Toward Cultural Heritage Sustainability through Participatory Planning Based on Investigation of the Value Perceptions and Preservation Attitudes: Qing Mu Chuan, China

Abstract

Conservation efforts and cooperation from major stakeholders are critical factors for cultural heritage (e.g., historical landmarks) sustainability. Although landscape planners provide professional knowledge and intended designs for sustainable management of cultural heritage sites, the active effort and participation of local residents or communities are the decisive facts of whether relevant preservation actions can be successfully implemented. Traditional village landscapes in Qing Mu Chuan, China, were selected as the study area. We used photo questionnaires to explore the preferences, value perceptions, and preservation attitudes toward traditional village landscapes of landscape professionals and local residents. The results revealed large differences in the perceptions and preservation attitudes toward traditional village landscapes between the two groups. The most unexpected finding was that the local residents showed much stronger preferences and preservation willingness toward traditional village landscapes with cultural elements than the professionals. In addition, the local residents’ preservation attitudes were mainly affected by their perception of economic benefits and daily utility values, rather than cultural values. Meanwhile, the preservation of professionals’ attitudes was significantly related to recreational and cultural value perceptions. These findings will direct the participatory planning process to provide appropriate incentives for developing the preservation attitudes of local residents. They will also support the implementation of participatory planning to promote the positive collaboration of local residents and landscape planners toward cultural heritage sustainability.

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainable development has been widely accepted since it was first mentioned in 1987. It links the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of development for the sake of present and future generations [1]. In recent years, many debates have occurred over the role of culture heritage in sustainable development [2]. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development mentioned that cities should become “inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” through “inclusive and sustainable urbanization, planning, and management” (Target 11.3) and greater “efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” [3]. The New Urban Agenda again highlighted the role of cultural heritage in developing vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive urban economies [4]. Furthermore, culture could be the fourth but central pillar of sustainable development [5].

Public participation is an important approach for achieving the sustainability of cultural heritage. The Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas clearly stated that the participation and involvement of residents are essential for the success of heritage conservation [6]. The Burra Charter noted heritage conservation cannot be sustained without community participation [7]. Participatory conservation planning allows decision-makers to understand the public’s perceptions and to improve the quality of planning [8]. It can resolve conflicts in cultural heritage management and can help to define the meaning of heritage, in which the community’s and experts’ values are usually different [9]. The relationship between planners and residents can be complex, since both may have different fulfilments, backgrounds, and opinions about sustainable conservation practices [10]. Through considering the needs of the public as the premise of sustainable development, as well as combining the professional knowledge of planners, participatory conservation planning has been proposed as an inclusive tool to coordinate different interests and to reach an agreement. On this basis, participatory planning should first investigate local residents’ perceptions and attitudes toward conservation. Among the various methods to understand the public’s views toward different landscape features in participatory planning, landscape perceptions and preference theory are widely used. Since the 1970s, evolutionary-based theories (e.g., prospect and refuge, savannah hypothesis, biophilia, and preference matrix) have attempted to explain the characteristics that affect people’s diverse landscape preferences pertaining to survival [11,12,13,14]. Several studies have discussed the role of the personal, social, and cultural factors involved in the perceptual process [15,16,17], and among these factors, expertise is significant for landscape perceptions [18,19]. Besides visual esthetics, the functional value is an important dimension of landscape perceptions. An individual’s perceptions of a particular landscape dictates its use [20] and is related to their attitudes toward landscapes [21]. Zube noted, “The farmer, the hunter, and the schoolboy all can agree on its beauty, but each also values it for a different purpose, each has a different need or desire to use it” [22]. Traditional rural landscapes generally provide multiple values, namely, recreational, esthetic, cultural, economic, and spiritual values [23,24,25], but people who live with specific landscapes have differing values based on their perceptions. For example, some persons conserve human utilitarian reasons, while others emphasize ecocentric values. For making a participatory conservation plan, first, investigation of the differences in value perceptions of and the preservation attitudes toward cultural heritage landscapes between the public and experts is required [26].

China contains a rich assortment of traditional villages with historical buildings, milestones, and cultural heritages. Traditional villages are the result of the layering and overlaying of humanity’s interventions in the past [27], recording the historical memories of the generations that inhabit an area and reflecting the culture in the way the space is shaped. Since 2012, the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development, the Ministry of Culture, and the Ministry of Finance have identified 6799 state-level traditional villages. However, during the last three decades, urbanization, environmental degradation, and immediate benefits related to economic growth have threated traditional village landscapes [28]. To revitalize and preserve traditional village landscapes, the Chinese government, along with local municipalities, have implemented a series of policies and traditional village conservation plans. However, the real story has been poor plan-making organization and low public participation, with conservation plans still being dominated by official decision-makers (top-level) [29]. Determining the manner in which to make and implement participatory planning for culture heritage preservation has just started and is lacking a spread of experiences and cases. Local residents’ value perceptions and interests have not been fully represented, directly leading to a weak preservation effect through plan implementation. To improve this situation, this paper proposes participatory conservation planning as a framework to efficiently preserve cultural heritage landscapes based on investigation of the value perceptions and the preservation of the willingness of local residents, taking Qing Mu Chuan as a case study. The specific objectives were to investigate:

(1) How local residents and landscape professionals differ in their preferences, value perceptions, and preservation attitudes toward traditional village landscapes in rural China.

(2) How local residents’ landscape value perceptions affect their preservation attitudes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area was the traditional village of Qing Mu Chuan, located in the Shaanxi province of China (Figure 1), an area encompassing 9.5 km² with a population of 1,031. As a national historical landmark, Qing Mu Chuan dates from the Ming and Qing Dynasties. It is surrounded by mountains and separated by the Jin Xi River. Hui Longchang Old Avenue, in the southern part of the village, is a district with many historic architectural features such as Tobacco House, Guan Di Temple, and Land Boat House-Rong Shengkui. It measures more than 800 m in length with an area of more than 40,000 m². Since the earthquake related to Wen Chuan (Sichuan, China) in 2008, the local government has published two documents: “Decision on Further Strengthening the Protection of The Ancient Buildings in Qing Mu Chuan” and “Qing Mu Chuan-Famous Historical and Cultural Town Construction Plan (2012)” to protect its cultural heritage, with few considerations of local residents’ opinions and participation. During the past ten years or so, the absence of residents in the planning process has led to the low satisfaction and inefficiency of cultural heritage conservation. A number of tourist accommodations and recreational facilities were built on New Riverside Avenue in the northern area. Cultural tourism development has increased the local residents’ income, but has also brought environmental degradation, incongruous modern buildings, and the loss of local identity. Nowadays, the local government is considering revising the previous conservation plan and promoting public participation to achieve cultural heritage sustainability.

2.2. Survey Instrument

A survey was developed to measure the local residents’ and professionals’ value perceptions and preservation attitudes toward traditional village landscapes. The study consisted of traditional landscape elements selection, photo elicitation, and semi-structured questionnaire. First, 50 residents were selected to list some landscape elements that could represent the characteristics of Qing Mu Chuan. These representatives of residents were selected by the following principles: (a) Elder residents who have lived Qing Mu Chuan more than 30 years; (b) civil servants from Qing Mu Chuan township government, village committee and tourism development department; (c) local residents who engaged in the protection of cultural heritages. Only the elements of historic buildings, river, stone roads, farmland, forests, and riverside avenues were included. Then, we shot a photo bank of Qing Mu Chuan at eye-level in May 2020 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on clear days, to control the lighting and seasonality bias. These photographs of Qing Mu Chuan landscapes were categorized into three categories: natural, agricultural, and cultural [26]. Next, we held a consultation meeting with ten local residents, five landscape experts, and four government officials who selected photographs from the photo bank that best represented Qing Mu Chuan’s traditional village landscapes. The photo selection was based on two criteria: (a) Typical reflections of Qing Mu Chuan, and (b) clear and easy recognition of main elements. The scenes that were selected for future analysis were: Three natural (forest around mountain, Jin Xi River, and forest with narrow road), four cultural (land boat house—Rong Shengkui, New Riverside Avenue, Hui Longchang Old Avenue, and Stone road to Fu Ren high school), and two agricultural (corn land and vegetable land) (Appendix A). Second, the resident and professional respondents were required to rate their preferences, value perceptions, and preservation willingness toward nine different landscape scenes. Finally, some questions required the resident and professional respondents to provide their opinions on traditional preservation issues, including key elements of conservation planning, tourism expansion, ecological management, and willingness to participate in preservation practices. Pilot testing of the survey instrument was conducted prior to the main survey and these photos were not re-used.

2.3. Data Collection

A survey of 110 local residents in Qing Mu Chuan was conducted from 20 to 29 May 2020. They were randomly selected based on house number and recommended by village committee. The first question was: “Are you a native of the traditional village of Qing Mu Chuan?” If the respondents answered “No,” then the interview ended. These respondents were then excluded from the study. If the answer was “Yes,” the respondents were invited to continue with the survey. During the first part, the local respondents were asked to watch a PowerPoint slideshow and rate their preferences and preservation willingness towards each landscape scene using 5-Likert scale. In order to ascertain the four value perceptions, the respondents rated the extent to which they agreed to the following statements: (i) “This landscape is essential to daily life”; (ii) “The landscape can create economic income in the future”; (iii) “The landscape has a recreational function, where I am relaxed”; (iv) “The landscape is a part of the traditional village heritage and has cultural significance.” 5-point scale was also used to rate the value perceptions, where 1 means “Not very highly” and 5 means “Very highly.” An iPad played each slide for approximately 60 s so that the local respondents could complete the questions (in Chinese) about their value perceptions and preservation attitudes toward different landscape scenes. They were then required to complete the second part of the survey.

About 80 landscape professionals were selected from landscape architecture postgraduates, faculty members of landscape architecture, planning, and landscape ecology, and designers at the Northwest A&F University, China. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the questionnaires were distributed online to the professionals via Tencent Meeting Software (Shenzhen Tencent Lit, China), which took almost 30 min. They were also asked to rate the selected images with respect to their preferences, value perceptions, and preservation attitudes using a 5-point scale. The viewing times and sequences of the two groups were the same to reduce random errors.

2.4. Data Processing

An ANOVA with a post-hoc test was used to analyze the respondents’ preferences, value perceptions, and preservation willingness toward different traditional village landscapes. Next, an independent sample t-test was used to show the differences between the local residents and the landscape professionals. Finally, multivariate regression analysis with the stepwise method was conducted to examine the relationships between the landscape value perceptions and the preservation attitudes. All statistical analyses were conducted using the statistical software package SPSS 17 (IBM, NY, USA).

3. Results

The local respondents returned 91 questionnaires, representing an 83% response rate, while 60 valid questionnaires were obtained from the professionals, representing a 75% response rate.

3.1. The Preferences, Value Perceptions, and Preservation Willingness of the Respondents toward the Landscapes of the Traditional Village of Qing Mu Chuan

The local resident respondents rated all of the traditional village landscapes quite highly, as all the mean scores were at the upper end of the 5-point scale (see

Table 1. Arithmetic mean scores and results of the ANOVA with post-hoc testing concerning the preferences and preservation attitudes toward the landscapes of the traditional village of Qing Mu Chuan.

Landscape Scenes	Local Residents				Landscape Professionals
	Preferences		Preservation Willingness		Preferences		Preservation Willingness
	Mean	Mean Difference 1	Mean	Mean Difference 1	Mean	Mean Difference 1	Mean	Mean Difference 1
Cultural scenes	4.02		4.16		3.43		3.70
Land boat house—Rong Shengkui	4.15	0.08	4.57	Reference	3.27	0.58 **	3.65	0.52 **
Stone road to Fu Ren high school	4.03	0.20	4.29	0.29 *	3.28	0.57 **	3.65	0.52 **
Hui Longchang Old Avenue	3.99	0.24 **	3.89	0.68 **	3.64	0.73 **	3.92	0.25
New riverside Avenue	3.89	0.34	3.89	0.68 **	3.52	0.33 *	3.57	0.60 **
Natural scenes	3.82		4.05		3.46		3.74
Jin Xi River	4.23	Reference	4.25	0.32 *	3.85	Reference	4.17	Reference
Forest with narrow road	3.75	0.48 **	4.10	0.76 **	3.35	0.50 **	3.63	0.53 **
Forest around mountain	3.49	0.74 **	3.81	0.47 **	3.17	0.68 **	3.42	0.75 **
Agricultural scenes	3.51		3.69		3.15		3.60
Corn land	3.53	0.70 **	3.70	0.87 **	3.15	0.70 **	3.60	0.57 **
Vegetable land	3.48	0.75 **	3.68	0.89 **	3.14	0.71 **	3.59	0.58 **

¹ The difference in the mean values between land boat house—Rong Shengkui and the other landscape elements. * The significance of the mean difference is at the 0.05 level. ** The significance of the mean difference is at the 0.01 level.

). The mean ratings ranged from a minimum of 3.49 to a maximum of 4.23. In order to clarify the preferences for the nine traditional village landscape scenes and to test the statistical significance of the mean differences among these landscape scenes, Jin Xi River was used as the reference group for comparison with the other scenes, since its mean preference values were the highest among the local resident respondents. The results showed that the local resident respondents were significantly different in their preferences for agricultural scenes, Hui Longchang Old Avenue, and forest scenes. Most preferred the Jin Xi River landscape scene, followed by land boat house—Rong Shengkui and stone road to Fu Ren high school. Generally, the local residents found that traditional village landscapes with historical or cultural elements (mean 4.02) were more attractive than natural landscapes (mean 3.82). The least attractive scenes were vegetable land followed by forest around mountain. The results also revealed that the residents strongly supported traditional village landscape conservation. The preservation of the land boat house—Rong Shengkui scene received priority, followed by the stone road to Fu Ren high school, Jin Xi River, and Hui Longchang Old Avenue scenes. As the reference group, the resident respondents’ preservation willingness of land boat house—Rong Shengkui differed significantly from that of the other landscapes. Among the three landscape types, the local residents showed strong protection attitudes toward cultural landscapes (mean 4.16) compared to natural (mean 4.05) and agricultural (mean 3.69) landscapes.

The professional respondents scored Jin Xi River as the most attractive landscape, followed by Hui Longchang Old Avenue and New Riverside Avenue. The landscapes with forest and farmland elements were rated as the least attractive. In addition, the planner respondents scored Jin Xi River as the most important landscape to preserve, followed by Hui Longchang Old Avenue. The willingness to protect agricultural landscapes was the weakest. Overall, the professional respondents showed stronger preferences and protection willingness toward natural landscapes than cultural and agricultural landscape scenes (see Table 1).

Land boat house—Rong Shengkui was considered to have the highest cultural and economic values by local residents, and was taken as the reference group to compare with the other landscape scenes (

Table 2. Arithmetic mean scores and results of the ANOVA with post-hoc testing concerning the value perceptions of the traditiona l landscapes in Qing Mu Chuan.

Landscape	Local Residents								Landscape Professionals
	Cultural Value		Economic Value		Recreational Value		Daily Utility Value		Cultural Value		Economic Value		Recreational Value		Daily Utility Value
	Mean Score	Mean Difference 1	Mean Score	Mean Difference 1	Mean Score	Mean Difference 1	Mean Score	Mean Difference 1	Mean Score	Mean Difference 1	Mean Score	Mean Difference 1	Mean Score	Mean Difference 1	Mean Score	Mean Difference 1
Cultural scenes	4.01		4.1		3.74		3.85		3.8		3.75		3.35		3.63
Land boat house-Rong Shengkui	4.48	Reference	4.32	Reference	3.82	0.20	3.99	0.14	3.93	0.02	3.93	Reference	3.05	0.88**	2.68	1.48 **
Hui Longchang Old Avenue	4.10	0.38 **	4.08	0.24	3.73	0.30*	4.00	0.13	3.95	Reference	3.85	0.09	3.69	0.24	3.98	0.18
New Riverside Avenue	3.53	0.96 **	3.97	0.35 **	3.60	0.42 **	3.60	0.53 **	3.67	0.28	3.77	0.17	3.38	0.55 **	4.17	Reference
Stone road to Fu Ren high school	3.93	0.55	3.62	0.70 **	3.80	0.22	3.79	0.34 *	3.65	0.30 *	3.43	0.50 **	3.27	0.67 **	3.68	0.48 **
Natural scenes	3.22		3.62		3.69		3.85		2.85		2.89		3.73		3.09
Jin Xi River	3.69	0.79 **	4.03	0.29 *	4.02	Reference	4.13	Reference	3.57	0.38 *	3.48	0.45 **	3.93	Reference	4.03	0.13
Forest around mountain	2.91	1.57 **	3.79	0.35 **	3.26	0.47 **	3.97	0.16	2.35	1.60 **	2.58	1.35 **	3.53	0.4 **	1.95	2.22 **
Forest with narrow road	3.07	1.42 **	3.03	1.29 **	3.78	0.76 **	3.45	0.68 **	2.62	1.33 **	2.60	1.33 **	3.73	0.2	3.28	0.88 **
Agricultural scenes	3.02		3.05		3.56		3.66		2.69		3.26		3.73		2.17
Corn land	3.02	1.46 **	3.04	1.27 **	3.55	0.24 *	3.36	0.77 **	2.70	1.25 **	3.25	0.68 **	3.72	0.22	2.15	2.01 **
Vegetable land	3.01	1.47 **	3.06	1.24 **	3.57	0.22 *	3.36	0.77 **	2.67	1.28 **	3.24	0.67 **	3.73	0.2	2.19	1.98 **

¹ The difference in the mean values between land boat house—Rong Shengkui and the other landscape elements. * The significance of the mean difference is at the 0.05 level. ** The significance of the mean difference is at the 0.01 level.

). The results showed that resident respondents’ economic value perceptions of land boat house—Rong Shengkui was significantly different from the other traditional village landscapes, except for Hui Longchang Old Avenue. Forest with narrow road had the lowest economic value, followed by the agricultural landscapes. As regards the recreational function, Jin Xi River was rated in first place, while the forest around mountain scene ranked in last place. Meanwhile, residents rated Jin Xi River as the most essential scene in daily life, while the agricultural landscapes were the least essential. Generally, the results indicated that the residents’ perceptions of the economic and cultural values of traditional village landscapes with cultural features were significantly higher than that of the natural and agricultural landscapes. The local residents perceived the agricultural landscapes as having considerably lower economic, cultural, recreational, and daily utility than the natural and cultural landscapes.

The professional respondents perceived Hui Longchang Old Avenue to have the highest cultural value, while forest around mountain had the lowest cultural value. The reference group, land boat house—Rong Shengkui, had obvious economic value perceptions and was significantly different from the natural and agricultural landscapes. The professional respondents were easily able to perceive the recreational and daily utility values of Jin Xi River, but these value perceptions of land boat house—Rong Shengkui were quite weak. As regards the daily utility value, New Riverside Avenue scored first place, followed by Jin Xi River and Hui Longchang Old Avenue. The professional respondents thought forest around mountain was the least important landscape in the residents’ daily lives, followed by agricultural landscapes. The results indicated that professional respondents could positively perceive all four values of the cultural landscapes (Table 2). They perceived the recreational and daily utility values of the natural landscapes to be much higher than the other two values.

3.2. Differences in the Landscape Preferences, Value Perceptions, and Preservation Attitudes toward the Landscapes of the Traditional Village of Qing Mu Chuan between the Local Residents and Landscape Professionals

The local resident respondents’ landscape value perceptions and preservation willingness were stronger and more discrete than those of the professionals. For example, the residents’ landscape preservation willingness score was 3.68–4.57 and the range was 0.89. The professional respondents’ score was 3.42–4.17 and the range was 0.75. The independent sample t-test revealed significant differences in the traditional village landscape preferences, value perceptions, and preservation attitudes between the professionals and residents, except for the recreational value perceptions of the natural landscapes and the preservation willingness and economic and recreational value perceptions of the agricultural landscapes (

Table 3. Results from independent sample t-test regarding the preferences, value perceptions, and preservation willingness of the landscape professional and local resident respondents toward the landscapes of the traditional village of Qing Mu Chuan.

Landscape	Preference	Preservation Willingness	Cultural Value	Economic Value	Recreational Value	Daily Utility Value
Cultural landscape	8.18 **	7.68 **	7.73 **	12.96 **	3.71 **	3.23 *
Natural landscape	4.06 **	3.06 **	3.02 **	7.26 **	1.18	8.24 **
Agricultural landscape	2.37 *	0.76	2.01 *	–1.29	–1.17	9.15 **

* The significance of the mean difference is at the 0.05 level. ** The significance of the mean difference is at the 0.01 level.

).

The residents and professionals scored a written list of three things they were concerned about regarding traditional village landscape conservation. Most local respondents (84.62%) chose “expand tourism development” and a little more than half (53.85%) chose “historic building conservation.” Approximately 34% of the local respondents only chose “improving living facilities.” The most important concerns of the landscape professionals were “historic building conservation” (73.33%), “preserve the natural landscape character” (68.33%), and “improving living facilities” (43.33%). Farmland consolidation was the least important concern for both groups. When queried on attitude toward tourism development in Qing Mu Chuan, only 2.7% of the residents and 16.95% of the professional respondents were not supportive. Furthermore, to investigate the reasons for supporting tourism expansion, nearly half of the residents (54.9%) chose the motivator “increase economic income.” Meanwhile, approximately 45.45% of the professional respondents noted the main reason of tourism development would be an effective way to protect local culture heritages. Almost all of the respondents supported the ecological management of Jin Xi River. The residents believed that ecological management of Jin Xi River could improve tourist attractions, while professionals focused more on enriching the village’s recreational activities. When queried on the attitude of participation in landscape preservation, 83.5% of the residents expressed willingness. However, most were willing to participate primarily as advisors, followed by labor providers. Only 3.9% were willing to provide financial support.

3.3. Correlations between the Value Perceptions and Preservation Attitudes

The results showed that the respondents’ preservation willingness was significantly related to certain value dimensions (

Table 4. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis for analyzing the correlations between landscape value perceptions and preservation attitudes.

Group	Coef.				F
	Cultural Value	Economic Value	Recreational Value	Daily Utility
Residents		0.29 **	0.37 **	0.31 **	132.97 **
Professionals	0.27 **		0.60 **		80.11 **

** The significance of the mean difference is at the 0.01 level.

). For instance, the professional respondents’ cultural and recreational value perceptions had significant effects on their willingness to conserve traditional village landscapes (p < 0.01). The local residents’ preservation willingness was significantly related to their economic, recreational, and daily utility value perceptions of traditional village landscapes, except for their cultural value perceptions.

4. Discussion

4.1. Differences in the Traditional Village Landscape Preferences, Value Perceptions, and Preservation Attitudes between Local Residents and Landscape Professionals in Rural China

The results showed significant differences in the traditional village landscape preferences and value perceptions among local residents and landscape professionals. These kind of differences also existed in green infrastructure and rural landscapes [17,19]. Both groups rated Jin Xi River as their favorite landscape. This finding was supported by studies such as that of Arriaza et al. [30] and Howley [31]. Evolutionary-based theories highlight the preference for the survival of natural landscapes (e.g., open areas, small lawns, and watercourses). Unexpectedly, the local residents preferred landscapes with cultural elements (e.g., land boat house—Rong Shengkui and Hui Longchang Old Avenue) to natural landscapes and prioritized the preservation of cultural landscapes. This differed from the research of Walker and Ryan, where natural and agricultural landscape conservation received the highest score, followed by the preservation of historic landscapes [32]. When compared to the local residents, the professionals scored much higher for natural landscapes and showed stronger preservation willingness.

This inclination toward cultural landscape scenes may be attributed to the residents’ attachment to their hometown and their income derived from cultural tourism. Place attachment can be described as the cognitive–emotional bond between individuals and a particular place or environment [33], which was positively related to preferences and conservation attitudes in this study. Notably, Alawadi argued that community attachments are important motivators to involve the community in preservation of historic landscapes, since individuals’ feelings toward and bonds with social settings are important drivers [34]. When compared to the landscape professionals, perceived as outsiders, the local residents had stronger attachment to the cultural features of the village in which they live. Similarly, the residents appreciated Qing Mu Chuan’s splendid cultural landscapes, and historical buildings probably constituted the most important element of landscape identity [27]. In his research in Sunderland, Ryan observed that residents differed from planners as they rated cultural elements as more important features of rural landscapes and placed a higher value on cultural elements, such as stone walls and old cemeteries [35]. In addition, the local residents prioritized cultural landscape preservation because their income could potentially increase with cultural tourism development. In fact, tourism has gradually supplanted agriculture as the main economy source since 2008.

The local residents perceived the economic value of the cultural landscape scenes to be much higher than their cultural value, which was contrary to the professionals’ perceptions. Both groups could easily perceive the recreational value of the natural and agricultural landscapes. They thought most of the agricultural or green landscapes were appropriate for recreation. This finding varies to that of Rogge et al.’s, as there were no obvious statistical differences in the recreational value perceptions between the two groups [36]. This consensus may be due to the spread of multifunctional concepts in rural areas and the promotion of leisure agricultural policies.

4.2. Correlations between the Value Perceptions and Preservation Attitudes

The results showed that recreational value perceptions were the dominant motivator of landscape preservation attitudes for both groups. As Domon noted that visual amenity or recreational quality of life gleaned from the landscape is becoming an important resource for rural development [37]. Since the early 20th century, the Chinese government has implemented many policies (e.g., recreational agriculture, integration of three industries, and rural tourism) to promote rural leisure activities and rural revitalization. These actions have improved residents’ cognitions of the rural leisure environment and have provided a good way to protect traditional village landscapes. In addition, the professionals’ preservation willingness was also significantly related to their cultural value perceptions of traditional village landscapes. Compared to the landscape professionals, the locals perceived the economic and daily utility values of the traditional village landscapes being more important. This means that the local residents gave priority to protecting the cultural landscape scenes because of the economic pursuit rather than the cultural value. They were functionalist and pursued the direct utility benefits of traditional village landscapes rather than the long-term indirect benefits. Similarly, Erickson et al. noted that farmers are more interested in economic factors than non-farmers [38]. In contrast, the professionals’ preservation willingness in this study was significantly influenced by cultural values more, besides recreational values. This was attributed to their professional composition in traditional village landscape conservation.

4.3. Suggestions for Participatory Conservation Planning to Achieve Cultural Heritage Sustainability

The value perceptions between local residents and professionals differ, accounting for the inconsistent attitudes toward traditional village landscape preservation. Such disengagement is facilitated when local communities are deliberately omitted from the planning process, thereby impacting cultural heritage sustainability. This paper mainly addressed the differences between residents and professionals based on an investigation of their value perceptions and preservation attitudes. The findings could help to promote participatory conservation planning and to provide a balance of the advantages of the two main stakeholders. The Qing Mu Chuan government must be receptive to understanding the community as the first step of the revision of conservation planning. First, the local government should employ various methods, such as preliminary public opinion surveys, consultant meetings, and public feedback, to investigate the residents’ opinions on historic building renovation, tourism development, and landscape design. Second, planners should deal with the short-term interests that residents are concerned more about and the ambiguous long-term benefits. Revision of the planning process should adopt the measures of enhancing the recreational function of the agricultural, forest, and Jinxi River landscapes, which could improve the direct utility value of traditional village landscapes and conform to the residents’ value orientation. Meanwhile, the new plan should promote the ecological management of Jinxi River, reasonably control tourism expansion, and preserve local identity to achieve long-term benefits based on the judgment of landscape professionals. In addition, the local government or community organizations should provide landscape ecology and cultural heritage education in rural areas, which is essential for enhancing the awareness of cultural heritage protection among residents. Through learning some related professional knowledge, residents maybe not only pay attention to the immediate economic value, but also focus on the long-term cultural benefits of the conservation of traditional village landscapes. Finally, besides acting as advisors, the local government or the community could open historic building maintenance workshops to teach residents some practical skills for conserving cultural heritage landscapes and improving their own living conditions. Based on the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, participatory conservation planning would enable landscape planners an opportunity to explore more sustainable designs to achieve positive ecological, economic, and cultural benefits.

5. Conclusions

This paper discussed the multiple perspectives related to the preferences, value perceptions, and preservation attitudes toward traditional village landscapes between local residents and professionals in Qing Mu Chuan, China. The results showed that the local residents preferred cultural landscapes, whereas the landscape professionals gave priority to the natural landscapes. Meanwhile, the locals assigned priority to the conservation of cultural heritage landscapes, which was based on utilitarianism and motivated by daily utility, recreational, and economic value perceptions. These findings provide options for incorporating public opinion into conservation planning, especially in the western part of China. Instead of passive protection, planners should adopts a greater number of revitalization measures such as interior structural renovation and functional reorganization to increase the utility value and economic benefit of heritage sites. In addition, a reasonably intense level of development will help to balance cultural heritage conservation, tourism economy expansion, and ecological environmental safety to achieve sustainable development. However, there were several limitations that should be addressed in future studies. First, this study focused on the value perceptions and preservation attitudes of residents and professionals, without considering the respondents’ sociodemographic information. Such information provides important paradoxes for future research, especially value orientation, place attachment, and its relationship with landscape preservation. Future research could be conducted on different scales (e.g., the city or regional level) and using a photo bank of traditional village landscapes. Another limitation was that this paper only focused on part of the participatory planning process, and the investigation of value perceptions and preservation attitude for Qing Mu Chuan. Participatory conservation planning, implementation, and assessment should be addressed in the future.