Building a Framework of Evaluating Human–Environment Relationships: Considering the Differences between Subjective Evaluations and Objective Assessments

Abstract

The human–environment relationship is bidirectional, meaning that human attitudes and behavior to nature are at the root of environmental change, while changes in the environment affect human attitudes and behavior. It is necessary to analyze the human–environment relationship from two aspects: (a) Whether there is a good objective basis for maintaining an environment, and (b) whether people report that they are satisfied with that environment. This study attempted to construct a framework to evaluate the human–environment relationship considering these two aspects. The framework consists of three parts: Traditional evaluation, indicator construction, and evaluation considering the relationship between subjective and objective assessment. Traditional evaluations consist of subjective evaluations and objective assessments. Indicator construction focuses on putting forward indicators that quantitively evaluate the human–environment relationship, considering the results of objective assessments and subjective evaluations. The indicators introduced in this study include MD (match degree) and OSC (objective assessment and subjective evaluation comparison) to explain the difference and the relationship between objective assessments and subjective evaluations of the environment. Then, based on the indicator value, a matrix containing four situations (Match-H, Match-L, H-L, and L-H) was constructed to explore why a human–environment relationship may not be harmonious. Since the upper Minjiang River basin is a typical area, because of its intensive human activity, as well as its fragile ecological environment, this study chose it as a case study and used it to verify the framework. Through the framework construction and application, this study found that: (1) The framework of this study provided a more comprehensive method to evaluate the human–environment relationship; (2) as the subjective evaluation was based on individual comprehensive tradeoffs, the evaluation combining the subjective and objective assessment was more accurate; (3) environmental conditions were the basis, and human activities were the key factors, for the coordination of human–environment relationships; so the matrix put forward in this study was necessary for finding the cause of human–environment incongruity.