4.2 Pathway analysis of the effects of rural human settlements on rural development
4.2.1 Analysis of the influencing pathways and intensities of the observed variables
As shown in the Fig. 4, the majority of the factor loading coefficients between the observed variables and latent variables were statistically significant. However, there are obvious differences in the strength of influence. In general, the path coefficients of the perceived rural human settlements factors related to the physiological needs and safety of the rural residents were the largest, such as medical care, energy supply, sanitary toilets, and so on. In addition, the environmental needs related to the realization of residents’ self-worth and ideals were constantly highlighted, such as education, express delivery, and so on. However, the factors which had advantages in rural areas were found to have less impact intensity and lower significance, such as climate comfort. As for the status of the rural population, land and industry, such variables as good physical and mental health (X25), land consolidation and circulation (X32), the development of the service industry (X34) were determined to be the primary factors affecting the state of these three core subsystems, respectively. However, we cannot ignore the influence of other observed variables. Although their coefficient is slightly smaller, their impact still remains indispensable. With regard to the overall status of the rural development, countryside dwellers’ sense of gain and satisfaction with rural development (Y2) tends to be the most intuitive and obvious manifestation of comprehensive rural development.
4.2.2 Correlation analysis between the explanatory variables and between the intermediary variables
The SEM construction required that the explanatory variables must be assumed to have a correlation, otherwise the parameter estimations could not be completed. There were five explanatory variables in this study. In theory, there should be 10 interaction pathways between them. However, only four pathways had ultimately passed the parameter estimation and significance tests. Notably, in order to avoid the pathway diagram of the SEM being too cumbersome and difficult to identify, Fig. 4 only demonstrates the standardized estimated values of the observed variables, while the remainder of the coefficients are displayed in a table format.
As detailed in Table 4, there were several significant action paths among the five perception dimensions of rural human settlements. The main manifestation was that rural natural environmental conditions and infrastructure conditions tended to create chain reactions through public service levels, housing conditions, and so on, which then affected the intermediary variables. Moreover, this study also found that there was statistically significant relationship between the three mediating variables. The interaction force between rural industry and rural land was the biggest (0.435). This was followed by the interaction force between rural population and rural land (0.375), and the interaction force between population and industry was found to be the smallest (0.238). It can be seen that the rural population, land and industry had both influenced and restricted each other, and problems in any of the elements would impede rural development.
Table 4
The results of path test between latent variables.
Relationships
|
Estimate
|
S.E.
|
C.R.
|
Rural population ↔ Rural land
|
0.375**
|
0.071
|
5.282
|
Rural population ↔ Rural industry
|
0.238**
|
0.065
|
3.662
|
Rural land ↔ Rural industry
|
0.435**
|
0.091
|
4.780
|
Natural environmental condition → Housing condition
|
0.235*
|
0.092
|
2.557
|
Natural environmental condition → Infrastructure condition
|
0.174***
|
0.016
|
10.962
|
Infrastructure condition → Housing condition
|
0.117***
|
0.013
|
9.851
|
Infrastructure condition → Public service level
|
0.318***
|
0.032
|
9.791
|
Note: ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The same as the table below. |
4.2.3 Analysis of the influencing pathways and intensity of the explanatory variables on the intervening variables
In this study’s model system, rural human settlements had not directly affected rural development, and instead had indirectly influenced rural development through the three intermediary variables. The 15 action pathways between the explanatory variables and the intervening variables in the hypothesis model had passed the parameter estimation test with good significance (Table 5).
Table 5
Various effects of latent variables on rural development.
Influencing factors
|
Effects
|
Rural population
|
Rural land
|
Rural industry
|
Rural development
|
Rural population
|
Total
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
0.519***
|
Rural land
|
Total
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
0.412***
|
Rural industry
|
Total
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
0.476***
|
Infrastructure condition
|
Total
|
0.803***
|
0.190**
|
0.587*
|
0.774*
|
Direct
|
0.543***
|
0.165**
|
0.508***
|
-
|
Indirect
|
0.260***
|
0.025***
|
0.079*
|
-
|
Natural environmental condition
|
Total
|
0.573**
|
0.490**
|
0.545*
|
0.758*
|
Direct
|
0.311**
|
0.407**
|
0.423**
|
-
|
Indirect
|
0.262***
|
0.083**
|
0.122*
|
-
|
Public service level
|
Total
|
0.627***
|
0.092
|
0.218**
|
0.429**
|
Direct
|
0.627***
|
0.092
|
0.218**
|
-
|
Indirect
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Human social amenity
|
Total
|
0.446***
|
0.073
|
0.112**
|
0.285**
|
Direct
|
0.446***
|
0.073
|
0.112**
|
-
|
Indirect
|
|
--
|
-
|
-
|
Housing condition
|
Total
|
0.521***
|
0.213***
|
0.086**
|
0.399*
|
Direct
|
0.521***
|
0.213***
|
0.086**
|
-
|
Indirect
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Influencing pathways for the rural population: The infrastructure conditions have the highest contribution to the state of rural population (0.803). The effects consisted of two parts: 1. The direct effects of infrastructure on the rural population (0.543); and 2. The indirect effects of infrastructure on the rural population via housing conditions and public service levels (0.260). The public service levels also had remarkable effects on the rural population (0.627), and all were considered to be direct effects. The effects of the natural environmental conditions ranked third (0.573), and were also composed of two parts. Of which, the indirect effects (0.262) produced through infrastructure and housing conditions making greater contributions. The human social amenities and housing conditions were determined to only generate direct positive impacts on rural population, and the standardized pathway coefficients were 0.446 and 0.521, respectively.
Influencing pathways for the rural land
It was found that natural environmental conditions had the greatest positive impacts on rural land (0.490). In addition to directly promoting land usage (0.407), this dimension also influenced rural land (0.083) via impacting the infrastructure and housing conditions. The housing conditions also had significant direct positive effects on the rural land (0.213). Moreover, although infrastructure constructions had both direct effects (0.165) and indirect effects (0.025) on rural land, the overall positive effects were relatively small (0.190). The reason may be that the infrastructure construction tended to occupy large portions of arable land and other land resources, which had smoothing effects on the increases in production capacities and land appreciation it brought. Both the public service levels and the human social amenities had positive effects on rural land, but they had not passed the significance test.
Influencing pathways for the rural industry
Complete infrastructure had the most significant promotion effects on the development of rural industries (0.587). Its impacts included the direct effects of infrastructure on rural industries (0.508), and the indirect effects via housing conditions and public service levels (0.079). The natural environmental conditions themselves were also a type of productivity which had significant impacts on rural industries. The total impact of natural environmental conditions on rural industries was 0.545, of which the direct effects was 0.423 and the indirect effects via infrastructure and housing conditions was 0.122. The improvements in the public service levels, human social amenities, and housing conditions were all found to be conducive to the development of rural land, and their effects were gradually weakened in this order.
4.2.4 Analysis of the influencing pathways and intensities of the intervening variables on the outcome variables
It could be determined that the path coefficient of the effects of population on rural development was the greatest, with the highest level of significance (0.519; p < 1%). These findings indicated that the population levels were the greatest endogenous factor influencing rural development. The industry also has significantly promoted the rural development (0.476; p < 1%), which were manifested that the industrial development not only provided employment opportunities for rural residents, but also reshaped rural land usage methods and enhanced land values. The impacts of rural land on rural development were relatively small (0.412; p<1%), but the positive impact still remains indispensable. Generally speaking, each of the three intermediary variables were found to play an indispensable role in rural development. The coordination among rural population, land and industry further facilitated the high-quality rural development.
4.3 Influencing mechanism analysis of rural human settlements on rural development
In the next steps of this research investigation, based on the influencing pathways and the corresponding standardized regression coefficients of the latent variables, intermediate variables, and outcome variables in the SEM, the strengths of the influencing effects of the five dimensions (F1 to F5) of rural human settlements on rural development were further measured. As a result, the influencing mechanisms were refined and revealed. The overall effects of the five dimensions (explanatory variables) on rural development were all determined to be indirect effects. The estimation method was the sum of the product of the total effects of a certain variable on the population, land, and industry, along with the direct effects of those three intermediary variables on the rural development. The calculation results are displayed in the final column of Table 5.
The overall effects of the infrastructure conditions on rural development were determined to be the largest (0.774; p < 10%), indicating that that dimension had the strongest positive influence on rural development. Although rural infrastructure itself was not considered to be a production factor and did not directly affect rural development, it had altered the spatial organization of the rural production factors and improved their quality, thereby indirectly promoting rural development. First, a good infrastructure not only saves and releases rural labor and increases the opportunities for farmers to go out for work and increase their incomes, but it also saves production costs and improves labor productivity (Shamdasani, 2021). These are all conducive to increasing farmers’ incomes and reducing the incidence of poverty. In addition, rural infrastructures have the effects of improving the income distribution of rural residents and realizing inclusive rural growth. Moreover, complete rural infrastructures, particularly transportation facilities, can potentially save production costs and realize the spatial transferences of various production factors and products and facilitate the spatial agglomeration of rural populations, land, industry, and so forth (Yu & Zhao, 2021), and more effectively enable the spatial organization structures of different elements. That is to say, the scale effects will be further generated through the factor flow effects and factor agglomeration effects. Furthermore, favorable infrastructure constructions can also improve rural development environments, as well as providing conditions and guarantees for the development of new industries and new forms of business in rural areas. As a result, the rural industrial structures can be effectively optimized and the functional values of resources enhanced, such as land and water resources.
The overall effects of natural environmental conditions were second only to infrastructure. Its impact coefficient was 0.748 at the 10% significance level, which also indicated positive promotion effects. Natural ecology itself is a type of productivity, and the vast rural areas rooted in natural native land naturally have potential productivity foundations and advantages (Kato, 1997). It has been found that improving such natural ecological environments as water and soil in rural areas provides a steady stream of high-quality nutrients for high-quality ecological agriculture and organic agriculture, increasing the added value of agricultural products. In addition, it also brings opportunities to develop new business formats (such as agricultural tourism), which can boost green development of rural industries and facilitates supply-side structural reform of rural industries (Zang et al., 2021). All of the aforementioned advantages not only enable farmers to achieve greater economic gains and professional pride from successful development endeavors, which will encourage a return to the land and countryside, but also attract and drive the circulation of various elements such as talent, funds, etc. back to the countryside, and increase the vitality of rural development. Additionally, pleasant ecological environments can potentially cultivate sentiment, improve mood, and benefit people’s health, so as to avoid falling into the trap of “environmental health poverty” (Gui et al., 2020). Despite the inevitable restrictive effects of natural environmental conditions in many locations, it is believed that good policy designs and scientific and reasonable measures can alleviate such restrictive effects to a great extent.
The overall effects of public service levels (0.429), housing conditions (0.399), and human social amenities (0.285) on rural development were observed to have gradually weakened in this study. However, positive effects were still evident, and all had passed the significance test. Rural public services are very closely related to country dwellers’ daily life and work, and their effects on rural development are mainly realized by affecting rural populations. Additionally, rural public service levels also have certain effects on rural industries. For example, convenient and complete public service supplies can provide good protection for the physical and mental health of rural residents, as well as reducing the risks of poverty due to illness, decreasing family expenses and economic burdens, and increasing the residents’ purchasing power (Shamdasani, 2021). Well-equipped public services can also energize rural populations with stronger self-survival and development abilities, and fundamentally enhance the quality and capability of rural workers, and improve rural labor productivity. Consequently, a long-term mechanism which promotes the income increases of farmers and industrial development will be formed, thereby narrowing the development gap. It should be noted that the impact of education on rural development is more invisible or long-term promotion (Jin et al., 2020). When location conditions (such as the distances from central cities) cannot be changed, more efforts should be made to improve the public services with long-term benefits, such as education, public welfare training, and so on, in order to strive to make up for shortcomings in those fields, and to give full play to their leverage in promoting rural economic development.
On the basis of fully respecting the wishes of the farmers, it is of major significance to promote the layout optimization of cities, towns and villages. This will lead to orderly concentrated residences and provide guidance for the residents to rationally carry out housing constructions and renovations within set terms of housing styles and clean toilets. On one hand, they can optimize the allocation of land resources, revitalize rural stock land, and promote the economical and intensive use of rural land. As a result, fundamental changes in the production and management methods of agriculture will be encouraged, which will generate conditions for the formation of scale effects (Savchenko & Borodina, 2017). On the other hand, they can alleviate or solve the problems of rural hollowing, beautify rural landscape, improve village appearance, enable villages to retain people, and attract other resources to flow in (Dufty-Jones, 2015). In addition, taking the practical and trivial matters of improving the living environments of the farmers as the starting point can result in the rural residents’ production activities and lives becoming more convenient and comfortable. These factors can stimulate farmers to develop good hygiene habits and environmental awareness, and consciously participate in the construction of beautiful villages, thereby facilitating effective rural governance.
Human social amenities were found to have the smallest overall effects on rural development. The possible explanation was that the humanistic environments belonged to soft human settlements, which played a more implicit role in promoting rural development. Although its effects were relatively minor, that dimension should not be ignored. Social amenities are also important elements of rural revitalization. The creation of comfortable humanistic environments will not only be conducive to resolving social conflicts and promoting rural social stability, it will lay a substantial foundation for the orderly development of the inhabitants’ daily life and work (Bradley et al., 2020). In addition, it will potentially promote the country dwellers to help each other in their daily production activities and lives and communicate with each other emotionally and thoughtfully. All of those positive advantages will not only facilitate the promotion of advanced production technologies and tools, but also promote the socialization of rural children, ease the solitary lifestyles of rural elderly, and enhance the centripetal force and cohesion of rural residents (Chen et al., 2021). Consequently, rural development vitality and endogenous motivation will be stimulated.
In summary, this study found that the impacts of rural human settlements on rural development is a layer-by-layer process with dynamic changes. The main manifestations were the implementations of improvements in rural human settlement projects, which had changed various elements in the human settlement system, made natural environment more pleasant, facilitated infrastructure more complete, rendered public services more convenient, encouraged cultural environment more harmonious, and boosted housing conditions more livable. It is considered that all of the aforementioned positive impacts will ulteriorly stimulate qualitative changes in the three core elements of rural regional systems (population, land and industry), promoting rural populations healthier, richer and happier, helping rural land usage more intensive, productive, beautiful and valuable, and facilitating rural industries to become more efficient, modern, diverse and prosperous. Theoretically speaking, the improvements in natural rural environments also have good multiplier and demonstration effects, which can result in more villages paying closer attention to the construction of rural human settlements, and then promote the comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development of entire regions, and even the whole country. In view of this, following a logical path of “driving factors → change processes → appearance of effects → desired results”, this study further refined the influencing mechanisms of rural human settlements on rural development, as detailed in Fig. 5. A clear understanding of the processes and mechanisms was considered to have important theoretical and practical significance for drawing a beautiful green picture of ecologically livable villages in the new era to come.