Exploring the effects of rural human settlement on rural development: Evidence from Xianju County in Zhejiang Province, China

1. Introduction

At the present time, although there is no unified definition of what is “countryside” and what is “city”, rural recession is now an undisputed fact and has become a global issue (Liu & Li, 2017). For example, such countries as Canada, the United States, Sweden, Japan and China have experienced or are experiencing rural recession, and their common features are rural economic backwardness, rural eco-environmental degradation, land dilapidation, rural poverty, and rural depopulation (Wood, 2008; Nonaka & Ono, 2015; Li et al, 2018). In order to solve these problems and realize the sustainable development, many countries have adopted and implemented targeted projects with respect to their national conditions. Some current examples include the new town construction and development in United States (Cousineau, 1952); new countryside movement in South Korea; incremental rural renovation programs in Germany (Guido & Guy, 2003); environmentally friendly countryside construction in Switzerland (Martin & Jennife, 2014); village and town comprehensive construction demonstration project in Japan (Nonaka & Ono, 2015); and the rural vitalization strategy in China (Long et al., 2019).

Judging from these international practical experience, it was determined that rural renaissance was a comprehensive strategy involving multiple measures. The patterns for the rural governance adopted by various countries were also different, due to the diversity of their natural environments, resource endowments, and economic development. However, it was found to be a universal choice of all the examined countries to improve rural human settlements, that is, to promote economic, ecological and social development and increase the level of civilization from the improvement of the material environment. This was found to be particularly evident in China, the world’s largest developing country, with a very large rural population (Li, et al., 2020).

Currently, China has entered a stage of high-quality development (Lu et al., 2019). However, the country is also confronted with various issues and challenges during its development. Among them, the problems of inadequacy rural development is the most prominent (Yang et al., 2021). The most intuitive manifestation is that there are many unhealthy phenomena in the rural human settlements, such as severe soil and water pollution, the insufficiently available healthcare and education, disorganized village constructions and so forth (Wang et al., 2019; Hu & Wang, 2020; Yang et al., 2021). Considering these issues, China’s central government issued a series of policy documents aimed at quickly making up for the shortcomings of the rural human settlements. The most representative document is the “Rural Vitalization Strategy”, in which the ecologically livable villages constructions was deemed to be the key in strategic planning projects (Zhao et al., 2019). The implementation of these measures and strategies about rural human settlements has significantly improved the level of rural living environment and laid a solid foundation for the rural revitalization and Beautiful China Initiative (Qu et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022).

As important parts of human settlements, rural human settlements are the organic combinations of the material and non-material elements required by rural residents for their production and livelihoods (Nelson, 2001; Hu & Wang, 2020). It is not only conducive to daily life and work, communication and leisure of country dwellers (Zhao et al., 2019), but also can comprehensively characterize the spatial, ecological, and social management in rural areas (Wang et al., 2021), thus exerting enormous influence on the high-quality rural development. The strategic constructions of rural human settlements have also attracted attention from many researchers, and the previous studies can be roughly divided into two categories.

The first category includes the research findings from the perspective of objective environmental supply. The research paradigm includes the measurement and evaluations of the quality or livability of rural human settlements based on constructed evaluation index systems and multi-source data, and revealing their spatial differentiation characteristics or dividing regional types (Amit, 2012; Qu et al., 2017; Li et al., 2020; Hu & Wang, 2020). For example, Li et al. (2021) defined the connotation of rural livability, and then constructed an evaluation indicator system for assessing livability of villages, and conducted an empirical research using Changshu City in Jiangsu Province as a case. The second group includes the research findings from the perspective of subjective environment perceptions. The research paradigms are mainly to assess residents’ satisfaction with rural livability or rural human settlements, as well as analyze their impact mechanism or behavioral intention by utilizing micro-level multi-sample survey data (Van et al., 2002; Sorensen, 2015; Wang et al., 2019). For instance, by applying the data of 6 provinces in China and structural equation modelling, Zhao et al. (2017) evaluated the rural human settlement from the perspective of farmers. Moreover, as an important starting point for improving rural livability, spatial patterns and optimization strategies of rural settlements have also attracted the attention of many researchers (Huang et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2020). The results of such studies have sharply deepened and expended the concepts and content of rural human settlements, and offering important theoretical reference for the planning, construction, and management and sustainable development of livable villages.

However, due to long-term urban bias policies (Li, 2011), which have placed rural areas into disfavored positions, the research regarding rural human settlements remains in its infancy. In particular, while many countries and regions have been extensively improving rural human settlements, only minimal research has been dedicated to the in-depth analysis of why the consolidation of rural human settlements should be carried out, or whether the optimization of living environments will really affect rural development. In response to these questions, most studies have only introduced or summarized the importance or significance of rural human settlements from a qualitative perspective (Wang et al., 2019; Yang, 2019). To the best of our knowledge, however, few research have paid attention to the action pathways and influencing effect degrees of human settlements on rural development. Therefore, this study aimed to fill in this research gap by exploring the influencing pathways and mechanisms of human settlements on rural development from both theoretical interpretations and quantitative analysis based on survey data from a typical rural county in China. In addition, a structural equation model was applied.

The study is organized as follows: Section 2 offers a brief relationship analysis between human settlements and rural development, where a theoretical framework and research hypothesis are established; Section 3 presents the methodology used in this study, including the study area, variable specifications, data collection, and model specifications; the empirical results are discussed in Section 4; The last section concludes this study by providing the key findings and some policy recommendations for rural human settlement constructions and rural revitalization.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study area

China’s Xianju County was chosen in this study as the empirical study area. Xianju County is situated in the southeast of Zhejiang Province in China (Fig. 3). In the past few decades, Zhejiang Province has consistently placed a high value on the optimization of rural living environment. Accordingly, the rural human settlements in Zhejiang have taken leading positions within the entire country (Wang et al., 2017). As one of 73 county-level units in Zhejiang, Xianju County covers an area of 1,992 km², and is composed of three subdistricts and seventeen towns.

The selection of Xianju County as the case study area for the empirical study is mainly due to two considerations. The first one is that detailed and reliable raw data have been obtained in the early time. The second reason lies in this county well reflected a typical case for investigating how rural human settlements affect rural development. Concretely speaking, although Xianju County is located in an economically developed province, its own economic level is relatively less developed. In 2019, it obtained a regional GDP of 249200 million yuan and a per capita GDP of 69,804 yuan, ranking 52nd among all 73 county-level units in the province. The per capita disposable income of the rural residents was 22,962 yuan, ranking 51st. However, in 2008, the two indicators were only 14,596 yuan and 5,588 yuan, only ranking 66th and 59th, respectively. It can thus be found that the rural development in Xianju County has evidenced significant progress in recent years. This has mainly been attributed to its successful conversion of ecological environment advantages into economic development advantages (Xie et al., 2018). Based on its strong ecological environmental background, Xianju County has been dedicated to implementing high-standard rural human settlement improvements and beautiful village construction actions over the years. Through these measures, it has continuingly attracted and gathered developmental factors, transformed developmental methods, and stimulated developmental vitality, boosting the leapfrog development of rural areas and even the entire county (Zhu et al., 2018).

In brief, the rural human settlement consolidation in Xianju County has laid a solid foundation for its rural development. Therefore, it is of major significance and exemplary to reveal the internal driving mechanisms of rural human settlements’ impacts on overall rural development. The findings obtained from Xianju County should be of major significance to the guidance of the national macro-strategy for rural development, as well as constructive guidance for other developing countries and regions.

3.2 Variable selection and data collection

Based on the above theoretical framework presented, a set of evaluation indicators for rural human settlements and rural development was proposed, as presented in Table 1. First, referring to the existing studies (Wang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020; Hu & Wang, 2020) and the suggestions of experts in rural development, we set up a five-dimensional index system with 24 indicators to fully depict rural human settlements. Second, conforming to the principles of operability, scientificalness and representativeness, 12 indicators were selected to reflect the development of rural population, land, and industries (Qu et al., 2021), and 3 indicators were chosen to reflect rural development (Hashemi & Ghaffary, 2017; Abreu & Mesías, 2020).

Table 1

Evaluation indicators for rural human settlements and rural development.

Dimensions of rural human settlements	Observable variables	C.R.	AVE
F1. Infrastructure conditions	X₁ Road traffic facilities	0.882	0.531
	X₂ Running water supply facilities
	X₃ Expressage & communication facilities
	X₄ Energy supply facilities
	X₅ Household waste & sewage disposal facilities
	X₆ Cultural &recreational facilities
F2. Natural environmental conditions	X₇ Climate comfort	0.839	0.563
	X₈ Geological stability & terrain flatness
	X₉ Drinking water quality
	X₁₀ Green coverage rate
	X₁₁ River & pond pollution disposal level
F3. Public service level	X₁₂ Medical convenience	0.877	0.589
	X₁₃ Education convenience
	X₁₄ Shopping convenience
	X₁₅ Social insurance condition
	X₁₆ Distance from central city
F4. Human social amenity	X₁₇ Public security	0.827	0.616
	X₁₈ Neighborhood relationship
	X₁₉ Democratic management
F5. Housing conditions	X₂₀ Housing quality	0.908	0.738
	X₂₁ Housing space
	X₂₂ Housing style
	X₂₃ Surrounding landscape
	X₂₄ Popularization of sanitary toilets
F6. Rural population	X₂₅ State of health	0.736	0.545
	X₂₆ Family’ annual income
	X₂₇ Non-agricultural employment ratio
	X₂₈ Returning migration workers ratio
F7. Rural land	X₂₉ Arable land per capita	0.628	0.511
	X₃₀ Residential land per household
	X₃₁ Land productivity level
	X₃₂ Land consolidation and land circulation ratio
F8. Rural industry	X₃₃ Food production per capita	0.657	0.524
	X₃₄ Service industry proportion
	X₃₅ Social capital investment
	X₃₆ Average cultivating or working radius
Y. Rural development	Y₁ GDP per capita	0.639	0.592
	Y₂ Residents’ sense of gain and satisfaction with RD
	Y₃ Residents' sense of belonging and happiness in living here

In regard to the specific indicators identified in Table 1, subjective data were collected and adopted for characterizing and measuring the main indicators. Because existing related research had concentrated on an objective perspective and objective statistical data (Wang et al., 2017; Hu & Wang, 2020), and few studies regarding rural human settlements and rural development were conducted from the perspective of the residents’ subjective perceptions. This study chose the types of subjective data which could potentially make up for the lack of relevant research. More importantly, the subjects of the rural settlements and rural development were the rural residents. It was considered that such determinations as whether or not the living environments were livable and the rural development was prosperous, in addition to the evaluations by virtue of the objective data, should be judged more based on the subjective perceptions of the local populace. Consequently, this research study adopted a field questionnaire method to conduct corresponding investigations.

In consideration of the limited research grant, as well as the natural conditions, the social and economic development level of the study area, we chose 12 units from the 20 administrative units of Xianju County as the survey sampling areas (Fig. 3). The 12 towns or streets had almost completely and evenly covered the entire Xianju County and were considered to possess a strong representativeness. The rural human settlements survey was carried out and completed by a team of six graduate students in 12 selected townships in Xianju County from July 2 to 10, 2018. Stratified sampling and random sampling were combined to select specific samples (Wang et al., 2021). For each question, the responses were all measured on a five-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 to 5. For a very small number of older residents, one-to-one interviews was also adopted. Finally, a total of 370 questionnaires were dispensed to country dwellers in the 12 case study towns.

After preliminary inspection and screening, 364 valid questionnaires were obtained, and the effective rate was as high as 98.38%. Besides, a reliability test was also required, which can judge the reliability of the outcomes. The results showed that the coefficient value of Cronbach's alpha of the sample is 0.958, implying a reliable questionnaire survey process had been implemented. The socioeconomic features of the survey samples was reported in Table 2.

Table 2

Description of the socioeconomic features of the samples.

Attributes	Variables	Amount	Percentage
Gender	Female	167	45.88%
Gender	Male	197	54.12%
Age	<20	35	9.62%
	20 ~ 29	99	27.19%
	30 ~ 39	81	22.25%
	40 ~ 49	71	19.51%
	50 ~ 59	58	15.93%
	≧ 60	20	5.49%
Education	Middle school and below	113	31.04%
	High school	128	35.16%
	College	52	14.29%
	Undergraduate	62	17.03%
	Master and above	9	2.47%
Family population	2 people and below	11	3.02%
	3 people	80	21.98%
	4 people	144	39.56%
	5 people	57	15.66%
	6 people and above	72	19.77%
Occupation	Civil servant	29	7.97%
	Technical professional	52	14.29%
	Farmer	89	24.45%
	Self-employed	67	18.41%
	Student	34	9.34%
	Freelancer	65	17.85%
	The rest	28	7.69%
Family’ annual income (10 thousand RMB)	<1	29	7.97%
	1 ~ 3	63	17.31%
	3 ~ 10	152	41.75%
	10 ~ 15	58	15.93%
	15 ~ 25	43	11.81%
	≧ 25	19	5.22%

3.3 Quantification methods

In view of the above-mentioned mechanism framework, the SEM was applied to investigate and verify the influence strength of rural human settlements on rural development combined with the sample data. Equipped with such functions as factor analysis, path analysis, variance analysis and regression analysis, the SEM can well identify causal relationships in complex multivariate conditions (Austin & Wolfle, 1991). This is unmatched by traditional measurement methods, especially when the study involves many latent variables that cannot be directly measured (Zhao et al., 2018). Obviously, this is the case in the current research. Therefore, using SEM to examine the influencing mechanism of human settlements on rural development will have good applicability and obvious superiority.

The SEM is composed of two parts, and they are measurement model and structural model, respectively. The former is applied to depicted the relationship between observed variables and latent variables, while the latter is utilized to reflect the causality between the latent variables (Wang et al., 2019). Their measurement formulas were shown as follows:

x = Λ_xφ + δ (1)

y = Λ_yη + ε (2)

η = Bη + Γφ + ξ (3)

Formulas (1) and (2) are measurement models, and Formula (3) is the structure model. In the above formulas, x, y are the measurement indexes of the exogenous latent variables and the endogenous latent variables, respectively; Λ_x denotes the factor loading matrix of exogenous observed variables and exogenous latent variables; Λ_y represents the factor loading matrix of endogenous observed variables and endogenous latent variables; φ is the exogenous latent variables and η is the endogenous latent variables; ε and δ are the residual matrixes of the measurement model; B indicates the relationship between the endogenous latent variables; Γ is the influence coefficient of the exogenous latent variable on the endogenous latent variables; and ζ denotes the residual term of the structural equation, which can reflect the unexplained part of η in the equation.

4. Empirical Results And Analysis

4.1 Model test design and modifications

In this study, such two important discriminant indicators as the average variance extracted values (AVE) and the reliability coefficients (CR) were adopted to inspect the convergent validity of the measurement model. As reported in Table 1, the values of AVE were all bigger than 0.5 and the values of CR all exceeded 0.6, implying a good inner quality for the measurement model. Moreover, based on the AMOS 23.0 platform, a maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method was applied to calculate the goodness-of-fit indices and standardized path coefficients. As detailed in Table 3, apart from the NFI, which was slightly less than the ideal value of 0.9, and the NGFI, which was slightly less than 0.5, most values were within a reasonable range. Therefore, the fitness of the hypothetical model and the sample data, along with the fitness and simplicity of the variables, had all met the statistical requirements. Accordingly, it was believed that the proposed model could be effectively used to analyze the influencing mechanisms of rural human settlements on the rural development.

Table 3

Test result of goodness-of-fit indices of modified model

Adaptation index	Absolute fit index				Appreciation goodness of fit index			Simple goodness of fit index
Adaptation index	χ²/df	GFI	RMSEA	AGF	NFI	IFI	CFI	NGFI	PNFI
Ideal values	(1, 3)	≧ 0.90	< 0.05	≧ 0.90	≧ 0.90	≧ 0.90	≧ 0.90	> 0.5	> 0.5
Actual values	1.767	0.905	0.042	0.901	0.874	0.908	0.916	0.489	0.734
Test results	✓	✓	✓	✓	✕	✓	✓	✕	✓

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.

5. Conclusions And Implications

In this study, we systematically analyzed the impact mechanism of rural human settlements on rural development by constructing theoretical frameworks and hypothetical structural equation model of variables’ interaction. The proposed theoretical framework and analytical thinking provides some useful insights and references for rural planners and policymakers to better understand the relationship between rural human settlements and rural sustainable development. Taking a typical rural county in Zhejiang Province of China as an example, the framework and model were further applied to an empirical analysis with 370 household survey data. The empirical results confirmed that the framework and model have good validity and scientificity, and the major findings were as follows.

Our results confirmed that the impacts of rural human settlements on rural development is a layer-by-layer process. The main manifestations were the implementations of improvements in rural human settlement projects, could change various elements in the human settlement system, making them neater, more convenient, more harmonious, and more livable. All these positive effects will ulteriorly stimulate qualitative changes in the three core elements of rural regional systems (namely population, land and industry), promoting rural populations healthier, richer and happier, helping rural land usage more intensive, productive, and valuable, and facilitating rural industries to become more efficient, modern, and prosperous. Driven by such three elements as population, land and industry, rural areas will eventually achieve sustainable and high-quality development. The results obtained from the SEM model also showed that among the three mediating variables, the path coefficient of the effects of population on rural development was the greatest, accompanied by the highest significance. This further confirms that rural population is the main body of rural development (Tu & Long, 2017; Qu et al.,2021). Of course, the positive role of rural land and industry we cannot be ignored.

Our results also confirmed that the overall impact of rural human settlements on rural development was dimensionally heterogeneous. The infrastructure conditions had the strongest positive effects on rural development. Its impact coefficient was 0.774 at the 10% significance level. Through its agglomeration effects, scale effects, cost saving effects, poverty reduction and income growth, and so on, rural infrastructures were able to continuously adjust and optimize the spatial organization of the rural production factors, as well as improve their quality, thereby promoting rural development. The effects of natural environmental conditions were second only to the infrastructure conditions. A reasonable comprehensive management of rural ecological environments could generate health production effects, value appreciation effects, structure upgrading effects, and so on, thereby alleviating the restrictive effects of the natural geographic environments to a large extent. The influence paths of the other three dimensions of human settlements on rural development also passed the significance test. Their overall effects on rural development exhibit an order of public service levels (0.429) > housing conditions (0.399) > human social amenities (0.285). Although their role is relatively small, they can also facilitate sustainable rural development through human capital effect, inclusive growth effect, and value appreciation effect and so on.

To better draw a beautiful green picture of ecologically livable villages in the new era, several policy recommendations were proposed according to the empirical results. To begin with, rural residents play the most critical role in the improvement of rural living environment and rural development. Therefore, when the local authorities setting rural human settlements improvement policies, rural households should be fully respected, so that the rural living environment improvement scheme can better meet their expectations. In the practice of improving rural human settlements, a mechanism for communication, co-construction, co-management and sharing should be established to guarantee the privileges of villagers in decision making, participation and supervision (Wang et al., 2021). Only in this way will rural residents strongly support and participate in it. In addition, it is very useful and meaningful to carry out some publicity and education activities related to the rural environment. For instance, we can propagandize the ecological civilization thoughts delivered by President Xi to villagers (Jiang et at., 2020), and share some ways and techniques on improving the living environment with them. Activities like these will contribute to increase rural residents’ awareness and willingness to participate in the improvement of rural living environment.

In the next place, as the overall impact of rural human settlements on rural development was dimensionally heterogeneous, it is best for us to first clarify the priority and procedure of improvement for each village when formulating plans and policies to perfect the rural living environment. As for Xianju County, it is necessary to identify the problems which still exist in rural areas where the allocations of infrastructure do not match the development of modern agriculture or the supply of public services is inconsistent with dwellers’ need for better life conditions. For example, the evaluation scores of expressages and communication facilities, and medical conveniences were found to be very low in this study. Then, good policy designs and scientific development measures such as land remediation, black-stinking water treatments, and developing characteristic industries can effectively alleviate most negative restraints of unfavorable natural environment on rural development. Lastly, sanitary toilets, democratic management levels, etc. are factors which also need to be strengthened.

Furthermore, since the impact of rural human settlements on rural development is a progressive process involving many departments and elements, the traditional rural human settlements improvement model needs to be adjusted and reshaped, which mainly focused on the “dirty, chaotic and poor” problems of village environmental sanitation (Wang et al., 2019). Currently, rural human settlements improvements under the context of rural vitalization should be gradually transformed from the single production field regulation of “village cleanliness” to the comprehensive improvement of coordinating the multiple elements of “population, land, and industry”, from merely improving sanitary conditions to such derivative functions as promoting farmers’ incomes, improving rural landscapes, and creating prosperous rural economies (Li et a., 2020). Only in this way can the rural human settlements quality be comprehensively promoted, and then lay a solid foundation for the realization of the strategic goal of rural revitalization and ecological civilization. As detailed in Fig. 6, a logical framework for rural human settlements governance to promote rural revitalization based on system theory was presented in this study. In other words, the construction of ecologically livable villages needs to take the strategy of combining both “hard” and “soft” aspects, and take the three subsystems of human, land, and industry as the link, and strengthen the effective integration with the other four aspects (namely thriving industry, effective governance, refined civilization and prosperous life) of rural revitalization strategy. In fact, as the saying goes, “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets”, the prosperity of rural industry itself contains an ecological background (Jiang et al., 2020). Meanwhile, ecological civilization conditions are also an important part of rural civilization condition. Also, realizing good governance of rural human settlements is an indispensable part of realizing effective rural governance (Ye & Liu, 2020). Moreover, the improvement of rural human settlements is the cornerstone of prosperous lives for country dwellers. In brief, the implementation of rural revitalization strategy must take the improvement of rural human settlements as a basic project. These five aforementioned aspects are originally organic and must be unified during the entire process of rural revitalization and rural sustainable development.

References

Abreu, I., & Mesías, F. J., 2020. The assessment of rural development: Identification of an applicable set of indicators through a Delphi approach. Journal of Rural Studies, 80, 578-585.
Afshar, F., 1998. Balancing global city with global village. Habitat International, 22, 375-387.
Amit, K., 2012. Study of Rural Settlements in Western Himalayas with the Help of GIS. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
Austin, J. T., Wolfle, L. M., 1991. Annotated bibliography of structural equation modelling: technical work. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 44 (1), 93-152.
Bradley, E., Chen, X., & Tang, G. J., 2020. Social security expansion and neighborhood cohesion: Evidence from community-living older adults in China. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 15, 100235.
Chen, J., Kan, K., & Davis, D. S., 2021. Administrative reclassification and neighborhood governance in urbanizing China. Cities, 118, 103386.
Chen, X. P., Cui, Z. L., & Fan, M. S., 2014. Producing more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature, 514 (7523), 486-489.
Cheng, M. Y., Liu, Y. S., & Zhou, Y., 2019. Measuring the symbiotic development of rural housing and industry: a case study of Fuping county in the Tai hang mountains in China. Land Use Policy, 82, 307-316.
Cousineau, A.,1952.Toward new towns for America. American Journal of Public Health & the Nations Health, 42(1), 89-89.
Cui, X. F., Cheng, H. G., Sun, H. X., Huang, J. H., & Zhang, Q., 2020. Human health and environment: spatiotemporal variation of Chinese cancer villages and its contributing factors. Ecological Engineering, 158, 106075.
Dufty-Jones, R., 2015. Governmentalities of mobility: the role of housing in the governance of Australian rural mobilities. Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 63-78.
Gan, L., Wang, L., Hu, Z. N., Lev, B., Gang, J., & Lan, H. X., 2022. Do geologic hazards affect the sustainability of rural development? Evidence from rural areas in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 339, 130693.
Gao, J. X., Sun, Q. F., Zhu, L., 2018. Promote rural ecological civilization construction to implement the strategy of village rejuvenation. Environment Protection. 46, 11-15.
Gao, Y. Y., Zheng, J. H., & Bu, M. L., 2014. Rural-urban income gap and agricultural growth in China an empirical study on the provincial panel data, 1978-2010. China Agricultural Economic Review, 6, 92–107.
Guido, V. H., & Guy, D., 2003. Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Hashemi, N., & Ghaffary, G., 2017. A proposed sustainable rural development Index (SRDI): Lessons from Hajij village, Iran. Tourism Management, 59, 130-138.
Hedlund, M., & Lundholm, E., 2015. Restructuring of rural Sweden-employment transition and out-migration of three cohorts born 1945-1980. Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 123-132.
Hu, Q. Y., & Wang, C., 2020. Quality evaluation and division of regional types of rural human settlements in China. Habitat International, 105,102278.
Huang, Q., Song, W., & Song, C., 2020. Consolidating the layout of rural settlements using system dynamics and the multi-agent system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 274, 123150.
Jiang, Q. T., Feng, C. C., Ding, J. Q., Bartley, E., Lin, Y., … & Christakos, G., 2020, The decade long achievements of China's marine ecological civilization construction (2006–2016). Journal of Environmental Management, 272, 111077.
Jin, Y. C., Li, Z. N., & An, J. X., 2020. Impact of education on Chinese urban and rural subjective well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105550.
Kato, Y., Yokohari, M., & Brown, R. D., 1997. Integration and visualization of the ecological value of rural landscapes in maintaining the physical environment of Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39(1), 69-82.
Li, X. F., Yang, H., Jian, J., Shen, Y., & Liu, J. Q., 2021. Index system of sustainable rural development based on the concept of ecological livability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 86, 106478.
Li, Y. H., 2011. Urban-rural interaction in China: historic scenario and assessment. China Agricultural Economic Review, 3(3), 335-349.
Li, Y. R., Qiao, L. Y., Wang, Q. Y., & Karácsonyi, D., 2020. Towards the evaluation of rural livability in China: theoretical framework and empirical case study. Habitat International, 105(2), 102241.
Liu, Y. S., 2018. Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China. Land Use Policy, 74(5), 1-4.
Liu, Y. S., & Li, Y. H., 2017. Revitalize the world's countryside. Nature, 548(7667), 275-277.
Lu, Y. L., Zhang, Y. Q, Cao, X. H., et al., 2019. Forty years of reform and opening up: China’s progress toward a sustainable path. Science advances, 5(8), 9413-9423.
Martin, P., & Jennifer, D., 2014. Narratives of transition /non-transition towards low carbon futures within English rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 34: 79-95.
Lu, M. T., Wang, H. W., & Yang, S. T., 2019. Study on spatial pattern and optimization of rural settlements in Bole from the ecological perspective. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 35, 1369-1377.
Long, H. L, Zhang, Y. N, & Tu, S. S., 2019. Rural vitalization in China: a perspective of land consolidation. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 29(4), 517-530.
Lu, M. Q., Wei, L. Y., & Ge, D. Z., Lu, Y. Q., 2020. Spatial optimization of rural settlements based on the perspective of appropriateness-domination: a case of Xinyi city. Habitat International, 98, 102148.
Ma, L. B., Liu, S. C., Tao, T. M., Gong, M., & Bai, J., 2022. Spatial reconstruction of rural settlements based on livability and population flow. Habitat International,126,102614.
Nelson, P. B., 2001. Rural Restructuring in the American Westland use family and class discourses. Journal of Rural Studies, 17, 395-407.
Nonaka, A., & Ono, H., 2015. Revitalization of rural economies though the restructuring the self-sufficient realm: Growth in small scale rapeseed production in Japan. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 49(4), 383-390.
Qu, Y. B., Jiang G, H., Zhao, Q. L., Ma W. Q., Zhang, R. J., & Yang, Y. T., 2017. Geographic identification, spatial differentiation, and formation mechanism of multifunction of rural settlements: A case study of 804 typical villages in Shandong Province, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166(11): 1202-1215.
Qu, Y. B, Jiang, G. H, Ma, W. Q, & Li, Z. T., 2021. How does the rural settlement transition contribute to shaping sustainable rural development? evidence from Shandong, China. Journal of Rural Studies, 82(22), 279-293.
Savchenko, A., & Borodina, T., 2017. Rural architectural and planning forms as a source of diversity for urban environment (case study of Moscow). European Countryside, 9, 560-576.
Shamdasani, Y., 2021. Rural road infrastructure & agricultural production: evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics, (3), 102686.
Sorensen, J. F. L., 2015. The impact of residential environment reputation on residential environment choices. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30, 403-425.
Sørensen, J. F. L., 2018. The importance of place- based, internal resources for the population development in small rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 59(4), 78-87.
Steiner, A., Cal`o, F., & Shucksmith, M., 2021. Rurality and social innovation processes and outcomes: A realist evaluation of rural social enterprise activities. Journal of Rural Studies,2021.
Tu, S. S., & Long, H. L., 2017. Rural restructuring in China: theory, approaches and research prospect. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 27(10), 1169-1184.
Van Dam, F., Heins, S., & Elbersen, B. S., 2002. Lay discourses of the rural and stated and revealed preferences for rural living: Some evidence of the existence of a rural idyll in The Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 461-476.
Wang, W. X., Gong, H. L., Yao, L. Y., & Yu, L. H., 2021. Preference heterogeneity and payment willingness within rural households' participation in rural human settlement improvement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312(4), 127529.
Wang, Y., Jin, C., Lu, M. Q., & Liu, Y. Q., 2017. Assessing the suitability of regional human settlements environment from a different preferences perspective: a case study of Zhejiang Province, China. Habitat International, 70, 1-12.
Wang, Y., Zhu, Y. M., & Yu, M. J., 2019. Evaluation and determinants of satisfaction with rural livability in China’s less-developed eastern areas: A case study of Xianju county in Zhejiang province. Ecological Indicators, 104, 711-722.
Wood, R. E., 2008. Survival of Rural America: Small Victories and Bitter Harvests. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Xie, H., L. Y. H., & Wei, Y. Y., 2018. Influencing factors and spatial distribution of the characteristic towns in Zhejiang Province. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 38(8), 1283-1292. (In Chinese)
Yang, P. P., 2019. Rural ecology revitalization: Theoretical logic, historical evolution and realization path. Journal of Chongqing University of Technology (Social Science), 12, 70-79. (In Chinese)
Yang, Y. Y., Bao, W. K., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, Y. S., 2021. Measurement of urban-rural integration level and its spatial differentiation in China in the new century. Habitat International, 117, 102420.
Yang, Y. Y, Liu, Y. S, Li, Y. R, & Li, J. T., 2018. Measure of urban-rural transformation in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region in the new millennium: population-land-industry perspective. Land Use Policy, 79, 595-608.
Ye, C., & Liu, Z., 2020, Rural-urban co-governance: multi-scale practice. Science Bulletin, 65(10), 778-780.
Yu, Z., & Zhao, P. J., 2021. The factors in residents' mobility in rural towns of China: car ownership, road infrastructure and public transport services. Journal of Transport Geography, 91, 102950.
Zang, Y. Z., Yang, Y. Y., Liu, Y. S., 2021. Understanding rural system with a social-ecological framework: evaluating sustainability of rural evolution in Jiangsu province, south China. Journal of Rural Studies, 86, 171-180.
Zhao, X., Sun, H. B., Chen, B., Xia, X. H., & Li, P. F., 2018. China’s rural human settlements: qualitative evaluation, quantitative analysis and policy implications. Ecological Indicators, 2, 1-8.
Zhu, F. K., Zhang, F. R., & Ke, X. L., 2018. Rural industrial restructuring in China's metropolitan suburbs: Evidence from the land use transition of rural enterprises in suburban Beijing. Land Use Policy, 74(5), 121-129.