Impacts of nature-inclusive urban development on well-being and fairness perceptions

IF 15.3
Shuo Gao, Wenjing Zhang, Sophus O. S. E. zu Ermgassen, Joseph Bull, Thomas Pienkowski, Xiang Ao, Renlu Qiao, E. J. Milner-Gulland
{"title":"Impacts of nature-inclusive urban development on well-being and fairness perceptions","authors":"Shuo Gao, Wenjing Zhang, Sophus O. S. E. zu Ermgassen, Joseph Bull, Thomas Pienkowski, Xiang Ao, Renlu Qiao, E. J. Milner-Gulland","doi":"10.1038/s44284-026-00425-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nature-inclusive urban development (NIUD) is central to international frameworks such as the Global Biodiversity Framework, yet its implementation risks fostering social inequity and green gentrification. This study examines these social impacts through a sequential mixed-methods investigation combining semi-structured interviews and a representative survey in Qunli New Town, Harbin, China, a prominent case of NIUD incorporating landscape-level ecological mitigation and compensation. Here we found that well-being changes among original residents were linked to adaptation to the new context. Compared to non-agriculturalists (for example, former small-scale industry workers), former agriculturalists reported a sharper happiness decline relative to the pre-urbanization era (odds ratio (OR) = 0.15, P < 0.001). Among all original residents, those perceiving increases in social (OR = 1.30, P = 0.0049) and esthetic (OR = 1.53, P < 0.001) values of green spaces reported happiness gains. A critical finding was the stark divergence in fairness perceptions: original residents perceived ecological fairness to be substantially lower than newcomers (OR = 0.54, P < 0.001) but economic fairness higher (OR = 1.93, P < 0.001). This was shaped by the rural reference points of original residents—both former agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists—which led them to value economic upgrades, while experiencing ecological displacement from the loss of customary practices and access to previously accessible landscapes. To advance equitable NIUD, social impact assessments should explicitly manage the gentrification trade-off between new green infrastructure and the loss of cultural landscapes, promoting justice for different waves of settlement. Urban development that supports nature and people is a challenge. This study finds that, despite gains in jobs, income and ecological health with ‘green development’, former villagers in Qunli New Town, Harbin, China, feel less content than newcomers given the rural attributes they lost.","PeriodicalId":501700,"journal":{"name":"Nature Cities","volume":"3 5","pages":"416-427"},"PeriodicalIF":15.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.comhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-026-00425-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Cities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-026-00425-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nature-inclusive urban development (NIUD) is central to international frameworks such as the Global Biodiversity Framework, yet its implementation risks fostering social inequity and green gentrification. This study examines these social impacts through a sequential mixed-methods investigation combining semi-structured interviews and a representative survey in Qunli New Town, Harbin, China, a prominent case of NIUD incorporating landscape-level ecological mitigation and compensation. Here we found that well-being changes among original residents were linked to adaptation to the new context. Compared to non-agriculturalists (for example, former small-scale industry workers), former agriculturalists reported a sharper happiness decline relative to the pre-urbanization era (odds ratio (OR) = 0.15, P < 0.001). Among all original residents, those perceiving increases in social (OR = 1.30, P = 0.0049) and esthetic (OR = 1.53, P < 0.001) values of green spaces reported happiness gains. A critical finding was the stark divergence in fairness perceptions: original residents perceived ecological fairness to be substantially lower than newcomers (OR = 0.54, P < 0.001) but economic fairness higher (OR = 1.93, P < 0.001). This was shaped by the rural reference points of original residents—both former agriculturalists and non-agriculturalists—which led them to value economic upgrades, while experiencing ecological displacement from the loss of customary practices and access to previously accessible landscapes. To advance equitable NIUD, social impact assessments should explicitly manage the gentrification trade-off between new green infrastructure and the loss of cultural landscapes, promoting justice for different waves of settlement. Urban development that supports nature and people is a challenge. This study finds that, despite gains in jobs, income and ecological health with ‘green development’, former villagers in Qunli New Town, Harbin, China, feel less content than newcomers given the rural attributes they lost.

Abstract Image

自然包容性城市发展对幸福感和公平感的影响
自然包容性城市发展(NIUD)是全球生物多样性框架等国际框架的核心,但其实施可能会导致社会不平等和绿色高档化。本研究通过连续的混合方法调查,结合半结构化访谈和中国哈尔滨群里新城的代表性调查,考察了这些社会影响,群里新城是一个结合景观级生态缓解和补偿的NIUD的突出案例。在这里,我们发现原始居民的幸福感变化与对新环境的适应有关。与非农业工作者(例如,前小规模产业工人)相比,前农业工作者报告的幸福感下降幅度相对于城市化前时代更大(比值比(OR) = 0.15, P < 0.001)。在所有原始居民中,那些认为绿地的社会价值(OR = 1.30, P = 0.0049)和美学价值(OR = 1.53, P < 0.001)增加的人报告了幸福感的增加。一个重要的发现是在公平观念上的明显差异:原居民对生态公平的看法明显低于新移民(OR = 0.54, P < 0.001),但对经济公平的看法更高(OR = 1.93, P < 0.001)。这是由原始居民的农村参考点形成的-包括以前的农业工作者和非农业工作者-这导致他们重视经济升级,同时经历了因丧失习惯做法和获得以前可到达的景观而造成的生态位移。为了促进公平的城市发展,社会影响评估应明确管理新的绿色基础设施与文化景观丧失之间的高档化权衡,促进不同定居浪潮的正义。支持自然和人的城市发展是一个挑战。本研究发现,尽管“绿色发展”带来了就业、收入和生态健康方面的增长,但由于失去了农村属性,中国哈尔滨群里新城的原村民比新来者感到更不满足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书