Study on the Influence of the Ecological Environment on the Subjective Well-Being of Farmers Around Nature Reserves: Mediating Effects Based on Environmental Cognition

Abstract

Improving the subjective well-being of farmers is the goal of rural revitalization. Based on the data from a survey of 956 farmers from 44 villages in six nature reserves in Liaoning province and the least squares regression model, this paper studies the impact of ecological environment quality on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves and analyzes the mediating role of environmental cognition in the impact of ecological environment quality on the well-being of farmers around nature reserves. The results show that in terms of ecological environment quality, both the natural environment and the social environment have a significant positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves. For every 1% improvement in the following aspects, the subjective well-being of rural households increases as follows: air quality: 25%, soil and vegetation conditions: 46%, wildlife population: 27%, medical service facilities: 23%, basic living facilities: 30%, environmental beautification facilities: 33%. Environmental cognition plays a mediating role between ecological environment quality and farmers’ subjective well-being. The influence of the natural environment and social environment on the subjective well-being of farmers outside nature reserves is higher than that inside nature reserves. This paper enriches the research on subjective well-being to a certain extent, analyzes the mechanism of the ecological environment’s influence on farmers’ subjective well-being, and provides theoretical reference for further improving farmers’ subjective well-being and promoting ecological civilization construction.

1. Introduction

The happiness of the people is an important symbol of national prosperity and rejuvenation. As farmers are the main body of rural construction, the improvement of their subjective well-being is particularly important. Establishing nature reserves is an important means to accelerate the construction of ecological civilization and promote harmony between farmers and nature. A good ecological environment is a foundation and guarantee for enhancing farmers’ sense of security and happiness, and is an important livelihood benefit. As of 2019, China has established 2750 nature reserves of various types and levels, with a total area of 1.47 million square kilometers, accounting for approximately 14.88% of the country’s land areaThis article uses survey data from 956 farmers in 44 villages in six nature reserves in Liaoning province, and employs empirical methods such as ordinary least squares (OLS) and mediation effect models to deeply analyze the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves, as well as the existing impact paths, with the aim of providing new ideas for the improvement of the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

The innovation of this article lies in the following: (1) In terms of research theory, previous scholars have generally focused on the influencing factors of subjective well-being by employing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. This article combines sustainable development theory, personality–environment interaction theory, and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory [1] to study the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves, providing a new perspective for the study of subjective well-being. (2) In terms of research methods, previous scholars have mostly used single-dimension indicators to measure subjective well-being and studied subjective well-being with structural equation models. This article uses the ordinary least squares (OLS) model to measure subjective well-being with multidimensional indicators, and comprehensively elaborates on the impact mechanisms of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves, which can provide in-depth and specific research results.

2. Literature Review and Commentary

The ecological environment and subjective well-being are both independent from each other and closely related. This article summarizes the relevant research on subjective well-being and its influencing factors, ecological environments, and the impact of the ecological environment on subjective well-being, providing theoretical and empirical support for subsequent research.

2.1. Research on Subjective Well-Being and Its Influencing Factors

Previous research on subjective well-being has mainly focused on the concept of subjective well-being and its influencing factors. Subjective well-being is an important comprehensive psychological indicator for measuring an individual’s quality of life. Andrews et al. argued that subjective well-being is a holistic assessment of positive emotions, negative emotions, and life satisfaction [2]. On this basis, Diener further enriched and improved it, stating that subjective well-being is the degree of satisfaction and emotional experience in various aspects of life that people define based on their own subjective standards, with the aim of evaluating their quality of life, which mainly includes satisfaction with their past, present, and future life; satisfaction with various aspects of life such as work, family, health, economic status, and oneself; positive emotional experiences such as happiness and joy; negative emotional experiences such as frustration and sadness [3]. The academic community has conducted extensive research on the factors that influence subjective well-being, with some of the literature focusing on economic factors, such as income and consumption, that affect subjective well-being [4,5]. Other parts of the literature focus on non-economic factors that affect subjective well-being, such as the internal characteristics of individuals and families like health, gender, education, age, and non-agricultural employment [6], as well as external environmental factors like social insurance, the ecological environment, ecosystem services, and perception of ecotourism [7,8,9].

2.2. Research on Ecological Environment

The ecological environment is a hot topic in the academic community [10]. The existing literature has mostly conducted research from the perspective of environmental pollution. Başar et al. used the EKC model to study the relationship between economic growth and environmental pollution in 28 OECD countries, and found an inverted U-shaped relationship between an environmental pollution index and per capita income [11]. Environmental pollution also has a significant negative impact on health, as studies have shown [12,13].

Rural ecological environment refers to the sum of natural and social environments in rural areas centered around farmers, including the atmosphere, soil, flora and fauna, roads, transportation, buildings, facilities, etc. The problem of the decreasing quality of rural ecological environments is becoming increasingly serious, and protecting and improving the rural ecological environment has become the top priority. Strengthening the governance of the rural ecological environment is particularly important [14,15]. Establishing nature reserves is one of the effective ways to improve the rural ecological environment. Zhang et al. used the InVEST model to study the protection effect of ecosystem services in nature reserves [16]. The results showed that policy changes have a dynamic impact on the balance of regional ecosystem services, and that the construction of nature reserves brings about the protection effect of ecosystem services.

2.3. Research on the Impact of Ecological Environment on Subjective Well-Being

The academic community has conducted extensive research on the relationship between the ecological environment and subjective well-being, which can be divided into two categories: one is the impact of the natural environment on subjective well-being; the other one is the impact of the social environment on subjective well-being. This article conducts research from two aspects: the natural environment and the social environment in the ecological environment.

2.3.1. Natural Environment and Subjective Well-Being

Subjective well-being is related to the natural environment [17]. Good air quality can help improve residents’ subjective well-being [18,19,20]. Cheng and Zhang used a baseline regression model to conduct a study and found that air pollution has a negative impact on residents’ level of well-being [21]. Pallabi used a multiple logistic regression model to study the subjective well-being of adults in West Bengal who had continuously consumed arsenic-contaminated water for 10 years [22]. The results showed that water pollution had a significant impact on subjective well-being, with respondents being more prone to report lower levels of well-being as the concentration of arsenic-contaminated water increased. Du et al. investigated the variability in the impact of air pollution on subjective well-being and found that air pollution has a significant negative effect on subjective well-being [23]. Lin et al. studied the relationship between the natural environment and subjective well-being by measuring emotions expressed on Twitter, and found that some types of nature can improve people’s emotions, while others do not [24]. Wang et al. used benchmark regression models and mediation effect models to carry out a study and found that subjective air pollution has a significant negative impact on residents’ happiness [25]. Zhang et al. conducted a Chinese family panel study (CFPS) in which 12,668 residents underwent five consecutive interviews from 2010 to 2018 [26]. The study found that air pollution had a significant negative impact on individual subjective well-being by altering the physical health level, exercise behavior, and obesity risk of the respondents.

2.3.2. Social Environment and Subjective Well-Being

Among the different types of socio-economic security, medical and environmental protection have a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers. Medical security is a major institutional arrangement that reduces the burden of medical treatment on the public, enhances people’s well-being, and maintains social harmony and stability. The better the medical security situation is, the stronger the multi-level happiness of farmers is [21]. The impact of farmers’ living environments on their subjective well-being is also multifaceted. Spacious and bright rooms can make people feel happy and comfortable. Convenient transportation in the surrounding area, as well as well-established medical, educational, and cultural facilities, can ensure that the daily needs of farmers are met [27,28]. A good neighborhood environment can achieve the mutual sharing of resources, provide emotional support, and alleviate external pressure so as to exert a positive impact on farmers’ happiness [29]. However, rural public services may not necessarily significantly improve the subjective well-being of farmers. Park et al. conducted a comparative study on the impact of community satisfaction on individual well-being in the semi-urban and rural areas of Tikapur, Nepal, and found a negative correlation between rural educational and medical services and residents’ well-being [30].

Scholars also pay attention to the impact mechanism of the ecological environment on subjective well-being. Research has found that the ecological environment can affect people’s subjective well-being through their income [31], health [32], and environmental cognition [33]. Pan studied the impact mechanism of the ecological environment on happiness in Zhejiang province and found that the objective impact of the ecological environment on residents’ happiness depends on their perception of environmental factors and the importance they attach to them, and that environmental factors are influenced by the economic environment and residents’ income [34]. In economically underdeveloped and low-income areas, the impact of the objective environment on residents’ happiness is not significant. Through field surveys of 1002 farmers around six nature reserves in China, Zhang et al. found that the living environment in rural areas surrounding nature reserves has a significant impact on farmers’ happiness [16]. In addition, the natural ecological environment has an impact on farmers’ happiness at a significance level of 1%.

The academic community has conducted extensive research on the concept of subjective well-being and its influencing factors, laying a theoretical foundation and analytical basis for this study. There are still areas that need improvement. Firstly, the existing research on the subjective well-being of farmers is based on rational “economic agents”. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, people will pursue non-material needs such as environment, institutions, and respect when their material needs are met. There is a lack of research in the existing literature that focuses on the impact of the ecological environment on farmers’ subjective well-being with exploration of the underlying mechanism. Secondly, the academic research on the relationship between the ecological environment and happiness mainly focuses solely on the natural or social environment within the ecological environment, and rarely combines the two.

On the basis of theoretical analysis, this article uses survey data from 956 farmers in 44 villages in six nature reserves in Liaoning province, and applies the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model to deeply explore the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around the studied nature reserves. The mediating effect model is used to analyze the mediating role of health in the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around the studied nature reserves. This article enriches the research on subjective well-being and provides theoretical reference for the improvement of farmers’ subjective well-being and the promotion of ecological civilization construction.

3. Theoretical Analysis Framework and Research Methods

This article deeply analyzes the impact of the ecological environment on farmers’ subjective well-being and reveals its mechanisms of impact. A research framework was constructed according to the logic of “ecological environment-environmental cognition-subjective well-being”, and an empirical model was established.

3.1. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses

The theory of sustainable development entails the coordinated unity of economic sustainability, ecological sustainability, and social sustainability. Ecological sustainability is the environmental foundation of sustainable development theory. In the face of increasingly severe ecological and environmental problems, sustainable development theory has become the guiding concept for solving ecological and environmental problems [35]. A good ecological environment is the most universal basis of welfare for people’s well-being. The rural ecological environment includes both natural and social environments, among which the natural environment includes the atmosphere, soil, flora, and fauna, and the social environment includes roads, transportation, buildings, facilities, etc. [36]. Wang et al. found that air pollution can reduce people’s well-being, and that the degree of impact varies by region [37]. Soil is of great significance to farmers, and there is a close relationship between soil health and farmers’ well-being [38]. Adjei et al. studied the relationship between human well-being and the level of biodiversity in the natural environment, and found that biodiversity can enhance human well-being to some extent [39]. Based on the above analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: 

The natural environment has a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

H1a: 

The air quality has a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

H1b: 

The soil vegetation condition has a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

H1c: 

The quantity of wild animals has a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

Previous studies have found that the better the medical security situation is, the stronger the happiness of farmers is [40]. Alarcón Garcí et al. found that infrastructure has a positive impact on subjective well-being, with differences between genders [41]. Tian et al. found that improving transportation facilities for rural public services can help enhance farmers’ subjective well-being [42]. Requena confirmed that rural living standards are high enough to create higher levels of subjective well-being in wealthier countries; in underdeveloped countries, rural environments cannot compete with urban resources in creating subjective well-being [43]. Based on the above analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2: 

The social environment has a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

H2a: 

Medical service facilities have a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

H2b: 

Basic living facilities have a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

H2c: 

Environmental beautification facilities have a significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory divides human needs into five levels; from low to high, they are physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs [44]. This theory studies the relationship between the satisfaction of people’s needs and their own happiness. When people’s low-level needs, namely their material needs, are satisfied, they will pursue the satisfaction of higher-level non-material needs. Other non-economic factors such as the environment, the system, respect, and achievement can all affect people’s subjective well-being. The personality–environment interaction theory holds the view that happiness is a subjective feeling of people, and environmental factors affect people through subjective experiences. Diener defined subjective well-being as the overall cognitive and emotional evaluation people make of their quality of life [3]. Previous studies have shown that cognition mediates between people’s environment and happiness perception [45]. The ecological environment not only has a direct impact on residents’ sense of well-being, but also has an indirect impact through residents’ environmental cognition [46]. The impact of nature reserve construction on farmers’ subjective well-being is also reflected in the comprehensive influence of multiple aspects like economy, society, culture, and ecology that arise after the establishment of a reserve [47]. Based on this, the following assumptions are proposed:

H3: 

Environmental cognition plays a mediating role in the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves.

Nature reserves are divided into core areas, buffer zones, and experimental zones. This study considers the rural areas within the outer edge of the experimental areas of the protected zones as rural areas within the protected zone, and the rural areas more than 10 km outside the outer edge of experimental areas of the protected zones as rural areas outside the protected zone. Hartter’s study found that there are issues of illegal logging, small-scale mining, and hunting in rural areas surrounding nature reserves [48]. Due to the fact that farmers within a nature reserve are closer to the reserve, they are more threatened by wildlife than those outside the reserve, resulting in a decrease in their subjective well-being. Farmers outside the protected area can be affected by national-level economic development, especially the benefits of regional policies and systems, and their sense of happiness related to factors like rural infrastructure construction is higher than that of farmers within the protected area. Based on the above analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H4: 

For farmers outside a nature reserve, the impact of the ecological environment on their subjective well-being is higher than for farmers inside a reserve.

This article studies the relationship and influencing mechanisms between the ecological environment and the subjective well-being of farmers. The ecological environment includes two dimensions: the natural ecological environment and the social ecological environment. The natural ecological environment includes the air quality, soil vegetation, and quantity of wild animals and plants; the social ecological environment includes medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities. The subjective well-being of farmers includes their degree of satisfaction with the past, present, and future; their degree of satisfaction with various aspects of life such as work, family, health, economic status, and self; their positive emotions and negative emotions. Environmental cognition includes awareness of environmental protection, awareness of protected areas, and awareness of “carbon neutrality” and “carbon peak”. The research framework is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Research Methods

Based on the theoretical analysis framework, this article constructs a theoretical model in which the subjective well-being of farmers, the ecological environment, and environmental cognition serve as the dependent variable, explanatory variable, and mediating variable, respectively, to analyze the impact mechanisms of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves. This article uses the OLS regression model for empirical analysis, as shown in Equations (1)–(4).

3.2.1. Least Squares Regression Model

To study the relationship between the ecological environment and the subjective well-being of farmers, a model is established as shown in Equation (1):

$$Y_i={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_{1}X+{\alpha }_2{c}_i+{\epsilon }_i$$

(1)

In the equation, $Y_i$ represents the dependent variable, namely the subjective well-being (emotional experience and degree of satisfaction with past, present, and future life as well as various aspects of life), X represents the explanatory variable, namely the ecological environment (natural environment, social environment), α represents the regression coefficient, $c_i$ represents other control variables (gender, age, education level, marital status, self-rated health status, medical insurance, pension insurance, total annual household income, cultivated land area, forest land area), and ${\epsilon }_i$ represents the random perturbation term.

3.2.2. Mediation Effect Model

This article draws on the mediation effect model to test whether the ecological environment affects the happiness of farmers around nature reserves via environmental cognition. To this end, the following regression model is constructed.

$$Y_i={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_{1}X+{\alpha }_2{c}_i+{\epsilon }_i$$

(2)

$$M_i={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}X+{\beta }_2{c}_i+{\epsilon }_i$$

(3)

$$Y_i={\lambda }_0+{\lambda }_{1}X+{{\lambda }_m{M}_i+\lambda }_2{c}_i+{\epsilon }_i$$

(4)

In this model, $M_i$ represents the mediating variable (environmental cognition), ${\alpha }_i$, ${\beta }_i$, and ${\lambda }_i$ are the regression coefficients of the model, and $c_i$ represents other control variables (gender, age, education level, marital status, self-rated health status, medical insurance, pension insurance, total annual household income, cultivated land area, forest land area).

4. Data Sources and Descriptive Statistics

In order to further explore the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves and reveal the mechanisms of that impact, this study referred to existing research to design a scientific survey questionnaire. Through field research, 1002 farmers from 44 villages in six nature reserves in Liaoning province were interviewed to obtain data on farmers’ subjective well-being, their evaluation of the quality of the rural ecological environment around nature reserves, and their cognition of environmental protection, nature reserves, and “dual carbon”. Descriptive statistics methods were conducted on the obtained data (As shown in Figure 2.).

4.1. Data Sources

The data come from a questionnaire survey. With a stratified random sampling method, three national nature reserves (Laotudingzi Nature Reserve, Baishilazi Nature Reserve, Haitangshan Nature Reserve) and three provincial nature reserves (Heshanghatai Nature Reserve, Sankuaishi Nature Reserve, Monkey Stone Nature Reserve) were selected from a total of 47 national and provincial nature reserves in Liaoning province. In addition, 44 villages were randomly selected around the nature reserves, and 20 farmers were randomly selected from each village. In order to ensure the reliability of the information, the researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with the farmers and obtained data by filling out questionnaires on the spot based on the interview content. A total of 1002 questionnaires were distributed to farmers, and after removing invalid questionnaires such as those with data missing and outliers of major variables, 956 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective rate of 95.40%, as shown in

Table 1. Distribution and sample size of six nature reserves in Liaoning province.

Name of Nature Reserve	Position	Village(s)	Sample Size (Units)
Laotudingzi Nature Reserve	Huanren Manchu Autonomous County/Xinbin County, Benxi City	9	184
Baishilazi Nature Reserve	Kuandian County, Dandong City	4	75
Haitangshan Nature Reserve	Fuxin Mongolian Autonomous County, Fuxin City	14	309
Heshanghatai Nature Reserve	Benxi County, Benxi City	4	76
Sankuaishi Nature Reserve	Fushun County, Fushun City	8	194
Monkey Stone Nature Reserve	Fushun County, Fushun City	5	118
Total		44	956

.

4.2. Variable Selection

The dependent variable was subjective well-being. Subjective well-being is individuals’ subjective perceptions of the degree of satisfaction they hold with their current life states and the degree to which various aspects of their current lives align with their expectations. Drawing on Diener’s [3] perspective, subjective well-being is divided into four dimensions, which mainly includes a person’s degree of satisfaction with their past, present, and future life; degree of satisfaction with various aspects of their life such as their work, family, health, economic status, and self; positive emotional experiences such as happiness and joy; and negative emotional experiences such as depression and sadness. The final score of subjective well-being is equal to the standardized score of degree of satisfaction plus the standardized score of positive emotions minus the standardized score of negative emotions.

The explanatory variable is the ecological environment. The ecological environment is generally divided into the urban ecological environment and the rural ecological environment. This article studies the quality of the rural ecological environment. Drawing on Yu’s research, the rural ecological environment is divided into the natural environment and social environment, in which the natural environment includes the air quality, soil vegetation, and wildlife population, and the social environment includes medical facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities [49].

The mediating variable is environmental cognition. Environmental cognition refers to the degree of understanding and recognition of environmental conditions and the knowledge of a person. This article draws on existing research [50,51] to divide environmental cognition into the cognition of environmental protection, cognition of nature reserves, and cognition of “dual carbon”.

Control variables: Referring to existing research, this study sets individual-level control variables including gender, age, education level, marital status, self-rated health status, medical insurance, and pension insurance [52,53,54], as well as household-level control variables such as annual total income, cultivated land area, and forest land area.

4.3. Descriptive Statistics

Among the 956 survey samples, 57.74% of the surveyed farmers were male, 93.50% of the farmers were married, 50.21% of the respondents believed their health to be very good, 9.60% of the farmers had medical insurance, and 19.70% of the farmers had pension insurance. The education level was mainly concentrated at the levels of primary and junior high school, and the average age was around 54 years old. Under the influence of nature reserve policies, farmers around a reserve have limited access to natural resources. Most young and middle-aged farmers choose to work outside their farms to improve their livelihoods, while some older farmers choose to stay and farm to maintain their livelihoods due to their strong attachment to the land. The average annual total income of the sample households is CNY 74,447.82. The average forest area of households is 69.95 mu, significantly higher than that of cultivated land area, which is 12.21 mu. Most land owned by households around the nature reserves is forest land, as shown in

Table 2. Variable definitions and descriptive statistical results (N = 956).

Variable Type			Variable Description	Mean	Standard Deviation
Explained Variable	Subjective well-being	Life Satisfaction	1 = very dissatisfied 2 = dissatisfied 3 = average 4 = satisfied 5 = very satisfied	3.61	0.57
		Positive Emotions	1 = Never 2 = Occasionally 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Always	2.93	1.04
		Negative Emotions	1 = Never 2 = Occasionally 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Always	1.77	0.86
Explanatory Variable	Natural Environment	Air Quality Situation	1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = average 4 = good 5 = very good	4.33	0.75
		Soil and Vegetation Conditions	1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = average 4 = good 5 = very good	3.89	0.98
		Number of Wild Animals	1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = average 4 = good 5 = very good	3.89	1.05
	Social Environment	Medical Service Facilities	1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = average 4 = good 5 = very good	3.54	1.17
		Basic Living Facilities	1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = average 4 = good 5 = very good	3.91	1.04
Control Variable	Individual Level	Environmental Beautification Facilities	1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = average 4 = good 5 = very good	4.02	1.02
		Gender	1 = Male 0 = Female	0.58	0.49
		Age	Actual age of farmers	54.75	10.62
		Educational Level	1 = Never attended school 2 = Primary school 3 = Junior high school 4 = High school/vocational school 5 = Junior College diploma 6 = Undergraduate degree 7 = Graduate degree (including doctoral degree)	2.90	0.78
		Marital Status	1 = Married 2 = Unmarried 3 = Divorced 4 = Widowed	1.15	0.60
		Self-Assessed Health Status	1 = very good 2 = good 3 = average 4 = not good 5 = very bad	1.75	0.90
		Medical Insurance	1 = Yes 0 = No	0.10	0.30
		Endowment Insurance	1 = Yes 0 = No	0.20	0.40
	Household Level	Annual Total Household Income	Annual household income logarithm	10.89	0.88
		Cultivated Area	Family-owned cultivated land area (mu)	12.21	17.13
		Forest Land Area	Area of family-managed forest land (mu)	69.95	222.99
Intermediary Variable	Environmental Cognition		1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = average 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree	3.30	0.67

.

The average value of the life satisfaction of the sampled farmers is 3.61, indicating that the comprehensive satisfaction level of the farmers around the nature reserves is relatively high, and overall, they feel relatively happy. Establishing nature reserves is an important measure to protect natural resources, and plays a positive role in improving air quality, conserving water sources, maintaining soil and water, protecting biodiversity, and maintaining ecosystem balance. According to Table 2, the average values of the air quality, soil vegetation, and wildlife population in the natural environment are 4.33, 3.89, and 3.89, respectively, indicating that the natural environment around the nature reserves is relatively good. The primary task of nature reserves is to protect the ecological environment. Due to the policies of nature reserves, farmers’ access to traditional resources is limited, which to some extent improves the quality of the natural ecological environment. The average values of the medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities in the social environment are 3.54, 3.91 and 4.02, respectively, indicating that the medical service facilities in villages surrounding the nature reserves are generally average and still need further improvement. During the research process, it was found that most nature reserves are located in remote mountainous areas with limited funding and relatively underdeveloped medical facilities and infrastructure. The environmental cognition levels of farmers are generally average and still need further improvement. The weak ecological cognition of the farmers around the nature reserves and the inadequate ecological education mechanism in the villages surrounding the reserves are the key factors leading to a low level of environmental cognition among farmers.

5. Empirical Results and Analysis

Based on the above theoretical analysis and model settings, this article first uses a benchmark regression model to analyze the impact of the ecological environment on farmers’ subjective well-being; then, a mediation effect model is used to analyze the mediating role of environmental cognition between the ecological environment and farmers’ subjective well-being; furthermore, heterogeneity analysis of the impact of the ecological environment on farmers’ subjective well-being inside and outside the studied nature reserves is conducted; finally, robustness tests are conducted to confirm the reliability of the research results. In order to better confirm the rationality of the selected models used in this article, least squares regression is used for multicollinearity diagnosis, and the variance inflation factors (VIFs) are found to be less than 10, indicating that there is no multicollinearity problem in the variable settings of the models used in this article.

5.1. Benchmark Regression Analysis

This article uses Stata 15.0 for empirical analysis, and models (1)–(3) present the analysis results of the impact of the natural environment in the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around the protected areas. Models (4)–(6) present the analysis results of the impact of the social environment in the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around natural reserves. From the empirical results of models (1)–(3), it can be seen that the air quality, soil vegetation, and number of wild animals of the natural environment have a significant positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around the nature reserves at the 1% level. The regression coefficients are 0.25, 0.46, and 0.27, respectively, indicating that a good natural environment is conducive to enhancing the subjective well-being of farmers. For every 1% increase in air quality, the subjective well-being of farmers increases by 25%. For every 1% increase in soil vegetation and wildlife population, the subjective well-being of farmers increases by 46% and 27%, respectively. Here, H1 has been validated. According to the empirical results of models (4)–(6), it can be seen that the medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities of the social environment have a positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around the nature reserves, and are significant at the 1% level, indicating that a good social environment can also improve the subjective well-being of farmers. For every 1% increase in medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities, the subjective well-being of farmers increases by 23%, 30%, and 33% respectively. Here, H2 has been validated. The results are shown in

Table 3. Benchmark regression results.

Variable	Subjective Well-Being
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Air Quality	0.25 ***
	(2.66)
Soil Vegetation		0.46 ***
		(6.99)
The Quantity of Wild Animals and Plants			0.27 ***
			(4.41)
Medical Service Facilities				0.23 ***
				(3.97)
Basic Living Facilities					0.30 ***
					(4.42)
Environmental Beautification Facilities						0.33 ***
						(4.87)
Gender	0.13	0.04	0.09	0.17	0.10	0.15
	(0.92)	(0.26)	(0.65)	(1.24)	(0.75)	(1.07)
Age	0.02 ***	0.02 ***	0.03 ***	0.02 ***	0.02 ***	0.02 ***
	(2.86)	(3.22)	(3.29)	(2.98)	(3.08)	(2.78)
Education Level	0.29 ***	0.29 ***	0.32 ***	0.26 ***	0.26 ***	0.28 ***
	(2.95)	(2.97)	(3.28)	(2.63)	(2.65)	(2.86)
Health Status	−0.43 ***	−0.42 ***	−0.42 ***	−0.43 ***	−0.43 ***	−0.43 ***
	(−5.45)	(−5.49)	(−5.37)	(−5.47)	(−5.54)	(−5.62)
Marital Status	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01
	(0.21)	(0.24)	(0.23)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.11)
Medical Insurance	0.32	0.32	0.31	0.32	0.32	0.37
	(1.39)	(1.46)	(1.36)	(1.40)	(1.42)	(1.63)
Pension Insurance	0.26	0.21	0.25	0.26	0.32 *	0.26
	(1.48)	(1.28)	(1.44)	(1.51)	(1.86)	(1.51)
LN the Total Annual Household Income	0.22 ***	0.24 ***	0.23 ***	0.24 ***	0.21 **	0.23 ***
	(2.58)	(2.88)	(2.65)	(2.78)	(2.77)	(2.69)
Cultivated Land Area	0.01 **	0.01 **	0.01 **	0.01 *	0.01 **	0.01 **
	(2.16)	(1.98)	(2.35)	(1.89)	(2.20)	(2.28)
Forest Land Area	−0.00 **	−0.00 **	−0.00 **	−0.00 **	−0.00 ***	−0.00 ***
	(−2.56)	(−2.48)	(−2.57)	(−2.50)	(−2.74)	(−2.92)
Constant	−4.42 ***	−5.41 ***	−4.68 ***	−4.32 ***	−4.43 ***	−4.72 ***
	(−3.48)	(−4.45)	(−3.81)	(−3.52)	(−3.64)	(−3.91)
Sample Size	956	956	956	956	956	956
R2	0.09	0.13	0.10	0.10	0.11	0.11
F	10.19	16.01	11.46	12.18	11.92	12.91

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. The t-values in parentheses are shown below the regression coefficients.

.

In terms of the control variables, except for those that did not pass the significance test for their impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around the nature reserves, including gender, marital status, medical insurance, and pension insurance, all variables have impacts that are significant to varying degrees. The age, education level, and health status of farmers have significant positive impacts on their subjective well-being, and are all significant at the 1% level, indicating that the older, more educated, and more physically healthy the farmers are, the higher their levels of subjective well-being will be. In addition, the total annual household income and cultivated land area have a significant positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers, while forest land area has a significant negative impact on the subjective well-being of farmers.

5.2. Analysis of Mediating Effects

As shown in

Table 4. Correlation analysis results of subjective well-being, environmental cognition, ecological environment, and various dimensions.

Variable	Subjective Well-Being	Air Quality	Soil Vegetation	The Quantity of Wild Animals and Plants	Medical Service Facilities	Basic Living Facilities	Environmental Beautification Facilities	Environmental Cognition
Subjective Well-Being	1
Air Quality	0.07 **	1
Soil Vegetation	0.21 ***	0.25 ***	1
The Quantity of Wild Animals and Plants	0.11 ***	0.26 ***	0.24 ***	1
Medical Service Facilities	0.13 ***	0.10 ***	0.24 ***	0.08 **	1
Basic Living Facilities	0.15 ***	0.16 ***	0.17 ***	0.11 ***	0.34 ***	1
Environmental Beautification Facilities	0.15 ***	0.19 ***	0.30 ***	0.19 ***	0.31 ***	0.45 ***	1
Environmental Cognition	0.38 ***	0.12 ***	0.12 ***	0.11 ***	0.13 ***	0.26 ***	0.11 ***	1

Note: **, *** indicate significance at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

, there are significant pairwise correlations among the dimensions of natural and social environments in the ecological environment, subjective well-being, and environmental cognition. The natural environment, social environment, and environmental cognition can significantly affect subjective well-being, meeting the conditions of mediating effects. This article uses the mediation effect model to test the mediating effects of environmental cognition on the effects of the natural environment, the social environment, and subjective well-being.

Regression (1) represents the analysis of the mediating effect of environmental cognition between the natural environment and subjective well-being.

Firstly, the impact of the air quality, soil vegetation, and wildlife population in the natural environment on environmental cognition is analyzed. As shown in the regression results in

Table 5. Mediating effect test for mediation of environmental cognition between natural environment and subjective well-being.

Variable	Subjective Well-Being (1)	Environmental Cognition (2)	Subjective Well-Being (3)	Subjective Well-Being (4)	Environmental Cognition (5)	Subjective Well-Being (6)	Subjective Well-Being (7)	Environmental Cognition (8)	Subjective Well-Being (9)
Air Quality	0.25 ***	0.12 ***	0.13 *
	(2.66)	(3.87)	(1.40)
Environmental Cognition			1.06 ***			1.01 ***			1.04 ***
			(10.94)			(10.67)			(10.72)
Soil Vegetation				0.46 ***	0.08 ***	0.38 ***
				(6.99)	(3.20)	(6.03)
The Quantity of Wild Animals and Plants							0.27 ***	0.08 ***	0.19 ***
Control Variable	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	(4.41) controlled	(3.79) controlled	(3.20) controlled
Constant	−4.42 ***	1.98 ***	−6.51 ***	−5.41 ***	2.05 ***	−7.49 ***	−4.68 ***	2.04 ***	−6.80 ***
	(−3.48)	(4.95)	(−5.57)	(−4.45)	(5.11)	(−6.52)	(−3.81)	(5.03)	(−5.99)
Sample Size	956	956	956	956	956	956	956	956	956
R2	0.11	0.09	0.21	0.14	0.08	0.23	0.10	0.08	0.22

Note: * and *** indicate significance at the 10%and 1% levels, respectively. The t-values in parentheses are shown below the regression coefficients.

, it can be seen that the air quality, soil vegetation, and wildlife population all have a significant positive impact on environmental cognition, indicating that a good natural environment helps to improve the environmental cognition level of farmers. Secondly, according to the results of regressions (6) and (9) in Table 5, it can be seen that, after introducing environmental cognition variables through Equation (3), the soil vegetation conditions and wildlife population still have a significant positive impact on farmers’ subjective well-being, and environmental cognition variables have a significant positive impact on farmers’ subjective well-being, which passes the significance test at 1% level. The results of regression (3) indicate that, after adding environmental cognition variables, the air quality has a positive but insignificant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers, while the environmental cognition variables have a significant positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers. The regression results in Table 5 indicate that environmental cognition plays a mediating role in the impact of the natural environment on farmers’ subjective well-being.

Regression (2) represents the analysis of the mediating effect of environmental cognition between the social environment and subjective well-being

Firstly, Equation (2) is used to examine the impact of medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities in the social environment on environmental cognition. According to the results of regressions (2), (5), and (8), shown in

Table 6. The mediating effect test for mediation of environmental cognition between social environment and subjective well-being.

Variable	Subjective Well-Being	Environmental Cognition	Subjective Well-Being	Subjective Well-Being	Environmental Cognition	Subjective Well-Being	Subjective Well-Being	Environmental Cognition	Subjective Well-Being
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Medical Service Facilities	0.23 ***	0.07 ***	0.16 ***
	(3.97)	(3.54)	(2.91)
Environmental Cognition			1.04 ***			1.03 ***			1.03 ***
			(10.87)			(10.27)			(10.77)
Basic Living Facilities				0.30 ***	0.16 ***	0.13 **
				(4.42)	(8.30)	(1.98)
Environmental Beautification Facilities							0.33 ***	0.07 ***	0.25 ***
							(4.87)	(3.31)	(3.83)
Control Variable	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled
Constant	−4.32 ***	2.14 ***	−6.55 ***	−4.43 ***	1.90 ***	−6.38 ***	−4.72 ***	2.09 ***	−6.87 ***
	(−3.52)	(5.46)	(−5.74)	(−3.64)	(5.05)	(−5.61)	(−3.91)	(5.26)	(−6.14)
Sample Size	956	956	956	956	956	956	956	956	956
R2	0.11	0.08	0.21	0.12	0.13	0.21	0.12	0.08	0.22

Note: **, *** indicate significance at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively. The t-values in parentheses are shown below the regression coefficients.

, it can be seen that medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities all have a significant positive impact on environmental cognition, indicating that a good social environment helps to improve the environmental cognition level of farmers. Secondly, according to the results of regressions (3), (6), and (9), shown in Table 6, it can be seen that, after introducing environmental cognition variables through Equation (3), medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities still have a significant positive impact on farmers’ subjective well-being, and so do environmental cognition variables, all of which pass the significance test at 1% level. The regression results in Table 6 indicate that environmental cognition plays a mediating role in the impact of the social environment on farmers’ subjective well-being.

Based on the above analysis of mediating effects, it can be concluded that the studied natural and social environments enhance farmers’ subjective well-being through the improvement of their environmental cognition levels. The reason for this may lie in that the definition of subjective well-being is the overall cognitive and emotional evaluation people make on their quality of life, and farmers’ natural and social environments can affect their subjective well-being through environmental cognition. H3 has been validated.

5.3. Heterogeneity Analysis

The inside and outside of the nature reserve are distinguished according to the outer boundary of the experimental area, and the heterogeneity of the impact of the natural environment and that of the social environment on the subjective well-being of farmers inside and outside the reserve are explored, respectively.

In the studied nature reserves, except for the fact that the number of wild animals does not have a significant impact on farmers’ subjective well-being, all of the variables have a significant positive impact on farmers’ subjective well-being. The reason for this may be that there are serious conflicts between farmers and wild animals in the nature reserves, where wild animals damage crops and endanger the safety of farmers, which cannot bring happiness to the farmers in the nature reserves. Outside the nature reserves, the air quality, soil vegetation, and number of wild animals in the natural environment, as well as medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities in the social environment, all have a significant positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers. The reason for this may be that villages outside the nature reserves are influenced by national-level economic development, and their rural facilities are more complete than those in villages within the reserve. H4 has been validated, as shown in

Table 7. Analysis of the impact of natural and social ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers in and outside the nature reserves.

Variable		Subjective Well-Being
		Within Nature Reserves	Outside Nature Reserves
		(1)	(2)
	air quality	0.27 **	0.25 **
		(2.12)	(2.04)
natural ecological environment	soil vegetation	0.47 ***	0.48 ***
		(4.94)	(5.20)
	the quantity of wild animals and plants	0.14	0.38 ***
		(1.62)	(4.25)
	medical service facilities	0.14 *	0.32 ***
		(1.73)	(3.95)
social ecological environment	basic living facilities	0.21 **	0.38 ***
		(2.32)	(4.20)
	environmental beautification facilities	0.31 ***	0.34 ***
		(3.30)	(3.89)
control variable sample size		controlled 402	controlled 554

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. The t-values in parentheses are shown below the regression coefficients.

.

5.4. Robustness Test

To verify the reliability of the research conclusions, this study conducts robustness tests for three aspects.

(1)

Taking the subjective well-being measured by the single scale as the new dependent variable, as the measurement of subjective well-being can be conducted through a single scale or a multidimensional scale. This article uses the subjective well-being measured by a single scale as the dependent variable for robustness testing. The interviewee was asked “Overall, do you think you are happy?” and was assigned a score of 1–5 according to a Likert scale which represented “very unhappy”, “unhappy”, “average”, “happy”, and “very happy”, respectively; the higher the value is, the happier the interviewee is.

(2)

We changed the assignment of the new explained variable. The subjective well-being of farmers was judged by their own subjective evaluation. Due to the different definitions of “general” in subjective well-being among farmers, they were unable to make a correct choice between “happy/unhappy” and “general”, resulting in a lower or higher level for the subjective well-being of farmers. This article reassigns values to the subjective well-being of farmers to solve this problem. When farmers answered that they have a low level of happiness, we merged “very unhappy” and “unhappy” into unhappy and assigned them a value of 0, and we similarly merged “average”, “happy”, and “very happy” into happy and assigned farmers who answered in this way a value of 1. When farmers answered that they have a high level of happiness, we merged “very unhappy”, “unhappy”, and “average” into unhappy and assigned them a value of 0, and merged “happy” and “very happy” into happy and assigned them a value of 1.

(3)

Next, we transformed the regression model. We took the subjective well-being as a discrete ranking variable and conducted regression on the sample data with an ordered Probit model to test the robustness of the results.

Table 8. Robustness test results (low level of happiness).

Variable	Single Scale Subjective Well-Being (Oprobit)
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
air quality	0.19 *
	(1.90)
soil vegetation		0.18 ***
		(2.81)
the quantity of wild animals and plants			0.12 *
			(1.74)
medical service facilities				0.19 ***
				(3.20)
basic living facilities					0.14 **
					(1.96)
environmental beautification facilities						0.19 ***
						(2.90)
control variable	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled
sample size	956	956	956	956	956	956
R2	0.09	0.10	0.09	0.11	0.09	0.10

Note: *, **, *** indicate significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. The t-values in parentheses are shown below the regression coefficients.

and

Table 9. Robustness test results (high level of happiness).

Variable	Single Scale Subjective Well-Being (Oprobit)
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
air quality	0.15 **
	(2.28)
soil vegetation		0.22 ***
		(4.64)
the quantity of wild animals and plants			0.17 ***
			(3.77)
medical service facilities				0.17 ***
				(4.21)
basic living facilities					0.15 ***
					(3.30)
environmental beautification facilities						0.22 ***
						(4.85)
control variable	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled	controlled
sample size	956	956	956	956	956	956
R2	0.03	0.05	0.04	0.05	0.04	0.05

Note: **and *** indicate significance at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively. The t-values in parentheses are shown below the regression coefficients.

show the regression results of the robustness mentioned above, with Table 8 presenting the results of low = level of happiness and Table 9 presenting the results of high = level of happiness. The results of the test indicate that, when measuring subjective well-being with a single scale and reassigning value to it or transforming the regression model, both the natural and social environments passed the significance test, showing the robustness of the result that the improvement of the ecological environment can improve the subjective well-being of farmers around the studied protected areas.

6. Research Conclusions, Discussions, and Policy Implications

Based on the survey data from 956 farmers in 44 villages in six nature reserves in Liaoning province, this article deeply studies the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around the nature reserves and reveals its mechanisms. Furthermore, it details the policy implications for improving the ecological environment and enhancing the subjective well-being level of farmers.

6.1. Research Conclusions

Using micro survey data, this article takes 956 farmers in six nature reserves in Liaoning province as empirical research objects to explores the influential effect of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves and its acting mechanism, analyzes the heterogeneity of the influential effects of the ecological environment on different groups of farmers inside and outside the studied nature reserves, and draws the following three research conclusions:

(1)

Both the natural and social environments in the ecological environment have a significant positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves. For every 1% increase in air quality, soil vegetation, wildlife population, medical service facilities, basic living facilities and environmental beautification facilities, the subjective well-being of farmers increases by 25%, 46%, 27%, 23%, 30%, and 33%, respectively (As shown in Figure 3.).

(2)

Subjective well-being is the overall emotional and cognitive evaluation people make of their quality of life. Environmental cognition plays a mediating role between both the natural/social environment and farmers’ subjective well-being.

(3)

There are differences in the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers inside and outside nature reserves. The air quality and soil vegetation in the natural environment have positive impacts on both farmers within and outside nature reserves, which are significant at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively. However, the number of wild animals only has a significant positive impact on farmers outside nature reserves, and has no significant impact on the subjective well-being of farmers within nature reserves. Medical service facilities, basic living facilities, and environmental beautification facilities in the social environment have a significant positive impact on both farmers within and outside nature reserves. The impact of both the natural and social environments in the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers outside nature reserves is higher than that on farmers inside reserves.

6.2. Discussion

A good ecological environment is the most universal indicator of welfare for people’s well-being. Revealing the impact of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves and its mechanisms of impact can help improve the quality of rural ecological environments, enhance farmers’ subjective well-being, and provide reference for the promotion of ecological civilization construction. This study explores the impact mechanisms of the ecological environment on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves and conducts heterogeneity analysis, enriching the research field related to subjective well-being.

The various indicators of the natural and social environments in the ecological environment all have a significant positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves, indicating that the improvement of the ecological environment is conducive to the enhancement of the subjective well-being of farmers, which is consistent with the research of Zhang et al. [26] and Pan [34], which found that the ecological environment can significantly improve the level of happiness of farmers. However, our conclusion about the indicator of the wildlife population in the natural environment is inconsistent with the research results of Ma and Wen [33], which may be due to the fact that an increase in the number of wild animals can exacerbate conflicts caused by wildlife-caused accidents. However, wildlife-caused accidents are also related to the month, with severe accidents occurring during months of crop maturity or food shortage. Wild animals such as wild boars cause serious accidents during the time from February to April and from October to December, and the conflicts in the sparsely populated core areas of protected areas are more intense than those in buffer zones and experimental areas with larger populations. The research team conducted the survey in July, when wild boars and other wild animals caused a relatively small amount of accidents, and the increase in the number of wild animals did not have a negative impact on the subjective well-being of farmers. For farmers closer to the core area of the protected area, the increase in the number of wild animals had a positive but insignificant impact on their subjective well-being.

The age, education level, and health status of farmers have a significant positive impact on subjective well-being, which is consistent with the research of Sun et al. [55] and Markussen et al. [56]. The total annual household income and cultivated land area have a significant positive impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves, while forest land area has a significant negative impact on the subjective well-being of farmers around nature reserves. The reason for this may be that, the larger the cultivated land area is, the more resources and income farmers can obtain, thereby enhancing their subjective well-being. The forest land owned by farmers in the research area is relatively scattered, making it difficult to operate in a centralized manner, and there are many ecological public-welfare forests, making it difficult for farmers to manage their forest land. Therefore, the larger the forest land area is, the lower the level of subjective well-being farmers have. This is consistent with the study of Park and Deller [57].

There are some shortcomings in this article: firstly, in terms of research conclusions, due to the influence of nature reserve policies, the ecological environment of rural areas around nature reserves is better than that of ordinary rural areas, and the impacts of the ecological environment on farmers’ subjective well-being may differ. The universality of our research conclusions has certain limitations. Secondly, there may be a certain degree of reverse causality between the ecological environment and the subjective well-being of farmers, and the endogenous issue has not been effectively addressed. Thirdly, the research area of this article is six nature reserves in Liaoning province, and the universality of the sample needs to be improved. Further research will be conducted around the above-mentioned issues in the future.

6.3. Policy Implications

Based on the empirical research conclusions in this study, in order to further improve the ecological environment and enhance the subjective well-being level of farmers around nature reserves, this article proposes the following three policy implications:

(1)

Increase investment in nature reserves and improve the ecological environment quality of rural areas surrounding reserves. Insufficient funding is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed in the development of nature reserves, which is quite common worldwide. In the context of global environmental governance, it is necessary to further expand funding channels and seek more financial support from international organizations, public welfare funds, etc. to invest in ecological protection work. The subjective well-being of farmers will be improved by improving the quality of their ecological environment.

(2)

Strengthen the promotion of ecological environment protection and improve the environmental cognition of farmers around nature reserves. In the context of global ecological environment governance, the government should scientifically formulate environmental protection policies, encourage farmers to adopt measures such as returning straw to the field and applying organic fertilizers to reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions, encourage farmers to use renewable energy to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions, and promote the process of carbon neutrality and carbon peak in rural areas around nature reserves, so as to further improve farmers’ subjective well-being.

(3)

Clarify the compensation subject and establish a sound compensation mechanism for wildlife-caused accidents. Establishing nature reserves is the most effective measure to protect biodiversity, and protecting wildlife is also an effective way to maintain ecological balance. With the continuous improvement of the global ecological environment, the number of wild animals continues to increase, and the conflict between farmers and wild animals is becoming increasingly severe. Farmers in nature reserves suffer much more personal and property loss than those outside the reserves. The government should clarify the compensation subject and effectively achieve compensation for households, so as to reduce the loss of farmers around the protected areas and enhance their subjective well-being.