Ecosystem services support the survival and development of human beings at different spatial scales, and, in turn, human activities have an impact on ecosystem services. The administrative villages of rural China, which act as the basic socio-economic units and are typical compound social-economic-natural ecosystems, are facing the challenges of urbanization and rapid development. Ecosystem services at the village scale might be critically affected by the various economic development models that change and further influence human welfare. Exploring the impacts of different economic development models on the conservation and use of ecosystem service values (ESV) at the village scale should support decision making when attempting to raise ecosystem services and human welfare. Interactions between development models and ecosystem services have frequently been highlighted at the global and regional scales, but the ways that development models drive ecosystem services, and therefore, human welfare, at such a small scale have been under-reported and are poorly understood. To reveal the impacts of development models on ecosystem services at the village scale, this study considered (1) whether development models can increase or decrease the ESV at the village scale and (2) how development models drive the ESV at the village scale. Three adjacent villages in the Middle Shandong area of China, which had similar natural surroundings but different development models, were considered for this case study. We used the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) and other proven evaluation methods to assess the values of 15 classes of ecosystem service functions and/or products belonging to nine categories that were present in rural ecosystems. We also analyzed the impacts of different economic development models on the conservation and application of ESV by combining industrial structure and land use patterns in the three villages. The results showed that Fanggan Village, dominated by ecotourism, had the largest ESV at RMB 10382.1×10⁴yuan/a; Fujiazhuang, where livestock were a feature, had the second largest ESV at 1203.1×10⁴yuan/a; and Anziwan, characterized by crop production, had the lowest ESV at 1191.9×10⁴yuan/a. There was a similar unit area pattern for ESV among the three villages: Fanggan, Fujiazhuang, and Anziwan, with 8.8×10⁴yuan, 5.9×10⁴yuan, and 3.7×10⁴yuan of ESV per year per hectare, respectively. We concluded that the economic development models affected conservation and application of ESV at the village scale. This was mediated by the change in land use and marketization of ESV, which subsequently influenced average economic income and the ecological welfare provided by the ecosystem services. Thus, optimizing patterns of land use to develop low-impact industries, such as ecotourism, can stimulate conservation and increase ESV and economic income in rural areas, and so sustain the rural environment and socio-economy. In addition, turning more ESV into markets by developing sustainable industries helps balance ESV with local development. We also highlighted the importance of increasing understanding of the interactions between development models, land use, and ESV at the village scale. We noted that some technical problems, including scale transition, indicator framing, and modifications of valuation methods, should be addressed in the future. Our research has provided solid evidence and practical methods that demonstrate the potential impacts of development models on ESV at a village scale, and will help decision makers to avoid decreasing ESV during rapid urbanization and development.