Sustainability of Chinese Village Development in a New Perspective: Planning Principle of Rural Public Service Facilities Based on “Function-Space” Synergistic Mechanism

Abstract

Public service facilities are important carriers of sustainable rural development. However, the “holistic” planning principle for cities has resulted in the inefficient use of public service facilities in villages. Under the guidance of the sustainable development of rural areas in China, relying on the theory of “destination attractiveness” in tourism studies, this research puts forward the assumption that the real logic of the operation of rural facilities lies in the synergistic attraction between function and space for villagers. This study applied research methods such as field survey, questionnaire survey, importance–performance analysis, space syntax, and Spearman correlation analysis. It builds the “demand-frequency” coupling model of the facilities and explains the functional attractive attributes and degrees of four types of facilities in the coupling between different demands and use frequencies. Through analyzing the accessibility and traffic potential of rural facilities and the correlation between facility numbers and their spatial distribution characteristic parameters, the study reveals the synergistic mechanism between the functional and spatial attraction of the “selected facilities”. It is to clarify the planning principle of rural public service facilities based on villagers’ demands, to put forward the basic guarantee framework for different combinations of “functional attributes and spatial distribution” under the goal of good facility operation, and to achieve the goal of improving the resource efficiency and upgrading the level of the rural living environment. Eventually, it contributes to the sustainable development of rural China with theoretical and methodological support.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Connotation of Sustainable Rural Development in China

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” [1]. The rapid, however, social-and-ecological-compromising development model is replaced under the context of sustainable development [2], which has caused profound thinking and revolutions in various fields. Under the subject “sustainable rural development (SRD)”, some researchers tend to interpret SRD as “reducing energy demand of buildings” [3], focusing on the development of vernacular architecture that adapts to environmental requirements such as climate, topographic conditions, local materials, and social lifestyles [4]. Some scholars understand SRD as “the stability and health of rural ecosystems”, which means the dynamic equilibrium with a coupled interrelation of social development and energy operation must be maintained within system carrying capacities [5]. There are also researchers who consider SRD as an “industrial structure that makes full use of rural resources” [6]. For instance, the residents in the study area have developed a multi-livelihood strategy through synergistic relations between tourism and traditional economic activities as represented by agriculture and local employment, which has enhanced their livelihood sustainability [7].

However, many developing countries, including China, have a certain degree of decadence in the rural areas nowadays, which is manifested by aging, population reduction, and loss of rural factor resources [8]. It is difficult to solve certain problems by ecological protection of the environment, effective utilization of local resources, and directional promotion of individual industries relying on special resources, etc. Taking China as an example, urban development has been regarded as the primary goal while the countryside has played a more supportive role in urban development due to the long-term urban–rural dual structure [9]. The separation of urban and rural areas and the development of cities at the expense of inhibiting rural development is the fundamental cause of rural decline [10]. Therefore, to truly fulfil the sustainable development of rural areas, it is necessary to break the vicious circle of “population loss-economic recession-deterioration of quality of life-population loss”, and realize the space-separation and life-integration of rural and urban spaces [11]. The urban–rural relations of most western countries have also experienced the process of “separation to integration” [12], rural areas are no longer merely the hinterlands of cities, but have developed into a mature form that is juxtaposed with the city [13]. Some rural areas are even experiencing urban-to-rural migration due to the good transportation infrastructure as well as to the availability of a variety of local services and facilities. Residents are relocating from cities to rural areas [14], which reflects the two-way flow of urban and rural elements based on high development. On the other side, China has also proposed a series of policies, such as urban-rural planning and urban-rural integration, to promote rural development and realize the goal of urban-rural integration as soon as possible. If policies are regarded as the external driving force of rural development, residents will be the core internal driving force. Realizing the “local” production and living, resisting the loss of rural population, and forming an organic rural living environment are the true meaning of sustainable rural development.

1.2. Status and Significance of Construction of Rural Public Service Facilities in China

As a space carrier and basic guarantee to support the production and living needs of villagers, the decadence of rural public service facilities will have a negative impact on the quality of the living environment or the satisfaction of livability [15], and further increase the loss of the rural population. Therefore, rural public service facilities are the basic condition for sustainable rural development and a key opportunity to improve the problem of rural decline. At the moment, the planning of rural public service facilities in China primarily refers to the methods of urban communities. For example, the “Standard for Urban Residential Area Planning and Design (GB50180-2018)” proposes the concept of guiding facility allocation by the principle of time–space distance and makes detailed provisions on the types and allocation modes of facilities in different distance circles [16]. However, when compared with urban residents, villagers’ use of some facilities does not completely adhere to the principle of nearest distance [17], considering long-standing kinship and villagers’ localization cognition in rural areas [18,19]. The current rigid, index-oriented facility planning system lacks the responsiveness to villagers’ demand and cognition, resulting in low efficiency of idle and frequently used facilities that are not included in the public service system [20]. Consequently, investigating the planning system and principle of public service facilities that are suitable for rural areas is essential, so as to improve the level of rural living environment and provide theoretical and methodological support for the sustainability of Chinese village development.

Presently, research on the allocation of public service facilities from the perspective of overall planning is becoming increasingly refined worldwide, and many method systems based on various optimization objectives have been developed. Meanwhile, common classical location allocation models, such as the P-median model, P-center model, location coverage model, and maximum coverage model [21,22,23], focus on efficiency and fairness [24] of facility allocation at the regional scale [25]. They are appropriate for urban areas with a consistent spatial scale and population structure, but not for various rural areas [26]. As facilities’ planning goals transform from “quantity guarantee” to “quality improvement”, the theory of human-centered life circle gradually becomes the main guiding principle for the allocation of public service facilities [27], which has been applied to the related research on rural facilities planning [28]. The life cycle oriented by the regional level, however, lacks refined response, and that oriented by the time–space distance cannot respond to the villagers’ incomplete habit of using nearby facilities; consequently, it is unsuitable for use in rural areas.

Compared with urban areas, before the construction of public service facilities, the development of rural areas started with the settlement of rural communities. Therefore, over thousands of years, villagers have already formed a specific habit of recognizing and acquiring public services. According to previous studies, not only the rural areas in China, but also the rural areas in other parts of the world have this kind of phenomenon where the villagers do not obey the top-down principle designed for public facilities [29]. Restricted by the limited construction funds [30], the types and functions of public facilities in rural areas are not as varied as the ones in cities [31]. As a result, the choices of facilities for villagers are far fewer than those for urban residents, let alone the demands are quite different. Zhang and other scholars found that the functional and spatial factors of public facilities are the two mean attributes that affect villagers’ choice behavior, they use the facilities “for the purpose of obtaining certain demands” or “because the facilities are relatively accessible” [32], which objectively reflects that the public facilities have a certain attractive effect on the villagers. The concept of “attraction” is used in tourism studies to explain the advantageous attributes of travel destinations to attract tourists [33,34]. This advantageous attribute can be summarized as the sum of the ability to meet people’s demands for public service [35], the accessibility and time cost of reaching the destination in space, and the beliefs, ideas, and impressions of the destination in image [36] and so on. This attractive advantage attribute can also explain the internal logic of the selection and operation of rural public service facilities; that is, the functional attraction related to the ability to meet villagers’ demand [37], the spatial attraction related to the difficulty of reaching the facilities or the possibility of being passed by [38,39,40,41], and the cultural attraction related to the destination image [42,43]. In recent years, a great many rural studies in China have focused on tourism villages featuring material cultural heritage [44], but in the context of traditional Chinese agriculture, villages with agriculture as the main industry occupy the largest proportion of rural types in China [45]. Therefore, compared with the functional and spatial attraction, the influence of the cultural attraction of the facilities on the villagers’ choice behavior can be ignored for the time being. Through field investigation, it is found that although various types of facilities have different attributes and degrees of functional and spatial attraction, these facilities are in good running condition, reflecting that there may be some synergistic effect between functional and spatial attraction, and this synergy mechanism is the basic principle for constructing an adaptable rural public service facility planning system. Therefore, this study puts forward the assumption that the basic logic of the selection and operation of rural facilities lies in the synergistic attraction from functional and spatial factors for villagers, so as to clarify the planning principle of rural public service facilities based on the real demand of villagers, rather than the “overall planning” method, which provides a theoretical basis for further developing the adaptable rural public service facilities planning system.

2. Research Methods

2.1. Indicator Selection

The functional attraction of rural public service facilities is determined by the characteristics of the facilities in use. For example, facilities that are frequently used by residents can be considered to have a higher level of functional attraction. Consequently, the functional attraction discussed in this study is not the “specific function” in the traditional sense, but attribute positioning based on facility use. Typically, the “importance” of attracting people to travel and the “frequency” of its use are regarded as important indicators of users’ attraction to facilities or spaces [46]. During the process of studying the functional attributes of rural public service, Zhu [47], Lu [48], and other scholars used frequency to represent the degree of demand, indicating a positive relationship between frequency and demand. However, we discovered that if the definition of “demand” is only “functional demand for facilities”, a negative correlation may exist between demand and frequency. That is, facilities have both “high frequency but low demand” and “low frequency but high demand” functional attribute types. Accordingly, this study excludes the unique situation of users’ demand for a specific facility in reality owing to site characteristics (location, form, feelings, etc.) and merely represents the concept of “demand” with functional demand, extracting two indicators of “demand” and “frequency” of facility use to explain the attributes and characteristics of facilities’ functional attraction to villagers. The spatial attraction of rural public service facilities is related to villagers’ difficulty in reaching the facilities, referring to the accessibility of the facilities’ spatial distribution [49,50]. Furthermore, in addition to clarifying the behavior of facility selection at the destination, easily traversable space can increase the likelihood of facility selection [51]. Therefore, this study uses “accessibility” and “traffic potential”, similar to previous studies that have employed indicators to describe spatial attraction.

2.2. Investigation Methods

2.2.1. Village Object Selection

This study selected a village object with a stable industry and population, including relatively complete facilities. P Village is located in Zhejiang Province, China, and it comprises the MRA Central Village, RA1 Natural Village, RA2 Natural Village, RA3 Natural Village, and RA4 Natural Village (Figure 1). The village area is approximately 25 square kilometers, with a clear physical boundary limited by natural elements such as forest land, providing the conditions and foundation for villagers’ relatively independent productive and living activities. Furthermore, because of P Village’s clear industrial structure, complete infrastructure, and stable population, there is no phenomenon of rural shrinkage or disappearance caused by a large number of population losses, and there are differences in the operation and use status of facilities of various types and locations. Therefore, using P Village as the object is viable.

2.2.2. Facility Type Acquisition

This study creates two types of public service facility databases, namely, living and productive service facilities, by summarizing national regulations and local guidelines of public service facilities in urban and rural communities. Education, social welfare, administration, commerce, infrastructure, and medical, cultural, and sports facilities, among others for villagers’ lives are examples of living service facilities. Productive service facilities provide services for three rural industries, namely, technical training, production material supply, and warehousing and logistics.

2.2.3. Investigation Process

As the “multisource data” research system [52] is inapplicable in rural areas, traditional anthropological research methods must be used to collect relevant data. Methods such as map tracing, UAV image collection, and the “two-step road outdoor assistant” app were used in this study to observe and record the village road system and facility layout. In 2021, four-time sections of 7 and 14 March (weekends) and 10 and 19 March (working days) were chosen to investigate the use status repeatedly. The evaluation indicators of the use status are “open” and “idle.” “Open” means that the facilities are being used and are functioning properly, whereas “idle” implies that the facilities have lost their use function and have been vacant for an extended period of time. This study, which combines a questionnaire survey and a semi-structured interview, collects data on villagers’ demand degrees and frequency of using facilities through a Likert scale; 100 questionnaires were distributed, and after eliminating the questionnaires with missing information and obvious inconsistencies or perfunctory answers, 85 valid questionnaires were recovered.

2.3. Analytical Method

2.3.1. Functional Attraction: Construction of “Demand-Frequency” Coupling Model Based on Importance–Performance Analysis

The importance–performance analysis (IPA) method analyzes and evaluates products based on two indicators: importance (I) and performance (P). It uses two attributes of things, such as the X and Y axes, respectively, to classify and analyze specific indicators into corresponding quadrants [53,54]. This study develops a functional model to reflect the attraction attribute and degree of facility function under the interaction of two indicators based on the coupling relationship between demand and frequency (Figure 2).

2.3.2. Spatial Attraction: Measurement of Integration and Choice Based on Space Syntax

Geometric networks and topological networks are two methods for evaluating the accessibility of spatial distribution [55]. Because settlements in rural areas are distributed organically [56], they cannot be abstracted as distinct “demand points,” and measuring the distance between demand points and facilities is difficult. Hence, geometric network methods such as the proportional method, distance method, and opportunity accumulation method are ineffective for measuring accessibility in rural areas. According to the theory of space syntax in topological networks, the space system will eventually acquire “autonomy” similar to that of nature [57], which is consistent with the characteristics of rural self-organization. Accordingly, this study employs space syntax theory to investigate the relationship between facility layout and rural settlements’ spatial organization. Considering the uncertain obstacles of the objective material environment, such as village watchdogs, we describe the path of the target village based on personal walking experience. The angle analysis mode in space syntax, rather than the shortest path, follows the travel rule of the minimum angle change path of human movement and can simulate villagers’ facility selection behavior [58]. Therefore, this study uses the angle analysis mode in Depthmap software for the analysis and calculation; moreover, it takes the integration of reflecting elements as the destinations to attract the arriving traffic [59] and the choice of reflecting elements as the destinations to attract the passing traffic [60]. Given that people’s travel mode and ability are unavoidable factors in exploring the integration and choice of the paths, most people tolerate the facilities for an average walking time of 15 min [61]. Thus, this study chose 15 min (r = 800 m) as the radius to represent the tolerable range of residents’ walking, calculated the integration degree (Int R800) and choice (Ch R800) within a specific radius of 800 m, and then generated visualization images that provide a data foundation for interpreting the spatial attraction characteristics of facilities and exploring the law of attraction interaction.

2.3.3. Correlation Analysis of Functional and Spatial Attraction

The number of facilities in open and idle states can reflect the reality of whether the facilities are selected. Because the variables of quantity and spatial distribution characteristics of facilities are characterized by a non-joint normal distribution and unordered classification, Spearman’s rank correlation was chosen as the correlation quantitative analysis method. The appropriate integration degree (choice degree) value of the path and the number of “open + idle” facilities carried by the corresponding path were extracted as continuous variables, with the aim of quantifying the correlation between the number of facilities and spatial–temporal distribution and reflecting the effect of facilities on functional and spatial synergistic attraction to villagers.

The research flow chart is shown in the Figure 3.

3. Results

3.1. Functional Attributes Cognition of Public Service Facilities Based on “Demand-Frequency” Coupling Model

According to the comparison between the proportion of sex and age and the overall population structure of P Village (

Table 1. Comparison of sample population and overall population structure of P village.

Range	Population Composition by Age (%)				Population Composition by Sex (%)
	0–17 *	18–24	24–64	65 and Above	Male	Female
P village	12.67	5.16	58.28	23.89	49.65	50.35
Sample population	0	3.53	65.88	30.59	48.24	51.76

* Restricted by objective conditions, minors were not used as respondents in the questionnaire survey.

), it is inferred that the sample population can represent the overall population attribute structure to some extent and the sample of cognition can also represent the whole, such that the average of the demand and frequency of the samples for facilities are used as the score.

Table 2. Demand and frequency grouping of living service facilities.

Types	Functions	Facilities	Demand Score (3 as Dividing Line)	High Demand (Hd Group)	Low Demand (Ld Group)	Frequency Score (1.81 as the Dividing Line)	High Frequency (Hf Group)	Low Frequency (Lf Group)
Medical	Clinical	Clinic	3.96	√		1.92	√
		Hospital	4.01	√		1.80		√
		Specialized clinic	3.33	√		1.53		√
	Healthcare	Center for Disease Control	3.76	√		1.66		√
		Hugh sanatorium	2.75		√	1.24		√
Education	Basic education	Kindergarten	4.12	√		3.05	√
		Primary school	4.13	√		2.91	√
		Junior school	3.99	√		2.19	√
		Senior high school	3.95	√		1.67		√
	Enhance education	Training institutions	3.36	√		1.59		√
		Adult vocational and technical school	2.99		√	1.24		√
Cultural and sports	Physical fitness	Outdoor sports ground	3.59	√		2.15	√
		Indoor sports venues	3.16	√		1.53		√
	Cultural enhancement	Cultural activity center	3.36	√		1.59		√
		Exhibition hall	3.08	√		1.45		√
		Film screening venue	3.28	√		1.65		√
		Broadcasting station	2.99		√	2.38	√
		Temple	3.07	√		1.67		√
Social welfare	Elderly	Home Aged Care Service Center	3.59	√		1.56		√
		Nursing home	3.20	√		1.16		√
	Public	Service station for the disabled	2.86		√	1.08		√
		Social welfare institute	2.80		√	1.07		√
		Villager canteen	3.58	√		1.75		√
Administration	Grassroots autonomy	Cultural auditorium	3.89	√		2.01	√
		Village service center	3.94	√		2.04	√
Commerce	Commodity purchase	Grocery	4.06	√		2.56	√
		Agricultural market	4.22	√		2.81	√
		Rural fair	2.55		√	1.38		√
		Electric vehicle sales department	3.07	√		1.53		√
		Hardware store	3.27	√		1.73		√
		Pharmacy	3.75	√		1.89	√
		Medicine self-service vending machine	3.02	√		1.29		√
		Department store	3.74	√		2.01	√
		Book and video store	2.75		√	1.39		√
		Cultural goods store	2.86		√	1.49		√
	Other service business	Express/postal service station	3.68	√		2.11	√
		Self-service cabinet	3.53	√		1.89	√
		Bank	3.51	√		1.80		√
		Telecom business hall	3.14	√		1.59		√
		Insurance institutions	3.11	√		1.48		√
		Restaurants/teahouses	3.29	√		1.93	√
		Barbershop	4.01	√		2.26	√
		Photographic studio	2.96		√	1.48		√
		Public bathroom	2.67		√	1.51		√
		Countryside Taobao shop	2.79		√	1.31		√
Infrastructure	Traffic station	Bus station	4.09	√		2.32	√
		Motor vehicle parking lot	3.71	√		2.08	√
	Others	Public toilet	3.56	√		1.60		√
		Garbage collection point	4.18	√		3.58	√

and

Table 3. Demand and frequency grouping of productive service facilities.

Types	Functions	Facilities	Demand Score (3 as Dividing Line)	High Demand (Hd Group)	Low Demand (Ld Group)	Frequency Score (1.78 as the Dividing Line)	High Frequency (Hf Group)	Low Frequency (Lf Group)
Productive service	Technical training	Agricultural technical education	3.31	√		1.52		√
	Management	Agricultural cooperative	3.32	√		1.74		√
	Production material supply	Agricultural materials shop	3.66	√		2.24	√
		Agricultural machine shop	3.44	√		1.87	√
	Sale	Product sales facilities	3.68	√		2.20	√
	Storage	Farm tools storage station	2.47		√	1.42		√
		Grain drying site	2.62		√	1.51		√
		Other product storage stations	2.59		√	1.51		√
	Logistics	Logistics facilities	3.40	√		2.00	√
	Tourism	Tourist reception center	3.27	√		1.82	√
		Homestay	3.41	√		2.02	√
		Tourist souvenir shop	2.87		√	1.47		√

show the average calculation results of demand and frequency of living service and productive service facilities. To distinguish the degree of demand and frequency, the appropriate dividing line must first be determined. Considering the semantics of the five scales of demand degree having distinct positive, neutral, and negative practical meanings and that the semantic quantifiers are equally assigned, the neutral meaning “3” (“indifferent”) was chosen as the dividing line between the high and low demand index sets. While the four scales of the frequency scale are ordered fuzzy quantifiers, there is no clear distinction between positive and negative semantics. Consequently, the total average frequency score of all facilities was chosen as the dividing line between the high and low frequency index sets. Table 2 and Table 3 show the grouping of demand and frequency after calculation.

Further, this study substitutes the data in Table 2 and Table 3 into the “demand-frequency” coupling model (Figure 4 and Figure 5) and evaluates the functional attribute types and attraction level of facilities (

Table 4. Classification results of functional attributes.

Functions		Types of the Functional Attribute
		Daily Facilities (HdHf)	Necessary Facilities (HdLf)	Support Facilities (LdHf)	Alternate Facilities (LdLf)
Living service facilities	Medical	Clinic	Hospital Specialized clinic Center for Disease Control	-	Hugh sanatorium
	Cultural and sports	Outdoor sports ground	Indoor sports venues Cultural activity center Exhibition hall Film screening venue Temple	Broadcasting station	-
	Education	Kindergarten Primary school Junior school	Senior high school Training institutions	-	Adult vocational and technical school
	Social welfare	-	Home Aged Care Service Center Nursing home Villager canteen	-	Service station for the disabled Social welfare institute
	Administration	Cultural auditorium Village service center	-	-	-
	Commerce	Grocery Agricultural market Pharmacy Department store Express/postal service station Self-service express locker Restaurants/teahouses Barbershop	Electric vehicle sales department Hardware store Medicine self-service vending machine bank Telecom business hall Insurance institutions	-	Rural fair Book and video store Cultural goods store Photographic studio Public bathroom Countryside Taobao shop
	Infrastructure	Bus station Motor vehicle parking lot Garbage collection point	Public toilet	-	-
Productive service		Agricultural materials shop Agricultural machine shop Product sales facilities Logistics facilities Tourist reception center Homestay	Agricultural technical education Agricultural cooperative	-	Farm tools storage station Grain drying site Other product storage stations Tourist souvenir shop
Total number of facility types		24	22	1	14
Feature		Daily Facilities	Necessary Facilities	Support Facilities	Alternate Facilities
Attraction level		High	High	Middle	Low
Idle rate of facilities		6.33%	13.25%	-	23.08%

). Table 4 shows that the use status of facilities varies with different functional attributes, implicating disparity in the idle rate and that facilities’ functional attraction affects the villagers’ choice behavior. Simultaneously, different use statuses (open or idle) exist within the same functional attribute type, demonstrating that the presence of facility attributes other than functional attraction influences villagers’ choice behavior. Thus, this study delves deeper into the impact of spatial attraction.

3.2. Correlation Analysis between Functional and Spatial Attraction

Figure 6 and Figure 7 depict integration (Int R800) and choice (Ch R800). The accessibility core (top 10% path elements of Int R800 and Ch R800 values) in the study area is indicated by the dotted white line in the figure. This study performs qualitative superposition and quantitative correlation analysis on the distribution of facilities with Int R800 and Ch R800 and then investigates the attraction of the space where the four functional attribute facilities are located, based on the calculation of the spatial attraction of the path network structure. Grouping (n = 50) is used in quantitative analysis to reduce the deviation of the results caused by too many items; accordingly, the average values of integration and choice of each group were calculated, and Spearman’s correlation analysis was performed between the average value and the number of facilities corresponding to each level.

3.2.1. Daily Facilities (HdHf)

After superposition analysis of the spatial distribution status of daily facilities and the spatial attraction distribution map (Figure 8 and Figure 9), it can be observed that facilities are distributed in places with different space attractions, and there are still many open facilities in locations with low space attraction, indicating that functional attraction is the most influential factor influencing daily facility use.

Table 5. Abstract of SPSS model for correlation analysis between daily facilities (HdHf) and spatial attraction.

Descriptive Statistics				Correlation Analysis (Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient)
Data Types	Average Value	Standard Deviation	Number of Cases (n)	Data Types	Related Parameters	The Average Number of Open Facilities	The Average Number of Idle Facilities
Int R800	60.92	32.86	50	Int R800	Two-tailed tests of significance (p-value)	p < 0.001	0.100
The average number of open facilities	0.21	0.20	50		Correlation coefficient (r-value)	0.652 **	0.235
Average number of idle facilities	0.014	0.052	50		Number of cases (n)	50	50
Ch R800	6412.74	5457.49	50	Ch R800	Two-tailed tests of significance (p-value)	0.001	0.043
The average number of open facilities	0.23	0.30	50		Correlation coefficient (r-value)	0.460 **	−0.287 *
Average number of idle facilities	0.01	0.03	50		Number of cases (n)	50	50

** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test) statistical level. * The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed test) statistical level.

shows the quantitative analysis. There is a moderate positive correlation between the number of open daily facilities and Int R800 (r = 0.652 > 0.5) and a low positive correlation with Ch R800 (r = 0.460 > 0.3). That is, as spatial attraction increases, so does the number of daily facilities in good condition, indicating that spatial attraction, in addition to functional attraction, has a secondary influence on the use status of daily facilities. There is a weak negative correlation between the number of idle daily facilities and Ch R800 (r = −0.287, |r| < 0.3), indicating that as spatial attraction decreases, the number of idle daily facilities increases, demonstrating the secondary influence of spatial attraction on the status of daily facilities.

3.2.2. Necessary Facilities (HdLf)

After superposition analysis of the spatial distribution status of necessary facilities and the spatial attraction distribution map (Figure 10 and Figure 11), it was discovered that the functional attraction of necessary facilities is high, and the distribution is uniform and dispersed, the idle rate of facilities is relatively low (13.25%). Moreover, there are still many open facilities in places with low spatial attraction, indicating that functional attraction is the most influential factor among the influencing factors of necessary facility use.

Table 6. Abstract of SPSS model for correlation analysis between necessary facilities (HdLf) and spatial attraction.

Descriptive Statistics				Correlation Analysis (Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient)
Data Types	Average Value	Standard Deviation	Number of Cases (n)	Data Types	Related Parameters	The Average Number of Open Facilities	The Average Number of Idle Facilities
Int R800	60.92	32.86	50	Int R800	Two-tailed tests of significance (p-value)	p < 0.001	0.548
The average number of open facilities	0.07	0.08	50		Correlation coefficient (r-value)	0.512 **	0.087
Average number of idle facilities	0.01	0.03	50		Number of cases (n)	50	50
Ch R800	6412.74	5457.49	50	Ch R800	Two-tailed tests of significance (p-value)	0.514	0.321
The average number of open facilities	0.07	0.09	50		Correlation coefficient (r-value)	0.094	−0.143
Average number of idle facilities	0.01	0.04	50		Number of cases (n)	50	50

** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test) statistical level.

shows the quantitative analysis. There is a moderate positive correlation between the number of necessary facilities and Int R800 (r = 0.512 > 0.5), implying that as the value of spatial attraction increases, so does the number of necessary facilities in good condition. Thus, in addition to the functional attraction, spatial attraction plays a secondary role in the status of necessary facilities. Furthermore, the correlation coefficient |r| between necessary facilities and Int R800 is lower than that between daily facilities and Int R800. Conversely, spatial attraction has a lower influence on the use status of necessary facilities. However, there is no statistically significant correlation between the number of idle necessary facilities and Int R800 and Ch R800, indicating that the idle necessary facilities are affected by factors other than spatial attraction.

3.2.3. Support Facilities (LdHf)

As the number of support facilities in P Village is limited, only qualitative superposition analysis was performed (Figure 12). Although the functional attraction of support facilities is relatively average, there are still many open facilities. Investigating their spatial distribution reveals that the facilities are located in areas with high spatial attraction, indicating that spatial attraction influences the use status of support facilities.

3.2.4. Alternate Facilities (LdLf)

After superposition analysis of the spatial distribution status of alternate facilities and the spatial attraction distribution map (Figure 13 and Figure 14), it was discovered that the functional attraction of alternate facilities is relatively low and the idle rate of facilities is relatively high (23.08%). Yet, there are many open facilities, mostly distributed in places with high spatial attraction, indicating factors other than functional attraction (such as spatial attraction) that play a leading role in the use status of alternate facilities.

Table 7. Abstract of SPSS model for correlation analysis between alternate facilities (LdLf) and spatial attraction.

Descriptive Statistics				Correlation Analysis (Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient)
Data types	Average Value	Standard Deviation	Number of Cases (n)	Data Types	Related Parameters	The Average Number of Open Facilities	The Average Number of Idle Facilities
Int R800	60.92	32.86	50	Int R800	Two-tailed tests of significance (p-value)	0.017	0.415
The average number of open facilities	0.01	0.02	50		Correlation coefficient (r-value)	0.366 *	0.118
Average number of idle facilities	0.003	0.007	50		Number of cases (n)	50	50
Ch R800	6412.74	5457.49	50	Ch R800	Two-tailed tests of significance (p-value)	0.159	0.020
The average number of open facilities	0.01	0.02	50		Correlation coefficient (r-value)	−0.202	−0.327 *
Average number of idle facilities	0.003	0.008	50		Number of cases (n)	50	50

* The correlation is significant at the 0.05 statistical level (two-tailed test).

shows the quantitative analysis. There is a significant but low positive correlation (r = 0.366 > 0.3) between the number of open alternate facilities and Int R800, indicating that as spatial attraction increases, so does the number of alternate facilities in good condition; thus, the influence of spatial attraction on alternate facility use status is dominant.

4. Discussion: Potential Judgment and Basic Guarantee Framework under the Synergistic Mechanism of Functional and Spatial Attraction

It can be seen from the analysis above that in China, residents living in rural areas with limited resources tend to balance “access to services” and “the cost of arrival” to realize higher travel efficiency. However, the current planning orientation of rural public service facilities is based on simply copying the types of urban facilities, following village-town level and life circle level, which is obviously contrary to the real logic of villagers’ use of facilities, and is also the core reason for the idleness of rural facilities. In fact, rural areas’ developing patterns vary in different parts of the world. For example, in the United States, there is no uniform regional standard for the layout of public service facilities. Different rural area has its own developing characteristics and can reflect certain self-organization advantages [62,63]. Obviously, developed countries have long realized that inappropriate regional unified standards will not only reduce the quality of production and life of villagers, but also inhibit the sustainable development of rural areas. Looking into China’s villages, before the planning of facilities, the rural settlements have matured in the process of self-organization for thousands of years. Therefore, the planning of facilities should adopt a cautious “site selection and renewal” attitude, rather than dogmatically dividing the circle layers with the attitude of planning new facilities. Based on the previous analysis, this study finds the real logic of villagers’ choice of facilities, that is, the synergistic mechanism of facility functional attributes and spatial distribution (

Table 8. Synergistic mechanism between functional attributes and spatial distribution of facilities.

Types of Function Attribute	Functional Attraction		Spatial Attraction		Use Status
	Levels	Influence Degree	Levels	Influence Degree	Description	Potential of Being Chosen
Daily facilities (HdHf)	High	+++	High	+++	Open (High competitive pressure leads to a few idleness)	++++++
			Low	−	Open (Low spatial attraction leads to a few idleness)	++
Necessary facilities (HdLf)	High	+++	High	++	Open (High competitive pressure leads to a few idleness)	+++++
			Low	0	Open (Other accidental factors cause a few idleness)	+++
Support facilities (LdHf)	Middle	0	High	+	Open	+
			Low	−	Idle	−
Alternate facilities (LdLf)	Low	−	High	++	Open (High spatial attraction dominates)	+
			Low	−−	Idle	−−−

Gray indicates the dominant influencing factors.

). The term “positive (or negative) attraction” refers to the positive (or negative) influence tendency of facilities’ functional attributes or spatial distribution on villagers’ choice behavior. The primary and secondary status of attraction, as well as the correlation coefficient value |r|, which is qualitatively represented by the number of symbols (“+” or “−”), determine the degree of influence.

This study proposes the basic guarantee framework for facilities’ allocation (

Table 9. Combination of functional attributes and spatial distribution to ensure the minimum normal use of facilities.

Types of Function Attribute	Functional Attraction			Spatial Attraction			Results
	Levels	Priority	Scale Class Orientation	Levels	Strength	Priority	Use Status		Description
Daily facilities (HdHf)	High	+	Small scale and decentralization	High	+	▲	√	Open	Double positive impact
				Low	−		×	Idle	Low spatial attraction leads to a few idleness
Necessary facilities (HdLf)	High	++	High grade and intensive	High	+		√	Open	Double positive impact
				Low	−	▲	√	Open	Functional attraction is dominant
Support facilities (LdHf)	Middle	0	Small scale and decentralization	High	+	▲	√	Open	The positive influence of spatial attraction
				Low	−		×	Idle	The negative influence of spatial attraction
Alternate facilities (LdLf)	Low	−	Material level and industrial development	High	++	▲	√	Open	Spatial attraction is dominant
				High	+	▲	×	Idle	Spatial attraction is not enough to offset the negative impact of functional attraction
				Low	−		×		Double negative influence

▲ means: for each type of facility, the spatial attraction level that should be prioritized. Gray indicates the minimum guarantee combination.

) based on the synergistic mechanism of functional attributes and spatial distribution of facilities, that is, the combination of functional attributes and spatial distribution that can guarantee the minimum normal use of four types of facilities in the case of limited space or resources:

(1)

Daily facilities (HdHf) are those that villagers frequently use in their subjective cognition. Hence, the number of facilities should be large and evenly distributed, and places with high spatial attraction should be prioritized, emphasizing the positive influence of spatial attraction on villagers’ choice behavior, ensuring that facilities operate properly.

(2)

Necessary facilities (HdLf) are those that villagers may not use frequently but must configure in their subjective cognition. If it is not configured, it will have a serious impact on normal production and life, as well as violate the corresponding construction indicators. Accordingly, within the appropriate demand range, necessary facilities should be configured intensively with a small number and high-level scale. Because spatial attraction has little influence on the utilization of required facilities, occupying space where space is advantageous is inessential, and it can be arranged in places with low spatial attraction.

(3)

Support facilities (LdHf) have mandatory characteristics, similar to daily facilities (HdHf), belonging to the facilities with a high frequency of use in villagers’ subjective cognition, and should also be distributed in the form of large quantity, low level, and small scale. Because spatial attraction influences facility use status, strong spatial attraction is required to offset the negative influence of functional attributes on facility selection behavior, and it should be located in areas with high spatial attraction.

(4)

Alternate facilities (LdLf) are either behind or ahead of current production and living standards in rural areas, so the allocation of such facilities must consider the current production and living standards in rural areas and allocate facilities with an appropriate scale according to the rural material living standards or specific industrial types and their development. The functional attraction of these types of facilities is relatively low, while their spatial attraction is the primary factor influencing their use. Therefore, alternate facilities should be placed in areas with high spatial attraction to ensure the normal operation of the facilities.

5. Conclusions

In the context of ongoing sustainable development all over the world, scholars and practitioners in the field of rural human settlements planning in China have defined their understanding of “sustainable development” from multiple dimensions, including environmental ecological protection, local utilization of resources, and promotion of pollution-free industries, which has led to rapid changes in rural China. However, the most prominent problem in China’s rural areas lies in the population outflow caused by the lack of “peripheral support and guarantee” for villagers’ production and lives. More and more villages lose their vitality and become “hollow villages”, or gradually lose their local culture and inheritance and are swallowed up by towns. Therefore, this study puts forward a new definition of “sustainable development”, that is, to realize the “local” production and life of villagers, to resist the loss of the rural population, and to form an organic rural living environment that is different, however, complementary to cities. This is also the fundamental reason why this study takes the perspective of “peripheral support and guarantee” for the planning of rural public service facilities. Although, over the past ten years, China’s rural public service facilities have made a qualitative leap in the number and types of facilities in recent years, they are only regarded as the end of the urban and rural public service chain. On the basis of simply copying the types of urban facilities, its allocation orientation follows the village–town level and life circle level, emphasizes the service radiation function of town facilities to the countryside, and lacks an effective response to such a complex man–land system in the countryside, resulting in a mismatch between rural facilities and villagers’ demands. Although rural human settlements have historically faced the problem of limited resources and funds, villagers have formed specific cognition, acquisition habits, and vague principle of facility construction for limited public service long before the standardized allocation of facilities. Rural facilities with different functional attributes and spatial distribution have varying attributes and degrees of attraction to the villagers, prompting the villagers to choose them according to their “real demand”, and finally leading to the operation of the facilities. This is also obviously contrary to the current rural facility construction principle. Therefore, the value of this study is that it completely subverts the previous dogmatic division of the circle layers with the attitude of planning new facilities, but reveals the synergistic mechanism of facilities to the villagers’ functional and spatial attraction, and takes the real logic of villagers’ choice of facilities as the theoretical basis and core principle of facilities planning, which provides a theoretical basis for constructing a suitable and universal rural public service facilities planning system.

“Functional attraction” in this study is derived from the attribute characteristics of villagers’ facilities rather than service types. Therefore, this study extracts the indicators of villagers’ demand and frequency of using facilities, constructs a “demand-frequency” coupling model, and obtains various functional attraction attributes and degrees of four types of facilities (daily, necessary, support, and alternate). A facility’s ability to function well stems from the direct effect of functional attraction and the degree of its spatial distribution in rural areas. Accordingly, this study examines the accessibility and traffic potential of facilities’ spatial distribution, uncovers the core mechanism of facilities’ operation by analyzing the correlation between functional attributes and spatial distribution characteristics of open facilities, and finally, clarifies the planning principle of rural public service facilities, and proposes the basic guarantee framework of functional orientation and spatial allocation under the bare minimum operating conditions: (1) Functional attraction of daily facilities is high and is the primary factor in users’ facility selection; meanwhile, spatial attraction plays a secondary role. (2) Functional attraction of necessary facilities is high and spatial attraction plays a secondary role, albeit lower than its impact on daily facilities. (3) Functional attraction of the support facilities is relatively general, while spatial attraction has a certain influence on the facilities’ use status. (4) The functional attraction of alternate facilities is low, and spatial attraction plays a leading role in the facilities’ use status. This means, in the planning of rural public service facilities in the future, we should first identify the functional attributes of the facilities, judge the spatial attraction demand intensity of the facilities according to the basic guarantee framework of the functional positioning and space allocation of the facilities, and then conduct a rational and prudent site selection evaluation. Indeed, villages in China and worldwide are of varied types. This study is based on the plain rural environment dominated by the agricultural industry. However, further investigation is required for a more diverse and personalized rural environment. Indeed, with China’s urban and rural overall planning work progressing and the living environment improving, the future development of rural public service facilities in China must be based on a more complete rural public service chain that reflects the diversity and integration of facilities. The work done in this study also puts forward a new idea and guarantees the sustainability of village development.