The paper addresses the growing concerns about the quality of human settlements globally, particularly in the context of rapid socioeconomic development and its associated environmental and infrastructural challenges. The study focuses on China, a nation experiencing rapid industrialization and urbanization, which has led to significant disparities between urban and rural settlements. While previous research has primarily focused on urban areas, this study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive evaluation of both urban and rural settlements in China. The authors highlight the urgency to improve urban-rural settlements to align with the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and China's new development paradigm. The paper emphasizes the importance of considering both objective environmental factors and subjective resident satisfaction (subjective well-being) to achieve a comprehensive understanding of human settlement quality. This integrated approach is crucial for effective policymaking and promoting sustainable development. The introduction establishes the theoretical framework by citing relevant literature and outlining the key components of human settlements, integrating both material and non-material elements for a holistic approach. The paper aims to construct a comprehensive index system for evaluating the quality of urban-rural human settlements using both objective and subjective data, thereby addressing the lack of large-scale, integrated studies on this crucial topic in China.

The literature review examines existing research on human settlements, highlighting the diverse perspectives and methodologies employed. It discusses the historical development of the concept of human settlements, from Doxiadis's Ekistics to the UN's Vancouver Declaration, and the evolution of research from a predominantly urban-centric focus to a more integrated approach encompassing both urban and rural aspects. The review critically analyzes existing evaluation systems for human settlements, pointing out the limitations of studies that focus solely on objective measures or lack a comprehensive, nationwide perspective. It emphasizes the importance of incorporating subjective well-being alongside objective indicators to obtain a more complete assessment of settlement quality. The authors discuss existing research methods, including the use of the entropy method, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), principal component analysis (PCA), and structural equation modeling (SEM). Finally, they highlight the scarcity of comprehensive assessments that unify objective and subjective dimensions of indicators and cover both urban and rural areas nationwide. The literature review sets the stage for the authors' innovative approach which involves a large-scale, integrated evaluation that addresses the identified limitations of previous research.

The methodology section details the construction of the index system for evaluating the quality of urban-rural human settlements. The authors propose a four-dimensional framework comprising environmental tidiness, environmental health, environmental amenity, and environmental support. These dimensions are further assessed using both objective and subjective indicators. The objective evaluation relies on five indicators: sewage treatment rate in urban areas, harmless treatment rate of urban domestic waste, greening coverage rate in urban built-up areas, sanitary toilet penetration rate in rural areas, and per capita biomass index in rural areas. The weights for these indicators were determined using the AHP model supported by entropy technology, based on data from 1006 samples obtained via a specialized app. The data for the objective indicators were sourced from various yearbooks such as the China Urban Construction Statistical Yearbook, China Statistical Yearbook, China City Statistical Yearbook, China Health Statistical Yearbook, and China Rural Statistical Yearbook, along with data provided by the Shu Tao’s Research Group of Peking University. Data standardization was performed using the membership degree method, and a weighted calculation was used to obtain the overall quality evaluation index. For the subjective evaluation, an online questionnaire was distributed via a dedicated app to a sample of 551,783 respondents across 31 provinces. The questionnaire assessed satisfaction with the four dimensions mentioned earlier (excluding per capita biomass index) on a 0-100 scale. The sample was selected using simple random sampling, aiming for a representation of 0.5-1% of the population in each province. The data collection period was from July to October 2020. The methodology section thoroughly explains the data collection, processing, and analysis techniques used, ensuring transparency and replicability of the study.

The key findings section presents the results of both the objective and subjective evaluations. The objective evaluation reveals a significant improvement in the quality of urban-rural human settlements in China from 2000 to 2019, with an overall increase from 23.48 to 77.43 (231.02% growth). Each indicator showed a significant upward trend, though with regional variations. The spatial analysis shows a clear East-West gradient, with higher quality values in eastern coastal regions and lower values in the northwestern inland areas. The results are visualized using maps showing the spatial distribution of indicators over time and highlighting regional disparities. The subjective evaluation, based on the 2020 survey, reveals a national average satisfaction score of 80.09, classified as “Satisfied.” Spatial distribution of subjective well-being was less pronounced than the objective evaluation, although South China showed higher satisfaction compared to North China. The analysis also explores how various resident attributes like age, occupation, education, and habitation influence subjective well-being, revealing significant differences in satisfaction levels across these groups. For instance, younger age groups reported higher satisfaction compared to older age groups. The comparison of objective and subjective evaluations highlights interesting correlations and disparities across regions and indicators. The paper classifies regions into four types (H-H, H-L, L-H, and L-L) based on high/low scores for both objective and subjective measures, revealing spatial clustering of similar patterns and pointing to specific regional needs for improvement. The findings reveal a positive overall correlation between objective quality and subjective satisfaction, although the strength of this correlation varied among the individual indicators.

The discussion section interprets the findings, exploring the relationship between objective environmental quality and subjective well-being. The positive correlation between the two suggests that improved objective conditions generally lead to increased resident satisfaction. However, the variation in the strength of this correlation across different indicators highlights the importance of considering the specific context and priorities of each region. The authors discuss the reasons behind regional disparities, acknowledging the influence of factors like economic development level, infrastructure, climate, and cultural norms. They point out the need for tailored interventions, emphasizing the importance of locally-sensitive solutions. The paper discusses the implications of the findings for policymaking, emphasizing the role of public participation and a more holistic, integrated approach to urban-rural development. The findings support the importance of considering the subjective experiences of residents alongside objective data for effective planning and resource allocation. The discussion also notes some inconsistencies between objective and subjective evaluations for certain indicators, pointing to potential areas for further investigation.

The study concludes that China has made substantial progress in improving the quality of its urban-rural human settlements over the past two decades, but regional disparities remain. The findings highlight the need for both objective and subjective assessments to inform policy decisions, stressing the importance of public participation and context-specific interventions. The paper suggests that future research should focus on improving the index system to capture a broader range of factors influencing human well-being. Furthermore, long-term monitoring and evaluation are necessary to track progress and ensure sustainability.

The study acknowledges potential limitations, such as the reliance on self-reported data in the subjective evaluation, which might be subject to biases. The cross-sectional nature of the data limits the ability to establish causal relationships. The specific indicators used might not fully capture the complexity of human settlement quality, and the weighting methodology may not perfectly represent the relative importance of each indicator. Finally, the study’s reliance on readily available data might exclude some potentially relevant factors or regional specificities. The authors suggest that future research should address these limitations to enhance the robustness of the findings.