There is a gap in understanding the relationships between the transformation of agricultural landscapes, ecosystem services and human well-being in the peri-urban fringe of major cities worldwide. In this paper, we use semi-structured interviews, perception surveys, social surveys and field mapping to examine linkages between agricultural and landscape transition, ecosystem services and human well-being in five sample villages in Xi’an metropolitan zone, China. The results indicate that: (1) Agricultural change has increased landscape fragmentation, with a shift from grain to more profitable horticulture and nursery production. The farming system is more diversified and exhibits a multifunctional character. (2) This transformation has had a significant impact on the character of the agroecosystem. (3) The agricultural transformation towards greater multifunctionality has increased the supply of ecosystem services, including tourism-related activities, potentially improving human well-being. (4) Different combinations of activities in the sample villages were evaluated with respect to a well-being index, indicating the importance of combining horticulture and tourism. (5) Linkages identified between agricultural transformation, ecosystem services and human well-being may have significant implications for potential approaches within future studies.

Agricultural transition and specialization in PUAs have reshaped the ecological landscape, economic structure, and rural cultural values worldwide. There is a gap in how to analyze the linkages of ecosystem services (ES) and human well-being (HWB) and how to clearly identify the differences on the dimension (primary concerns) of HWB from a comprehensive perspective. Thus, we selected three typical agricultural transformation modes in the Xi’an metropolitan zone in China, employing social surveys, field mapping, ecosystem service assessment methods, and qualitative analysis methods, and proposed an analytical framework from a comprehensive perspective of “ecological-social-cultural” contexts to examine the changes and mechanism between ES and HWB. The results indicated the following: (1) Agricultural transition has driven the changes not only in ecological landscape, agricultural structure planting and practice modes, and rural economic structure, but also the shift in rural social relationships and cultural values together restructured rural society during agricultural specialization. (2) Due to triggering by the agricultural transition and specialization, great changes occurred in “ecological-social-cultural” contexts in PUAs, the changes of HWB not only reflected in its degree (level), but more importantly, in its dimension (primary concerns). (3) With agricultural transition and specialization, the total value of ES increased, while the HWB rose in three transition modes. (4) The analytical frameworks proposed in the study are suitable to analyze the mechanisms of ES and HWB, and helpful to address the issues on the relation of ES to HWB inevitably being combined with the nature–land system. The approach proposed in the study on distinguishing the differences among the dimensions of well-being based on grounded theory could clearly identify the differences among different “ecological- social-cultural” contexts.