the empirical study area (Fig. 2). The reasons for this selection are twofold. Firstly, Beijing, as a megacity, exhibits complex land use in rural areas. In 2021, Beijing had a resident population of 21.886 million and a GDP of 4.027 trillion yuan, ranking second in the country in terms of economic strength. However, the dynamic nature and diverse production patterns of rural areas, coupled with the frequent movement of rural residents, have increased the disparity between urban and rural areas. Research in this area will help us draw greater attention to the living conditions and development of residents on the periphery of megacity. Secondly, Beijing's diverse topography, encompassing both plains villages and mountainous villages, offers a valuable vantage point for examining the factors that affect the livability of various types of villages. This diversity makes it an excellent choice for exploring differences and variations in livability among different rural areas.
在中国的背景下，区域发展受到政策的强烈指导。中国政府于2017年出台的《乡村振兴战略》显著强调了“乡村宜居性”在促进区域可持续发展中的重要性。然而，现有的研究主要集中在国家或省级层面的宏观分析，忽视了对高度城市化地区农村宜居性的探索。因此，本研究选择北京作为实证研究区域（图2）。选择这个原因有两个。首先，北京作为一个特大城市，农村地区的土地利用复杂。2021年，北京常住人口2188.6万人，国内生产总值4.027万亿元，经济实力居全国第二位。然而，农村地区的动态性质和多样化的生产方式，加上农村居民的频繁流动，使城乡差距越来越大。这方面的研究将有助于我们更多地关注特大城市外围居民的生活条件和发展。其次，北京地形多样，既有平原村落，也有山区村落，为研究影响各类村落宜居性的因素提供了宝贵的有利条件。这种多样性使其成为探索不同农村地区之间宜居性差异和变化的绝佳选择。

1. Download: Download high-res image (654KB)
   下载： 下载高分辨率图像 （654KB）
2. Download: Download full-size image
   下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 2. Distribution of villages investigated.
图 2.调查的村庄分布情况。

3.2. Data collection 3.2. 数据收集

This paper mainly takes the first batch of municipal new rural planning and construction pilot villages as the research object. The Beijing Rural Livability Survey was conducted in 25 case villages from October 2021 to February 2022. To accurately represent the livability characteristics and ensure data significance, villages were selected from the Beijing plain and mountain villages by quota sampling (Fig. 2). Twelve villages were selected from six plain areas, including Haidian, Chaoyang, Shijingshan, and Fengtai in the southeast. Thirteen villages were selected from seven mountainous and semi-mountainous areas, including Yanqing, Miyun, Huairou, Changping, and Mentougou. This resulted in a total of 25 villages. For each district, approximately 1–4 villages were selected, and from each village, we gathered 12–32 valid questionnaires. Among them, we obtained 224 questionnaires from plain villages and 242 from mountain villages, totaling 466 questionnaires, all of which meet statistical requirements.
本文主要以首批市级新农村规划建设试点村为研究对象。2021年10月至2022年2月，在25个案例村开展了北京农村宜居性调查。为准确表示宜居性特征，保证数据显著性，采用定额抽样法从北京平原和山区村庄中选取村庄（图2）。从东南部的海淀、朝阳、石景山、丰台等6个平原地区选出12个村庄。从延庆、密云、怀柔、昌平、门头沟等7个山区和半山区中选出13个村。这导致总共有25个村庄。对于每个地区，大约选择了 1-4 个村庄，并从每个村庄收集了 12-32 份有效问卷。其中，平原村问卷224份，山村问卷242份，共计466份，均符合统计要求。

During the investigation, respondents were asked to assess their feelings about each item related to local rural livability based on their life experiences. The perception level of the six dimensions of rural livability, including satisfaction and severity, was measured using corresponding items. All responses for each item were recorded on a five-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 for extremely dissatisfied (extremely mild) to 5 for extremely satisfied (extremely severe). Additionally, the survey gathered data on respondents' individual socioeconomic characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, age, education level, family size, number of migrant workers, main source of family income, monthly family income, proportion of family economic expenditure, and more.

A total of 495 questionnaires were distributed using a combination of random sampling and quota sampling methods, both through questionnaire surveys and household surveys. Ultimately, 466 valid questionnaires were obtained, yielding an effective rate of 94.14 %. Among these, 224 (48.09 %) valid questionnaires were collected from the plains of Beijing, while 242 (51.91 %) were collected from the mountains (Fig. 2). The proportions of the two types of regions were balanced, and most villages had 15–30 questionnaires collected. The obtained survey data's reliability was analyzed using Cronbach's Alpha, resulting in a standardized coefficient α value of 0.837 (greater than 0.7), indicating high internal consistency and acceptable reliability for the study's questionnaire.

3.3. Methods

In this study, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to explore the factors influencing satisfaction with rural livability. It organically combines impact factor analysis and pathway analysis. It can be applied to deal with latent variables and is widely used in the research of human behavior decision-making and satisfaction evaluation (Austin and Wolfle, 1991, Golob, 2003).

The structural equation modeling consisted of two parts: a measurement model and a structural model to describe the relationship between potential variables and indicators and the causal relationship between potential variables respectively (Golob, 2003, Varghese and Jana, 2019). First is the measurement equation which specifies the relationship between factor indicators and the latent variable:$Y={\alpha }_y\eta +{\epsilon }_{y}withcov\left({\epsilon }_y\right)={\theta }_{{\epsilon }_y}$$X={\alpha }_x\mu +{\epsilon }_{x}withcov\left({\epsilon }_x\right)={\theta }_{{\epsilon }_x}$where $Y$ is a $p\times n$ matrix of endogenous observed variables, $X$ represents a $q\times n$ matrix of exogenous observed variables, $\eta$ indicates an $m\times n$ matrix of endogenous latent variable, $\mu$ indicates an $l\times n$ matrix of exogenous latent variable, ${\alpha }_y$ and ${\alpha }_x$ is a $p\times m$ and $q\times l$ matrix of the coefficients between endogenous and exogenous latent variables and their measurement indicators respectively, ${\epsilon }_y(p\times n)$ and ${\epsilon }_x(q\times n)$ denote the error matrices of the structural equation, ${\theta }_{{\epsilon }_y}(p\times p$)and ${\theta }_{{\epsilon }_x}(q\times q$)are the covariance matrices of ${\epsilon }_y$ and ${\epsilon }_x.n$ represents n samples, $n$=1,2,……,$N$.

Second is the structural equation which specifies the relation of a predictor with other latent or observed variables:$Z=\beta \eta +\phi \mu +\xi withcov\left(\mu \right)={\theta }_{\mu }cov\left(\xi \right)={\theta }_{\xi }$where $Z$ is the dependent variable, which can be either a latent variable or an observed variable,$\beta$ is an $m\times m$ matrix of the structural relationships between latent endogenous variables and dependent variable, $\phi$ is an $l\times l$ matrix of the structural relationships between latent exogenous variables and dependent variable, $\xi$ represents a random $m\times n$ matrix of errors, ${\theta }_{\mu }(l\times l$) and ${\theta }_{\xi }(m\times m$)are the covariance matrices of $\mu$ and $\xi$.

This study used the AMOS26 software to establish a structural equation model of rural suitability impact indicators to explore the impact of each indicator variable on rural suitability. Among them, the overall satisfaction of rural livability was used as the explained variable of the study, infrastructure, environmental quality, public service level, and economic burden were exogenous latent variables, and village appearance, social atmosphere were intermediary variables (endogenous latent variables).

4.1. Descriptive analysis

In the survey, 247 of the 466 respondents are men (53.00 %), slightly higher than women (47.00 %). The most reported age of the respondents is in the 50–60 range(31.76 %), followed by 40–50 (24.03 %). As for education, respondents with a diploma from middle school and high school are slightly over-represented (38.84 % and 32.62 % in total) while only 19.05 % has higher education. Additionally, family size of 3 persons has the largest percentage (34.76 %), followed by 4 persons (23.18 %), and 5 persons (17.60 %). In addition, the number of interviewed families is three (34.76 %), followed by four-member families (23.18 %) and five-member families (17.60 %). As for family's monthly income, the most reported range is 5000–9000 RMB (50.0 %), followed by 2000–5000 RMB (24.46 %) and 10,000–20,000 RMB (18.67 %). There are no families with a monthly income of less than 1000 RMB.

From all respondents, overall satisfaction with rural livability in the 25 Beijing villages have a mean of 3.89 ± 0.713SD, which is moderately high. In general, the overall satisfaction with rural livability in the mountains is slightly better than that in the plains, with an average satisfaction rate of 3.98, exceeding the overall level.
北京市25个村庄对农村宜居性的总体满意度平均为3.89±0.713SD，处于中等偏高水平。总体来看，山区乡村宜居性总体满意度略好于平原地区，平均满意度为3.98，超过整体水平。

Then, the satisfaction levels vary across the six dimensions of rural livability. The satisfaction levels for dimension indicators are generally good, ranging mainly between 3.6 and 4.1. The results indicate that the highest levels of satisfaction with urban livability are primarily found in the dimension of social atmosphere, including neighborhood relations (4.13), traffic safety (4.07), social security (4.07), and sanitary conditions (4.11). Infrastructure-related indicators such as manure treatment facilities (4.05) and water and drainage facilities (4.05) also scored high in satisfaction. On the other hand, the lowest levels of satisfaction, ranging from 3.56 to 3.76, are concentrated in the dimensions of public service level. These include indicators such as elementary education (3.56), medical facilities (3.59), convenient transportation (3.70), cultural construction (3.72), and daily shopping (3.76). Additionally, villagers generally perceive a high economic burden, particularly in terms of medical expenditure (3.05) and living expenditure (2.75). However, the perceived pollution level in rural areas is relatively low, below 2.
然后，在农村宜居性的六个维度上，满意度水平各不相同。维度指标的满意度总体良好，主要在3.6至4.1之间。结果表明，对城市宜居性满意度最高的主要体现在社会氛围维度，包括邻里关系（4.13）、交通安全（4.07）、社会保障（4.07）和卫生条件（4.11）。与基础设施相关的指标，如粪便处理设施（4.05）和供水和排水设施（4.05）的满意度也很高。另一方面，满意度最低，由3.56至3.76不等，主要集中在公共服务水平方面。这些指标包括基础教育（3.56）、医疗设施（3.59）、交通便利（3.70）、文化建设（3.72）和日常购物（3.76）。此外，村民普遍认为经济负担沉重，特别是在医疗支出（3.05）和生活支出（2.75）方面。然而，农村地区的感知污染水平相对较低，低于2。

Furthermore, rural residents in the mountainous areas are more satisfied with all dimensions of livability, particularly in terms of public services, compared to those in the plains. Despite better rural construction in the plains, satisfaction with rural livability is lower due to the significant disparity between urban and rural livability levels. There is room for improvement in the construction of rural human settlements, which results in biased expectations from residents in the plains, leading to reduced satisfaction. Conversely, rural residents in the mountains perceive a slightly higher economic burden than those in the plains.
此外，与平原地区相比，山区农村居民对宜居性的各个方面都更加满意，特别是在公共服务方面。尽管平原地区的农村建设较好，但由于城乡宜居水平存在显著差异，对农村宜居性的满意度较低。农村人居区建设有改进的余地，导致平原居民的期望有偏差，导致满意度下降。相反，山区的农村居民认为经济负担略高于平原地区。

4.2. Model results 4.2. 模型结果

4.2.1. Determinants of satisfaction with rural livability for all respondents
4.2.1. 所有受访者对农村宜居性满意度的决定因素

In Table 3, all dimensions of rural livability, except environmental quality, are significantly associated with overall satisfaction with rural livability at a significance level of 0.05 or higher in Beijing. However, it is observed that the magnitudes and paths of the effects varied across dimensions. Regarding effect intensities, public service levels are determined to have the highest standardized coefficient in the model (β = 0.49; p < 0.001), indicating the strongest positive effects on overall rural livability satisfaction levels. High-quality public services can better meet the daily needs of rural residents and improve their satisfaction with livability, which is consistent with previous studies (Wang et al., 2019, Zhao et al., 2019).
在表3中，除环境质量外，农村宜居性的所有维度都与北京市乡村宜居性总体满意度显著相关，显著性水平为0.05或更高。然而，据观察，影响的幅度和路径因维度而异。在效应强度方面，公共服务水平在模型中具有最高的标准化系数（β=0.49;p <0.001），表明对农村总体宜居满意度水平的正向影响最强。高质量的公共服务可以更好地满足农村居民的日常需求，提高其对宜居性的满意度，这与以往的研究一致（Wang et al.， 2019， Zhao et al.， 2019）。

Table 3. SEM result of Satisfaction with rural livability.
表 3.对农村宜居性满意度的SEM结果。

Latent variables 潜在变量	Regression weights 回归权重	Observed variables 观察到的变量	Factor-loading 因子加载
Infrastructure condition 基础设施状况	0.130*	Convenient transportation 交通便利	0.515***
		Waste disposal facilities 废物处理设施	0.640***
		Water and drainage facilities 供水和排水设施	0.808***
		Manure treatment facilities 粪便处理设施	0.824***
		Disaster prevention facilities 防灾设施	0.862***
		Communications and Networks 通信与网络	0.782***
Environmental quality 环境质量	0.068	Air pollution 空气污染	0.846***
		Noise pollution 噪音污染	0.829***
		Waste pollution 废物污染	0.858***
Public service level 公共服务水平	0.409***	Daily shopping 每日购物	0.314***
		Elementary education 初等教育	0.595***
		Cultural construction 文化建设	0.784***
		Medical facilities 医疗设施	0.721***
		Fitness and leisure facilities 健身和休闲设施	0.766***
Economic burden 经济负担	−0.226***	Burden of production expenditure 生产支出负担	0.550***
		Burden of living expenditure 生活支出负担	0.767***
		Burden of education expenditure 教育支出负担	0.719***
		Burden of medical expenditure 医疗费用负担	0.700***
Village appearance 村外观	0.237***	Green coverage 绿色覆盖	0.818***
		Sanitary conditions 卫生条件	0.877***
		Quality of village roads 乡村道路质量	0.728***
Social atmosphere 社会氛围	0.168**	Democratic management 民主管理	0.834***
		Social security 社会保障	0.856***
		Traffic safety 交通安全	0.878***
		Neighborhood relations 邻里关系	0.832***
		Neighborhood interaction 邻里互动	0.793***

***P < 0.001; **P < 0.05; *P < 0.1.
P < 0.001;**P < 0.05;*P < 0.1.

Then, public services have a significant direct impact on livability satisfaction and also indirectly impact rural livability satisfaction by positively affecting the social atmosphere (β = 0.736; p < 0.001) (Fig. 3). Improving the construction and service level of leisure places, such as cultural and fitness facilities, in public services can enrich the leisure activities of rural residents. Simultaneously, it provides a place for neighborhood interaction, strengthens the positive interaction between neighbors, and promotes a harmonious social atmosphere, thus having a strong and positive overall impact on satisfaction.
然后，公共服务对宜居满意度有显著的直接影响，并通过正向影响社会氛围间接影响农村宜居满意度（β=0.736;p <0.001）（图3）。提高公共服务中文体设施等休闲场所的建设和服务水平，可以丰富农村居民的休闲活动。同时，它提供了一个邻里互动的场所，加强了邻里之间的积极互动，促进了和谐的社会氛围，从而对满意度产生了强烈而积极的整体影响。

1. Download: Download high-res image (406KB)
2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 3. SEM analysis of the path relationships, mediated by Village appearance / social atmosphere.

Next, the dimension of village appearance (β = 0.237; p < 0.001) and economic burden (β = -0.226; p < 0.001) have coefficients significantly higher than those of the other dimensions. In particular, economic burden has a very strong direct effect on satisfaction with livability (β = -0.226; p < 0.001), while the indirect effect of social atmosphere on rural livability satisfaction is not significant (p < 0.1). This indicates that the impact of economic burden on rural livability satisfaction is rapid and direct.

Furthermore, social atmosphere (β = 0.168; p < 0.05) and infrastructure conditions (β = 0.130; p < 0.10) also have a significant impact on the improvement of rural livability satisfaction. The mediation role of village appearance between infrastructure and rural livability satisfaction is prominent. The path coefficient from infrastructure to livability satisfaction through village appearance shows a positive and significant effect (β = 0.604; p < 0.001), indicating that infrastructure conditions significantly and indirectly affect rural livability satisfaction. The main reason is that the construction level of infrastructure, such as garbage and manure treatment, directly affects the appearance of rural areas, which in turn affects livability.

Inconsistent with the results of previous studies, the impact of environmental quality on rural livability satisfaction is not significant, primarily due to the effect of village appearance on rural livability satisfaction. This contribution has a small standardized coefficient and significance level (Ramyar et al., 2020, Wei et al., 2023).

The standardized factor-loading coefficients of observed variables indicate that latent variables can be explained by the observational indexes (Table 3). Key factors affecting rural livability satisfaction are disaster prevention facilities, manure treatment facilities, water and drainage facilities, and communication networks. Waste pollution significantly impacts environmental quality. Cultural construction, fitness and leisure facilities, and medical facilities are important for public service. Living expenditure, education expenditure, and medical expenditure are major economic burdens for residents. Sanitary conditions and green coverage influence village appearance. Traffic safety, social security, democratic management, and neighborhood relations are significant in shaping the social atmosphere.

4.2.2. Heterogeneous determinants of satisfaction with rural livability between the plains group and the mountains group

From the perspective of different geographical types, there are certain differences in the influencing factors of satisfaction with rural livability (Fig. 4). In the plains, the standardized regression coefficient for the public service level was significantly higher than for the other dimensions (β = 0.607; p < 0.001), indicating a strong positive effect on satisfaction with rural livability. This suggests that satisfaction with livability in the plains is closely related to the construction of public services, primarily constrained by medical facilities (0.771), fitness and leisure facilities (0.753), and cultural development (0.751). This is consistent with the observed trend where residents of villages closer to urban centers tend to have higher demands for public services. Their frequent interaction with the city raises their awareness and expectations for such services, making them crave amenities and treatments comparable to urban dwellers. These findings reveal that the construction of livable villages must prioritize residents' health (Singer et al., 2017).

1. Download: Download high-res image (638KB)
2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 4. Comparison of SEM result of satisfaction with rural livability between the plains group and the mountains group.

In mountainous areas, most latent variables contribute similarly to rural livability satisfaction, with standardized regression coefficients ranging from 0.20 to 0.30. This contribution range is attributed to the overall developmental lag in these areas, which leads to diverse resident needs, encompassing basic infrastructure and essential services such as healthcare and education. However, there are differences in the effects of each dimension on rural livability satisfaction. Specifically, village appearance (β = 0.302; p < 0.001) and social atmosphere (β = 0.253; p < 0.05) contribute the most to livability satisfaction and are mainly influenced by factors such as green coverage (0.871), sanitary conditions (0.866), traffic safety (0.895), democratic management (0.844), and social security (0.841). These factors are directly related to their daily lives and physical and mental health, and thus can be considered key factors affecting satisfaction with rural livability in mountainous areas (Fig. 4).

Additionally, rural residents in both plains and mountainous areas are highly sensitive to economic burdens, especially in medical care, education, and living expenses. This emphasis on economic conditions is due to its direct impact on residents' quality of life, which includes better access to education, healthcare, and basic needs, providing confidence and future security. Economic burden is a core factor in rural areas, especially given the disparities between urban and rural regions, making it crucial to bridge this gap and enhance livability (Fig. 4).

Another finding is that village appearance and social atmosphere play a clinical role as mediators in the path of influence on rural viability satisfaction in both plains and mountainous regions. However, there are differences in the intensity of influence and path relationships between these geographic types (Fig. 5, Fig. 6).

1. Download: Download high-res image (370KB)
2. Download: Download full-size image

Fig. 5. SEM analysis of the path relationships, mediated by Village appearance / social atmosphere(Plains).

1. Download: Download high-res image (398KB)
   下载：下载高分辨率图像 （398KB）
2. Download: Download full-size image
   下载：下载全尺寸图像

Fig. 6. SEM analysis of the path relationships, mediated by Village appearance / social atmosphere(Mountains).
图 6.路径关系的SEM分析，由村庄外观/社会氛围（山）介导。

In plains villages, the impact of infrastructure on satisfaction with village livability primarily occurs through an indirect effect on village appearance, while the direct effect is not significant. This can be attributed to the possibility that in the more developed plains region, infrastructure might have reached a relatively saturated level, and its direct impact on livability satisfaction becomes less prominent. These facilities may have indirectly improved villagers' satisfaction by enhancing the village appearance, like road constructions and public space developments. Conversely, rural infrastructure in mountainous villages not only significantly affects overall satisfaction through village appearance (p < 0.001) but also has a significant direct effect on livability satisfaction (p < 0.05). In comparison to plains, mountainous regions might lag in infrastructure development, so when there are improvements, their impact on satisfaction is more discernible, whether directly or indirectly. Consequently, the overall effect of infrastructure on rural livability satisfaction is more prominent in mountainous areas, characterized by higher standardized coefficients and significance levels.
在平原村落中，基础设施对村落宜居满意度的影响主要通过对村落外观的间接影响而发生，而直接影响不显著。这可以归因于在较发达的平原地区，基础设施可能已经达到相对饱和的水平，其对宜居满意度的直接影响变得不那么突出。这些设施可能通过改善村庄外观（如道路建设和公共空间开发）间接提高了村民的满意度。相反，山区乡村基础设施不仅通过村庄外观显著影响总体满意度（p < 0.001），而且对宜居满意度也有显著的直接影响（p < 0.05）。与平原地区相比，山区在基础设施发展方面可能滞后，因此当有改善时，它们对满意度的影响更明显，无论是直接的还是间接的。因此，基础设施对农村宜居满意度的总体影响在山区更为突出，其特点是标准化系数和显著性水平较高。

Simultaneously, in plains areas, the direct effect of public service level on satisfaction with rural livability is significant (p < 0.001) with a standardized coefficient of 0.607. However, the indirect effect on satisfaction with livability is not significant, and the mediation effect of social atmosphere is also insignificant. This is because, although public service facilities in plain villages have a strong impact on the social atmosphere (β = 0.776; p < 0.001), the social atmosphere itself has a weak effect on satisfaction. It suggests that residents in the plains might place higher value on the direct benefits they receive from public services than merely the improved social atmosphere they foster. In contrast, both the direct and indirect effects of public service level on satisfaction with rural livability are more significant in mountainous areas (p < 0.05). This might be due to the historical lack of such services in mountainous regions, which, when introduced, might bring about greater changes to villagers' lifestyles and social atmospheres.
同时，在平原地区，公共服务水平对农村宜居满意度的直接影响显著（p < 0.001），标准化系数为0.607。然而，对宜居满意度的间接影响不显著，社会氛围的中介作用也不显著。这是因为，尽管平原村的公共服务设施对社会氛围的影响很大（β=0.776;p <0.001），但社会氛围本身对满意度的影响较弱。它表明，平原居民可能更看重他们从公共服务中获得的直接利益，而不仅仅是他们培养的改善的社会氛围。相比之下，公共服务水平对农村宜居满意度的直接和间接影响在山区更为显著（p < 0.05）。这可能是由于山区历来缺乏此类服务，一旦引入此类服务，可能会给村民的生活方式和社会氛围带来更大的变化。

Furthermore, regardless of whether in plains or mountainous regions, environmental quality primarily affects livability satisfaction through its influence on village appearance. A clean, well-greened village brings about a sense of pleasure to its residents, thereby enhancing livability satisfaction. On the other hand, economic burden has a direct and immediate impact on satisfaction with rural livability. It is due to the fact that economic burdens directly affect residents' quality of life and future expectations. In the presence of economic pressure, residents may pay more attention to basic necessities, such as food, housing, and health, than to social activities.

5.1. Influence mechanism of satisfaction with rural livability

Firstly, the results of the study indicate that there is a significant correlation between the social-spatial rural characteristics and satisfaction with rural livability. The finding confirms previous studies that rural livability is a multi-dimensional concept constructed by the rural environment, involving many aspects such as natural background, housing facilities, social harmony, and a convenient lifestyle (Peng, 2018, Zhao et al., 2019).

Note that public service level, village appearance, and economic burden rank in the top three, followed by infrastructure and social atmosphere. Similar findings were also discovered by Wang in underdeveloped eastern regions, who considered public services and sanitation factors as determinants of rural livability (Wang et al., 2019). However, compared to the less economically developed area, the positive impact of the public service level on overall satisfaction mainly depends on the service indicators such as culture, sports, medical care, and sanitation. This indicates that the improvement of service levels in these aspects will promote the development of rural livability rather than shopping convenience and social insurance conditions in the less economically developed area. Mainly due to the relatively better and more convenient level of public service construction in economically developed areas, there is no longer a focus on obtaining basic public services, and more emphasis is placed on improving daily recreations, culture, and health (Singer et al., 2017).
公共服务水平、村容貌、经济负担位居前三，其次是基础设施和社会氛围。在东部欠发达地区，Wang也发现了类似的发现，他们认为公共服务和卫生因素是农村宜居性的决定因素（Wang et al.， 2019）。但与经济欠发达地区相比，公共服务水平对整体满意度的正向影响主要取决于文化、体育、医疗、卫生等服务指标。这表明，这些方面服务水平的提高将促进农村宜居性的发展，而不是经济欠发达地区的购物便利性和社会保险条件。主要是由于经济发达地区的公共服务建设水平相对较好、更方便，不再注重获得基本公共服务，而是更加重视改善日常娱乐、文化和健康（Singer et al.， 2017）。

Then, in terms of village appearance, besides sanitation conditions, green coverage is an important aspect of concern for residents, which is different from economically underdeveloped rural areas. This is because access to green spaces has been linked to improved physical and mental health. In highly urbanized rural areas, there is a growing awareness of the health benefits associated with spending time in nature, such as reduced stress levels, increased cognitive function, and improved overall well-being. Therefore, residents prioritize and invest in the creation, access, and maintenance of green spaces for the well-being and satisfaction (Binder & Blankenberg, 2017).
其次，从村落面貌来看，除了卫生条件外，绿化覆盖是居民关注的重要方面，这与经济欠发达的农村地区不同。这是因为进入绿色空间与改善身心健康有关。在高度城市化的农村地区，人们越来越意识到与在大自然中度过时光相关的健康益处，例如降低压力水平、增强认知功能和改善整体幸福感。因此，居民优先考虑并投资于绿色空间的创建，访问和维护，以实现福祉和满意度（Binder&Blankenberg，2017）。

We also identified difference regarding the economic factor. It shows that economic burden is also a key factor affecting the rural livability in Beijing. As residents of in economically developed areas have more diverse lifestyles and economic needs, and face higher costs of living, this requires reducing their financial strain or load imposed on them to maintain their quality of life. In contrast, in economically less developed environments, residents tend to have higher expectations of employment and income to improve their wellbeing of life (Singer et al., 2017, Nanor et al., 2021). This indicates that differentiated levels of rural development lead to variations in people's economic expectations, subsequently resulting in differences in the assessment and evaluation of rural livability.
我们还发现了经济因素的差异。表明经济负担也是影响北京市农村宜居性的关键因素。由于经济发达地区的居民生活方式和经济需求更加多样化，生活成本较高，因此需要减轻他们的经济压力或负担，以维持他们的生活质量。相比之下，在经济欠发达的环境中，居民往往对就业和收入有更高的期望，以改善他们的生活福祉（Singer et al.， 2017， Nanor et al.， 2021）。这表明，农村发展水平的差异导致人们的经济期望存在差异，进而导致农村宜居性的评估和评价存在差异。

Secondly, our findings explore the heterogeneous determinants of rural livability satisfaction in the plains and mountains, marking a significant departure from prior research. It reflects the uniqueness of the socio-spatial environment that affects the livability of rural areas in the two regions.The decisive positive factor of rural livability satisfaction in the plains is public service level, same as that of the whole respondents, especially medical and health facilities. While the contribution of each latent variable to satisfaction with rural livability is comparable in the mountains, among which the village appearance and social atmosphere can be considered as determinants of rural livability. The reason is that while the physical spatial construction of the plain villages is relatively well-developed, they lag far behind in socio-economic aspects compared to the adjacent central urban areas. Therefore, residents of the plain rural area are more eager to enjoy the same social services as urban residents, making socio-economic factors the primary limitation to the development of rural livability in the area. In contrast, mountainous area may lag in both physical spatial construction and socio-economic levels, with many essential public services and facilities potentially being incomplete. The finding also differs from preexisting studies. Existing research emphasizes the significance of improving basic public services and infrastructure, such as public services, sanitation conditions, and the quantity of essential facilities, in remote mountainous areas. However, this study on Beijing reveals that in mountainous villages, the appearance and social atmosphere, as soft environmental elements, have a greater impact. In contrast, plain areas emphasize the influence of the quality of public services. This similarly reflects the more nuanced differences in regions with varying levels of development. That is, with the improvement of development levels, people's concerns about rural livability have become more diversified, emphasizing the importance of social, cultural, and spiritual aspects of well-being.

Thirdly, although the village appearance and social atmosphere play an extremely important mediating role in both samples, there are certain differences in the strength and path relationships of their effects that have not yet been explored by existing research. First, the village appearance in both plains and mountainous areas has a significant mediating role, exerting a strong regulatory influence on the livability of both types of rural areas. Specifically, in the plains, infrastructure mainly affects rural livability satisfaction indirectly through its impact on village appearance. In the mountainous areas, infrastructure not only has a positive influence on overall satisfaction through village appearance but also has a significant direct effect. This is mainly because, in the plains adjacent to urban areas, the material spatial construction is complete, and infrastructure has essentially reached a relatively saturated state. As a result, residents pay more attention to its indirect impact on livability. Second, the social atmosphere only plays a strong mediating role in the impact pathway of rural livability in mountainous areas, while in the plains, the level of public services has only a direct impact on rural livability satisfaction. By comparison, the provision of public services in the plains is richer, leading residents in these areas to prioritize the direct benefits these facilities bring, rather than just the positive social atmosphere they produce. Mountainous areas, being somewhat underdeveloped, often lack basic infrastructure and public services. As such, any improvements in conditions are keenly felt and directly or indirectly affect satisfaction with rural livability. Especially after introducing new public services, the lifestyles and social atmosphere of the villagers undergo significant changes. Third, regardless of being in the plains or mountainous areas, economic pressure directly affects satisfaction with rural livability. As the effects of economic pressure on changes in the social atmosphere may take longer to manifest, its impact on the quality of life is swift and direct. However, due to geographical differences, plains regions might have more opportunities for economic development, whereas mountainous areas might confront more economic challenges.

5.2. Policy implications

Based on the discussions, the findings of this paper have several important policy implications.

First of all, the government in Beijing should prioritize the involvement of rural residents in construction, aligning with their actual needs. The survey identifies public service and economic burden as the weakest aspects of rural livability, emphasizing the need for government investment in improving public facilities, particularly basic education and healthcare. Encouraging residents to participate in joint development and management projects is also crucial. Additionally, the government should focus on strengthening the rural social security system to alleviate economic burdens and survival pressures.
首先，北京政府应根据农村居民的实际需求，优先让农村居民参与建设。该调查指出，公共服务和经济负担是农村宜居性最薄弱的方面，强调政府需要投资改善公共设施，特别是基础教育和医疗保健。鼓励居民参与联合开发和管理项目也至关重要。此外，政府应重点加强农村社会保障体系，以减轻经济负担和生存压力。

Secondly, rural livability is influenced by multiple dimensions, with primary and secondary factors and complex pathways. To effectively enhance livability, it is important to establish a sensible sequence. Priority should be given to improving key dimensions, such as cultural, fitness, and medical facilities in public services. The government should also consider the importance of mediation variables like village appearance and social atmosphere, including sanitary conditions, green coverage, social security, democratic management, and neighbor relations. Planning the development and implementation accordingly is essential.
（2）乡村宜居性受多维度影响，主要因素和次要因素影响因素复杂。为了有效地提高宜居性，重要的是要建立一个合理的顺序。要优先完善公共服务中的文化、健身、医疗等重点领域。政府还应该考虑中介变量的重要性，如村庄外观和社会氛围，包括卫生条件、绿色覆盖、社会保障、民主管理和邻里关系。相应地规划开发和实施至关重要。

Lastly, rural habitats vary regionally, resulting in differences in construction levels and resident needs. In plains regions, integrated development of urban and rural areas should be emphasized, focusing on organic integration of elements and diversifying the path of rural construction, especially in public service facilities like healthcare and culture. In mountainous regions, balanced improvement of rural livability in various aspects is vital, with specific attention to the unique natural environment and harmonious social atmosphere. Increasing green coverage, enhancing village appearance, and strengthening democratic and security management are key considerations.
最后，农村栖息地因地区而异，导致建筑水平和居民需求存在差异。在平原地区，要强调城乡融合发展，注重要素有机融合，农村建设路径多样化，特别是在医疗、文化等公共服务设施方面。在山区，农村宜居性各方面的均衡提升至关重要，特别要注重独特的自然环境和和谐的社会氛围。增加绿化覆盖面、改善村庄面貌、加强民主和安全管理是关键考虑因素。