A Comparative Study on the Promoting Effects of Different Tourism Development Models on Rural Revitalization: Case Studies from Two Typical Villages in China

Abstract

This study aims to explore the pivotal role of rural tourism in addressing the “three rural issues” and promoting rural revitalization. This study selects two representative villages in China that adopt different models of tourism development: Shibadong Village in Huayuan County, Hunan Province, which adopts a government-led model, and Yuanjia Village in Lixian County, Shaanxi Province, which follows a community-led model. This study evaluates the impact of rural tourism on rural revitalization using the Entropy-TOPSIS method. Utilizing the IPA (Importance–Performance Analysis) method and an independent samples t-test, a comparative analysis of the two models was conducted to reveal the differences in the effects of rural tourism in promoting rural revitalization between the different models. This study reveals that rural tourism positively impacts the revitalization of rural industries, ecology, culture, talent, and organization. However, the effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization vary across different tourism development models. This study further suggests that the “multiple interlocking model” may be the future trend of rural tourism development as it can better integrate the resources of the government, communities, and enterprises to achieve more effective rural revitalization. This study deepens the theoretical link between rural tourism and rural revitalization, providing concrete guidance for practice, especially in strategies that drive comprehensive rural revitalization through tourism. Future research should further explore the corporate-led model and the multiple interlocking model and track the evolution of tourism development models through longitudinal comparisons to adapt to the changing needs of rural development.

1. Introduction

Facing the numerous challenges in global rural development, the issue of rural poverty stands out as particularly prominent, becoming a focal point for the United Nations in promoting the Sustainable Development Goals [1]. In this context, rural revitalization has become a global research hotspot, with countries exploring distinctive development pathways based on their own conditions to achieve economic prosperity and sustainable development in rural areas [2]. China has innovatively proposed the “Rural Revitalization Strategy”, which outlines the main directions for rural revitalization. It emphasizes the revitalization of multiple dimensions, including industry, talent, culture, ecology, and organization, addressing the significant issues faced by rural areas at present [3]. Rural tourism serves as a pivotal strategy for addressing the “three rural issues” and for the realization of rural revitalization [4]. The study and practice of rural tourism hold substantial significance in fostering balanced urban–rural development and the pursuit of high-quality growth. To achieve comprehensive rural revitalization, it is necessary to focus on the convergence of talent, capital, policies, industries, culture, and organization [5]. The development of the rural tourism industry can effectively guide and promote the influx of more capital, talent, technology, and resources into rural communities. This facilitates the organic integration of ecological, cultural, and agricultural elements within rural areas, enabling the flow and reorganization of resource factors between urban and rural settings. Consequently, it fosters integrated development between urban and rural areas as well as among various industries [6,7]. This constitutes a significant component of the rural revitalization initiative. The origin of rural tourism in China can be traced back to the 1980s, representing a modern tourism sector that aligns with leisure and wellness consumption and holds substantial potential for growth [8]. By the end of 2021, China had established over 130 national key towns for tourism, more than 100,000 distinctive villages for leisure agriculture and rural tourism, and over 2.7 million entities involved in rural tourism services. Approximately 55 million villagers benefit annually from the economic, social, and environmental advantages brought by rural tourism [9]. These figures illustrate the essential role of rural tourism in promoting rural economic development, enhancing farmers’ living standards, and improving the rural environment. Rural tourism serves as a significant engine for rural economic development in the new era, a crucial starting point for implementing rural revitalization and high-quality development strategies, and an important industry that provides a feasible pathway to achieve common prosperity [10]. Given the disparities in location, resources, market conditions, and capabilities among rural areas, it is vital to select an appropriate model for tourism development [11]. The successful examples of Shibadong Village, Huayuan County, Hunan Province, and Yuanjia Village, Liquan County, Shanxi Province, illustrate the notable impact of government-supported tourism development and the “tourism-strong village” approach led by village officials on rural revitalization. These cases not only validate the role of tourism in advancing rural revitalization but also offer valuable insights for other regions to consider.

In this paper, the tourism development models are categorized into three types based on different leading forces: government-led [12], community-led [13], and enterprise-led [14]. The driving factors primarily arise from external interventions and endogenous forces, essentially reflecting the outcome of the tripartite game and interactive collaboration among governments, communities, and enterprises [15]. This study focuses on two principal modes of tourism development—government-led and community-led—and constructs an index system based on five major effects. The research utilizes Shibadong Village and Yuanjia Village as case studies, employing the Entropy-TOPSIS Method and the Importance–Performance Analysis Method to conduct empirical research. It comprehensively evaluates the effects of tourism development on rural revitalization in these areas and analyzes the differences in the impacts of tourism development under different models. This aims to provide insights for selecting appropriate tourism development models in rural contexts.

2. Literature Review

Regarding rural tourism and rural revitalization, experts and scholars have conducted extensive research from various perspectives, articulating their viewpoints and achieving significant results. Numerous studies have demonstrated that rural tourism exerts a positive influence on rural revitalization, establishing tourism as a crucial mechanism for rural areas to attain comprehensive revitalization. This research primarily focuses on the following aspects:

First, the definition of rural tourism is examined. Rural tourism originated in the 1840s, marking an early onset, and has yielded substantial outcomes. Kaptan Ayhan et al. (2020) suggest that many individuals who become detached from nature due to their professional lives and have financial means view their vacation periods as opportunities to escape to different environments. Traditionally, the primary idea of a holiday involved visiting coastal and seaside areas; however, contemporary preferences have shifted towards spending time in more serene natural settings. This shift in the notion of a “holiday” has led to the development of the concept of “rural tourism”, as it is currently understood [16]. Nevertheless, there is a lack of uniformity and consensus regarding the definition of rural tourism in the existing literature. Lane (1994) [17] argues that the “purest” form of rural tourism should encompass the following characteristics: (1) being located in rural areas; (2) functional rurality, defined by the unique features of the rural landscape, which include small businesses, open spaces, connections to nature, heritage, “traditional” societies, and “traditional” practices; (3) the rural scale, which is typically small; (4) traditionality, characterized by slow and organic growth, local family connections, community control, and long-term benefits for the area; (5) diversity, reflecting the intricate tapestry of the rural environment, economy, history, and geography. Nair et al. (2015) [18] conducted a study that defines rural tourism in Malaysia as occurring in rural areas with objectives of learning, active participation, experience, or enjoyment. The distinct cultural, natural, and historical features provided by various rural attractions and activities are enabled through the collaboration of four key stakeholders: tourists, rural communities, businesses, and government agencies. Sustainability, in terms of socioeconomic development and environmental protection, is a critical component of this definition. Kumar et al. (2020) [19] define sustainable rural tourism as tourism activities that do not impose excessive strain on the resources of the rural tourism destination or undermine the satisfaction of current rural tourists. Existing research has explored and defined the concept of rural tourism from multiple perspectives, highlighting key features such as regionality, cultural essence [20], economic significance [21], and sustainability [22]. This body of work provides a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding and promoting the development of rural tourism.

Second, the research focuses on the role of tourism in promoting rural revitalization. The concept of “rural revival” has been internationally referenced since at least the early 21st century and is widely recognized as a global issue concerning the role of rural tourism in facilitating rural development [23]. Research on rural revival in China began in the 1980s and, in 2016, China introduced the rural revitalization strategy, intricately linking rural tourism with rural revitalization efforts [24]. Since the 1970s, rural tourism activities in developed countries have gained significant momentum, contributing to the recovery of economically and socially declining rural areas [25,26,27]. International scholars have long acknowledged the connection between rural tourism and rural revitalization (or revival) [28], establishing through numerous case studies that rural tourism positively influences rural development. Hall (2004) argues that rural tourism can benefit and enhance economic, social, and identity reconstruction processes by increasing income, stabilizing populations, preserving cultural heritage, redistributing economic roles within rural households, and fostering a positive, eco-friendly image [29]. Rosalina et al. (2021) conducted a systematic analysis of the sustainable impacts of rural tourism on traditional villages, highlighting the potential of rural tourism in promoting the revitalization of traditional villages, as well as its social and economic benefits [25]. Zhu et al. (2021) maintain that the development of rural tourism can increase farmers’ incomes and advance rural development, with the main motivation of rural tourism operators being to expand agricultural development projects and boost their own income [30]. China emphasizes functional studies of rural tourism guided by strategic policies, focusing on areas such as tourism-related poverty alleviation and the promotion of rural revitalization through tourism [31,32]. Extensive research has been conducted on the issue of tourism in promoting rural revitalization, primarily addressing mechanisms [33,34,35], effects [36,37], and pathways [38]. Concrete case studies have confirmed the role of tourism in facilitating the realization of rural revitalization. The existing literature has explored the role and mechanisms of rural tourism in enhancing rural revitalization, revealing its multifaceted impacts on the economy, society, culture, and ecology [39,40]. This body of research offers theoretical support and practical guidance for understanding and leveraging tourism as a catalyst for rural revitalization.

Third, there is the study of development models of rural tourism. Some scholars have proposed that the development model of rural tourism refers to the specific methods of tourism development adopted by rural areas from the initial stage of tourism development to the maturity of the tourism industry. It is a strategy that continuously adapts to the changing real-world demands and addresses a series of core issues in the process of tourism development, such as operational management, product development, and profit distribution [41]. In this field, scholars have conducted in-depth research on different leading models of rural tourism development, covering the roles and impacts of government, community, and enterprise in the development of rural tourism. Rosalina et al. (2021) believe that the government plays a role in planning and policy formulation in the development of rural tourism. Government-led tourism development has transformed the focus villages from traditional rural societies based on kinship to commercial rural tourism communities centered on economic interests [25]. In the study by Jing Gao et al. (2017), a model for the revitalization of traditional villages based on rural tourism was proposed through a case study of Yuanjia Village in Shaanxi Province, China. The community-led rural tourism model emphasizes the importance of community participation and benefit distribution [42]. Havenmilang et al. (2012) analyzed the leadership and follower roles in local rural tourism small businesses within the Adventa leadership project in Monmouthshire, UK. Adventa is considered a best practice case for rural tourism development leadership, as it has fostered the growth of grassroots rural tourism by collaborating with local rural tourism enterprises [43]. Under the corporate-led model, innovation and diversification of rural tourism products and services have become key to development [44]. In summary, the development model of rural tourism is a complex process involving multiple dimensions and stakeholders. Governments, communities, and enterprises each play different roles in collectively promoting the development and innovation of rural tourism. These research findings provide us with a comprehensive perspective to understand the diversity and complexity of rural tourism development models.

Synthesizing the existing research findings, several issues remain in the studies on how tourism promotes rural revitalization: (1) Research on the role of tourism in facilitating rural revitalization often emphasizes theoretical mechanisms and practical pathways, supported by empirical case studies demonstrating the positive effects of tourism. However, there is a notable lack of studies focusing on effect evaluation. Most research employs qualitative methods, with quantitative comparisons being remarkably scarce. While the research perspective has transitioned from macro to micro levels, there is a pressing need for more comprehensive longitudinal studies; (2) many scholars, building on the five aspects of rural revitalization [45] and the 20-character guideline [46], have developed indicator systems at varying scales, including national [47], provincial [48], and county levels [49], to assess the impacts of rural tourism and the influence of tourism on rural revitalization. Despite this, only a limited number of researchers have integrated rural tourism into the evaluation frameworks of rural revitalization to measure the extent of tourist’s contribution to rural development. (3) There is a scarcity of studies examining the impact of tourism on rural revitalization and the subsequent disparities from the perspective of different tourism development models. A literature review reveals that few scholars have undertaken quantitative comparative analyses of the poverty alleviation effects associated with different models [50]. This study evaluates and compares the impact of rural tourism on rural revitalization across various development models through quantitative analysis methods, addressing the existing gaps in quantitative comparisons and the deficiency of in-depth longitudinal research. By incorporating rural tourism into the evaluation system of rural revitalization, this study presents a novel approach to assessing tourism’s contribution to rural development. Additionally, it investigates how tourism development models influence the outcomes of rural revitalization, providing theoretical foundations and practical guidance for selecting suitable development models, which hold considerable theoretical and practical significance.

3. Effect Analysis of Tourism in Promoting Rural Revitalization

The goals of rural revitalization specifically encompass five aspects: industrial revitalization, which serves as the foundation of rural revitalization; ecological revitalization, which acts as the support of rural revitalization; cultural revitalization, which is the soul of rural revitalization; talent revitalization, which is the key to rural revitalization; organizational revitalization, which provides the safeguard for rural revitalization [51]. With the development of rural tourism, there has been a significant integration of the tertiary sectors, leading to the continuous emergence of new business models. The rural tourism industry has established a multidimensional and diversified structure, primarily encompassing four major categories: nature sightseeing, leisure gathering, vacation health, and experiential participation [52]. These categories play a positive role in rural development. Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts can directly reflect the effects of tourism development on rural areas and the lives of local villagers, thereby providing insights into the state of tourism development. This impact is primarily evident in three areas: economic, environmental, and socio–cultural [53,54]. While rural tourism generates effects across these three dimensions, it also supports the attainment of effective rural autonomy [55]. This study categorizes these impacts as “economic effects, ecological effects, cultural effects, talent effects, and management effects” resulting from rural tourism. There exists an intrinsic coupling between these five effects and the five objectives of rural revitalization: “industrial revitalization, ecological revitalization, cultural revitalization, talent revitalization, and organizational revitalization”. This relationship is conducive to promoting rural revitalization, as illustrated in Figure 1.

3.1. The Economic Effects Generated by Tourism Development Can Promote the Revitalization of Rural Industries

Rural tourism exerts a significant multiplier effect on increasing villagers’ incomes, with the potential to convert the intangible resources of rural areas into viable tourism assets. The promotional and expansive effects of the tourism industry enhance the self-development capacities of communities, ultimately resulting in increased income and wealth for local residents [56]. Rural tourism represents a new business model born from the integration of primary and tertiary industries, wherein agriculture serves as a resource provider and tourism functions as a service extension. This integration broadens the industrial roles of agriculture and tourism, extends their industrial chains, diversifies their product offerings, and better meets the varied needs of tourists [57,58,59]. Consequently, this transformation aids in converting traditional agriculture into a modernized, technology-driven, ecological, service-oriented, and profit-focused sector [60].

3.2. The Environmental Effects Generated by Tourism Development Can Promote the Ecological Revitalization of Rural Areas

Rural tourism represents a form of travel that heavily relies on the natural environment as both an attraction and a foundation for development [61]. It inherently possesses ecological conservation qualities, which contribute positively to enhancing the natural ecological environment of rural areas [62]. Furthermore, the development of rural tourism can facilitate the aggregation and dissemination of population, capital, and information in rural regions [63]. This process effectively regulates the structural relationships among production, living conditions, and ecology within these areas [64], thereby maximizing the value of rural resources and supporting the construction of aesthetically appealing rural environments.

3.3. The Cultural Effects Generated by Tourism Development Can Promote the Cultural Revitalization of Rural Areas

Tourism inherently embodies cultural attributes [65], and rural tourism serves as an effective avenue for the preservation and transmission of traditional culture through the process of cultural revitalization [66]. As rural residents engage in tourism operations, they gradually come to appreciate the value of their local culture, which subsequently enhances their cultural identity and pride. This dynamic effectively heightens their awareness and enthusiasm for cultural preservation, motivating them to become custodians and champions of rural culture [67,68]. The influx of tourists facilitates communication between rural areas and the broader world, thereby promoting the dissemination of rural culture [69]. Through frequent interactions with the external society, rural tourism progressively integrates advanced modern cultural elements, fostering a blend with rural culture. This integration enriches the content of rural tourism and fosters innovation in its presentation, enabling it to cater to the diverse needs of tourists and thus contribute to the revitalization of rural culture.

3.4. The Talent Effect Generated by Tourism Development Can Promote the Revitalization of Rural Talent

Rural areas have emerged as new destinations for the transformation of domestic tourism, with robust market demand [70]. The compelling appeal of “gold and silver mountains” draws talent to these rural locales. As a labor-intensive sector, rural tourism presents low employment barriers, high inclusivity, and flexible employment options, thereby underscoring the important role of the tourism industry in creating job opportunities [71,72]. Additionally, rural tourism facilitates local employment and entrepreneurship, encouraging talent to return and effectively addressing social challenges such as the issues faced by left-behind children and elderly individuals living alone [73]. The concept of “lucid waters and lush mountains” highlights natural, ecological, and aesthetic advantages, offering individuals a comfortable environment for both living and working. As rural tourism progresses, the continuous enhancement of infrastructure in rural areas encourages more individuals to settle in the countryside and contribute to its development. Additionally, rural tourism has promoted the continuous improvement of the rural talent cultivation system, with an emphasis on enhancing the quality of professional talent [74].

3.5. The Management Effects Generated by Tourism Development Can Promote the Revitalization of Rural Organizations

The development of rural tourism not only strengthens the unity and cooperation among village officials to jointly advance the rural construction process but also effectively enhances the masses’ centripetal force towards industrial development. Through the promotion of rural tourism, grassroots organization construction is strengthened, and the level of organization among villagers is improved, achieving the organizational participation of the community, thereby reaching the goal of “effective governance” in rural areas [75]. Additionally, the development of rural tourism can integrate rural resources, gather the strength of multiple stakeholders, optimize the governance structure in rural areas, and promote the continuous improvement of the rural governance system. This contributes to the modernization of rural governance and lays the foundation for establishing a new pattern of collaborative governance involving diverse stakeholders [47].

Based on the analysis of the five primary effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization—namely, economic, environmental, cultural, talent, and management effects—these have been identified as the first-level indicators. During the selection process of these indicators, a comprehensive consideration of the key dimensions of rural revitalization was undertaken, primarily focusing on the pertinent literature regarding rural revitalization and the impacts of rural tourism. Furthermore, the evaluation index system reflecting the role of tourism in furthering rural revitalization was established in alignment with the specific context of the research area, as demonstrated in

Table 1. Evaluation indicators for the effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization.

First-Level Indicators (B)	Second-Level Indicators (C)	Source
Economic Effects (B1)	Increase in Resident Income (C1)	[46]
	Increase in Tourism Employment Opportunities (C2)	[36,76]
	Extension of the Tourism Industry Chain (C3)	Reference 3.1 Analysis of economic effects
	Improvement in the Conversion Rate of Tourism Resources (C4)	Reference 3.1 Analysis of economic effects
	Reduction in Energy Consumption per Unit of Tourism Output (C5)	[46,77]
	Upgrading and Transformation of Rural Industries (C6)	Reference 3.1 Analysis of economic effects
	Optimization of Rural Industrial Structure (C7)	Reference 3.1 Analysis of economic effects
Environmental Effects (B2)	Continuous Improvement of the Ecological Environment (C8)	[45,53]
	Prominence of Rural Landscape Features (C9)	[76]
	Reduction in Tourism Carbon Emissions (C10)	[78,79]
	Continuous Improvement of the Living Environment (C11)	[80]
	Increasing Improvement of Infrastructure (C12)	[49]
Cultural Effects (B3)	Enhancement of Villagers’ Cultural Literacy (C13)	[37,81]
	Strengthening of Villagers’ Cultural Confidence (C14)	Reference 3.3 Analysis of cultural effects
	Elevation of Villagers’ Level of Civilization (C15)	[37,76]
	Preservation, Inheritance, and Development of Intangible Cultural Heritage (C16)	Reference 3.3 Analysis of cultural effects
	Increase in Rural Cultural and Recreational Resources and Facilities (C17)	[48,49]
	Enhancement of Tourism Cultural Influence (C18)	Reference 3.3 Analysis of cultural effects
Talent Effects (B4)	Growth and Strengthening of Rural Professional Talent Teams (C19)	[37,45]
	Improvement of Quality in Rural Professional Talents (C20)	Reference 3.4 Analysis of talent effects
	Returnees Actively Engaging in Entrepreneurship (C21)	[37]
	Social Talents Actively Participating in Rural Construction (C2)	[37]
Management Effects (B5)	Strengthening Cohesion of Grassroots Party Organizations (C23)	Reference 3.3 Analysis of management effects
	Improvement in the Governance Level of Grassroots Organizations (C24)	[45]
	Optimization of Grassroots Organizational Structure (C25)	[49]
	Enhancement of Rural Organizational Degree (C26)	[37,45]
	Strengthening of Villagers’ Voice in Tourism (C27)	[76]

.

4. Research Design

4.1. Case Study Introduction

4.1.1. Shibadong Village: A “Government-Led Model” with a Focus on Eco-Tourism and Red Tourism

Shibadong Village is located in Huayuan County, Hunan Province, with a permanent population of 939 people. It was once an impoverished village, with limited transportation, that was little known to the outside world (

Table 2. Case site overview.

Case Study Site	Shibadong Village	Yuanjia Village
Development Entity	Government-Led	Community-Led
Operating Entity	Local Tourism Companies, Tourism Cooperatives, and Villagers	Village Committee, Village Tourism Management Company, and Industry Associations
Tourism Resources	Ecological Resources, Revolutionary Resources, Agritourism, and Ethnic Customs	Guanzhong Culture and Specialty Catering
Advantage Differences	(1) Possess unique natural scenery and preserve traditional dwellings and folk customs; (2) As the “pioneering site of targeted poverty alleviation”, it serves as a base for red education and aims to create a red landmark; (3) There is significant investment from both the government and private sectors.	(1) A gathering place for Guanzhong cuisine, with a “one family, one specialty” approach to avoid homogenization; (2) Autonomous management and operation by villagers; (3) Moderate subsidies to prevent cutthroat competition.
Revenue Distribution	(1) Operating agritourism businesses and selling goods to obtain direct income; (2) Gaining income through employment generated by the development of tourism; (3) Receiving dividends from kiwi fruit factories, mineral water plants, and similar enterprises.	(1) Indigenous residents: Gaining income from operating agritourism, receiving dividends from shareholding, and renting out properties; (2) New residents: Acquiring dividends from capital investment in cooperatives and earning business revenue from operating shops.

Note: derived from field research.

). In 2013, General Secretary Xi visited Shibadong Village, where the important concept of “precise poverty alleviation” was first put forward. In accordance with the 16-word guideline of “seeking truth from facts, adapting to local conditions, classifying and guiding, and poverty alleviation with precision”, Shibaodong Village has embarked on the road of poverty alleviation, seized the opportunity to develop characteristic tourism around the three colors of “red, green, and antique”, and realized the transformation from a deep-mountain Miao cottage to a 5A national tourist attraction. The transformation from a deep-mountain Miao village to a national 5A tourist attraction has been realized. In 2017, Shibadong Village was officially lifted out of poverty, and, in 2022, it embarked on a new journey of rural revitalization. In recent years, Shibaodong Village has been honored as a “National Model for Poverty Eradication” and called a “National Patriotic Education Demonstration Base”.

4.1.2. Yuanjia Village: A “Government-Led Model” with a Focus on Eco-Tourism and Red Tourism

Yuanjia Village is located in Lixian County, Shaanxi Province, with a permanent population of 500 people. In 2007, led by Guo Zhanwu, the villagers embarked on the development of rural tourism, using the tertiary sector to drive the secondary and primary industries, thus embarking on the path of rural revitalization. The village transformed from a “hollow village” to a “star village”, successively receiving honors such as “Top Ten Charming Villages in China”, “Chinese Traditional Village”, and “Beautiful Village in China”, and is known as the “Lijiang of Shaanxi”. Yuanjia Village, with Guanzhong folklore culture and rural life at its core, has developed an experiential tourist attraction that captures the essence of Guanzhong impressions (Table 2). In 2011, Yuanjia Village introduced new business formats such as inns, homestays, coffee shops, bars, bookstores, and creative workshops to meet the leisure and cultural needs of urban residents. It has become a comprehensive leisure experience destination that integrates dining, accommodation, transportation, sightseeing, shopping, and entertainment, transitioning from rural folk tourism to rural leisure and vacation tourism.

4.2. Data Collection

Project team members randomly distributed questionnaires and conducted household interviews, allowing respondents to complete the questionnaires independently (

Table 3. Research findings.

Case Study Site	Shibadong Village	Yuanjia Village
Research Timeline	22 June 2023–25 June 2023	10 June 2023–13 June 2023
Research Methodology	Questionnaire Survey, Structured Interviews, Unstructured Interviews
Number of Questionnaires Distributed	105	215
Number of Valid Questionnaires	102	210
Questionnaire Response Rate	97.14%	97.67%

). Where there were doubts, team members provided detailed explanations. For residents who were unable to fill out the questionnaires themselves, team members translated and explained each question, and based on the residents’ responses, helped them complete the questionnaire to ensure the authenticity and validity of the content. The reliability of the questionnaires from both villages was confirmed with a reliability coefficient greater than 0.7, as tested using SPSS 27.0 software (

Table 4. Reliability and validity assessment table.

		Shibadong Village	Yuanjia Village
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient		0.953	0.931
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	KMO Value	0.851	0.865
	χ2 approx	2643.468	3260.589
	df	351	351
	p Value	0.000	0.000

). The KMO values were also greater than 0.7, and the p-values were significantly less than 0.05, indicating that the structure of the questionnaire survey had good validity.

From

Table 5. Basic information of respondents.

		Shibadong Village		Yuanjia Village
Survey Items	Category of Options	Number of People	Proportion (%)	Number of People	Proportion (%)
Gender	Men	43	42.16%	103	49.05%
	Women	59	57.84%	107	50.95%
Age	22 years old and under	7	6.86%	12	5.71%
	23–35 years old	48	47.06%	85	40.48%
	36–45 years old	24	23.53%	34	16.19%
	46–60 years old	21	20.59%	52	24.76%
	Over 60 years old	2	1.96%	27	12.86%
Educational Attainment	Junior high school and below	40	39.22%	58	27.62%
	High School/Technical Secondary School	25	24.51%	71	33.81%
	junior colleges	18	17.65%	45	21.43%
	undergraduate	19	18.63%	35	16.67%
	Graduate student or above	0	0%	1	0.48%
Residency (Local or Non-local)	Yes	72	70.59%	90	42.86%
	No	30	29.41%	120	57.14%
Annual Household Income	Less than CNY 30,000	24	23.53%	31	14.76%
	CNY 30,000–50,000	36	35.29%	60	28.57%
	CNY 50,000–100,000	30	29.41%	70	33.33%
	CNY 100,000–150,000	8	7.84%	31	14.76%
	More than CNY 150,000	4	3.92%	18	8.57%
Tourism relevance	Direct relevant	60	58.82%	132	62.86%
	Indirect relevant	23	22.55%	39	18.57%
	irrelevant	19	18.63%	39	18.57%

Note: derived from field research.

, it can be observed that the respondents from Shibadong Village are relatively evenly distributed in terms of gender; in terms of age distribution, the respondents are primarily concentrated between the ages of 23–35; in terms of educational attainment, the majority have completed junior high school or high school; the majority of respondents are local residents, which is consistent with reality and conducive to the research; in terms of annual household income, a significant proportion of respondents from Shibadong Village have an annual household income between CNY 30,000 and 50,000; in terms of tourism relevance, the majority of respondents have a connection with tourism. Additionally, the respondents from Yuanjia Village are relatively evenly distributed in terms of gender; in terms of age distribution, the respondents are primarily concentrated between the ages of 23 and 35; the respondents’ educational levels are also relatively balanced; the respondents are nearly equally divided between local and non-local residents, which is due to the fact that many service personnel are from neighboring villages or have been attracted to the area through investment promotion, with many having worked there for over five years, making their opinions quite referential and beneficial to the research; in terms of annual household income, the majority of respondents have an annual household income ranging from CNY 30,000 to 100,000; in terms of tourism relevance, the majority of respondents are directly or indirectly engaged in rural tourism.

4.3. Research Methodology

This article primarily utilizes the Entropy Weighted TOPSIS method to calculate the effect values of tourism in promoting rural revitalization for the two villages. It also employs IPA (Importance–Performance Analysis) quadrant diagrams and independent sample t-tests to describe the effect differences between the two villages in a combined graphical and tabular format. For details of the implementation process, please refer to Figure 2.

4.3.1. Weight Calculation

The entropy method is an objective weighting technique used to determine the weights of indicators, which can reduce the impact of subjectivity on decision-making outcomes, avoid interference from human factors, and is characterized by its simplicity, intuitiveness, and ease of implementation [82]. The evaluation results are more in line with reality. The magnitude of the indicator weights reflects the influence of each indicator on the evaluation system; the greater the weight, the greater the impact of that indicator on the effect. Given the high credibility of the entropy method in weight calculation and its applicability to weight distribution of multi-indicator variables [41], this study employs the entropy method to objectively assign weights to 27 key indicators in different tourism development models that promote rural revitalization in Shibadong Village and Yuanjia Village (

Table 6. Weight of evaluation indicators for the effects of tourism in promoting rurality in Shibadong Village.

Shibadong Village
First-Level Indicators (B)	Relative Weights of First-Level Indicators	Second- Level Indicator (C)	Relative Weights of Second-Level Indicators	Original Entropy Weight Method
Economic Effects (B1)	0.4033	(C1)	0.0806	0.0271
		(C2)	0.178	0.0599
		(C3)	0.0875	0.0295
		(C4)	0.1255	0.0423
		(C5)	0.3539	0.1192
		(C6)	0.1099	0.037
		(C7)	0.0645	0.0217
Environmental Effects (B2)	0.1496	(C8)	0.2147	0.0227
		(C9)	0.2246	0.0237
		(C10)	0.1997	0.0211
		(C11)	0.2281	0.0241
		(C12)	0.1329	0.014
Cultural Effects (B3)	0.1464	(C13)	0.1523	0.0224
		(C14)	0.1446	0.0212
		(C15)	0.1165	0.0171
		(C16)	0.1577	0.0232
		(C17)	0.1891	0.0278
		(C18)	0.2398	0.0352
Talent Effects (B4)	0.1619	(C19)	0.2536	0.044
		(C20)	0.265	0.046
		(C21)	0.2294	0.0398
		(C22)	0.2517	0.0437
Management Effects (B5)	0.1388	(C23)	0.1518	0.0361
		(C24)	0.1641	0.039
		(C25)	0.135	0.0321
		(C26)	0.1842	0.0438
		(C27)	0.3649	0.0867

and

Table 7. Weight of evaluation indicators for the effects of tourism in promoting rurality in Yuanjia Village.

Yuanjia Village
First-Level Indicators (B)	Relative Weights of First-Level Indicators	Second- Level Indicator (C)	Relative Weights of Second-Level Indicators	Original Entropy Weight Method
Economic Effects (B1)	0.4033	(C1)	0.1992	0.0803
		(C2)	0.2101	0.0847
		(C3)	0.0986	0.0398
		(C4)	0.1981	0.0799
		(C5)	0.1127	0.0454
		(C6)	0.1066	0.043
		(C7)	0.0747	0.0301
Environmental Effects (B2)	0.1496	(C8)	0.1658	0.0248
		(C9)	0.1776	0.0266
		(C10)	0.2941	0.044
		(C11)	0.178	0.0266
		(C12)	0.1846	0.0276
Cultural Effects (B3)	0.1464	(C13)	0.153	0.0224
		(C14)	0.1201	0.0176
		(C15)	0.1465	0.0214
		(C16)	0.1674	0.0245
		(C17)	0.2538	0.0371
		(C18)	0.1593	0.0233
Talent Effects (B4)	0.1619	(C19)	0.2361	0.0382
		(C20)	0.3016	0.0488
		(C21)	0.3017	0.0488
		(C22)	0.1606	0.0026
Management Effects (B5)	0.1388	(C23)	0.1778	0.0274
		(C24)	0.1396	0.0194
		(C25)	0.203	0.0282
		(C26)	0.1745	0.0242
		(C27)	0.305	0.0423

), accurately reflecting the importance of each indicator.

Step 1: calculate the proportion of the i-th sample value under the j-th indicator relative to the total value of that indicator. This can be expressed mathematically as follows:

$$p_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{z_{ij}}{\sum _{i=1}^n{z}_{ij}}},i=\mathrm{1,2},...,n;j=\mathrm{1,2},...,m$$

(1)

Step 2: calculate the entropy value of the j-th indicator.

$$e_j-{\displaystyle \frac{\sum _{i=1}^n{\mathit{ln}n·p}_{ij}}{\mathit{ln}n}}$$

(2)

Step 3: calculate the information entropy redundancy value.

$$d_j=1-e_j$$

(3)

Step 4: calculate the weight of each indicator.

$$w_i={\displaystyle \frac{d_j}{\sum _{j=1}^m{d}_j}}$$

(4)

4.3.2. Effect Value Calculation

The TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) model is an evaluation method that approximates the ideal solution. In this method, the closer an evaluation object is to the positive ideal solution, the better it is considered, and the farther it is from the negative ideal solution, the better as well. Given the simplicity, practicality, and ability to handle complex decision-making problems, the TOPSIS method is widely used in the evaluation and selection of multi-criteria decision-making problems [83]. This study employs the TOPSIS method to obtain the effect closeness values (

Table 8. Case site effect closeness results in Shibadong Village.

	First-Level Indicators (B)	Second-Level Indicators (C)	Effect Score
The Effect of Shibadong Village Tourism in Promoting Rural Revitalization 0.55 Higher level	Economic Effects (B1) 0.4303 Moderate Level	(C1)	0.51
		(C2)	0.4107
		(C3)	0.6123
		(C4)	0.5356
		(C5)	0.3499
		(C6)	0.4981
		(C7)	0.691
	Environmental Effects (B2) 0.7274 Top level	(C8)	0.7227
		(C9)	0.7118
		(C10)	0.7027
		(C11)	0.6659
		(C12)	0.7649
	Cultural Effects (B3) 0.6881 Top level	(C13)	0.6858
		(C14)	0.7264
		(C15)	0.7453
		(C16)	0.697
		(C17)	0.6865
		(C18)	0.5513
	Talent Effects (B4) 0.5328 Higher level	(C19)	0.5054
		(C20)	0.533
		(C21)	0.5718
		(C22)	0.5124
	Management Effects (B5) 0.552 Higher level	(C23)	0.6134
		(C24)	0.5769
		(C25)	0.6181
		(C26)	0.578
		(C27)	0.4759

and

Table 9. Case site effect closeness results in Yuanjia Village.

	First-Level Indicators (B)	Second-Level Indicators (C)	Effect Score
The Effect of Yuanjia Village Tourism in Promoting Rural Revitalization 0.7059 Top level	Economic Effects (B1) 0.6316 Higher level	(C1)	0.627
		(C2)	0.6516
		(C3)	0.7407
		(C4)	0.6609
		(C5)	0.7161
		(C6)	0.6372
		(C7)	0.7559
	Environmental Effects (B2) 0.7165 Top level	(C8)	0.7938
		(C9)	0.6997
		(C10)	0.7206
		(C11)	0.7795
		(C12)	0.7829
	Cultural Effects (B3) 0.7001 Top level	(C13)	0.7829
		(C14)	0.7564
		(C15)	0.7271
		(C16)	0.7895
		(C17)	0.7494
		(C18)	0.7479
	Talent Effects (B4) 0.6783 Top level	(C19)	0.6573
		(C20)	0.71
		(C21)	0.7086
		(C22)	0.712
	Management Effects (B5) 0.7076 Top level	(C23)	0.7145
		(C24)	0.7443
		(C25)	0.7026
		(C26)	0.7072
		(C27)	0.7385

).

Step 1: use the obtained weights and the original data matrix to obtain the normalized matrix R.

$$r_{ij}=w_i·z_{ij}$$

(5)

Step 2: calculate the distance between each evaluation object and both the positive and negative ideal solutions. The positive ideal solution $s_j^{+}$ and the negative ideal solution $s_j^{-}$ are determined as follows:

$$s_j^{+}=\left\{\underset{1\le j\le m}{\max }{r}_{ij}|j=\mathrm{1,2},...,m\right\}=\left\{s_1^{+},s_2^{+},...s_m^{+}\right\}$$

(6)

$$s_j^{-}=\left\{\underset{1\le j\le m}{\min }{r}_{ij}|j=\mathrm{1,2},...,m\right\}=\left\{s_1^{-},s_2^{-},...s_m^{-}\right\}$$

(7)

To calculate the distance from each evaluation object to the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution.

$${sep}_i^{+}=\sqrt{\sum _{j=1}^m{\left(s_j^{+}-r_{ij}\right)}^2}$$

(8)

$${sep}_i^{-}=\sqrt{\sum _{j=1}^m{\left(r_{ij}-s_j^{-}\right)}^2}$$

(9)

Step 3: calculate the closeness coefficient.

$$c_i={\displaystyle \frac{{sep}_i^{-}}{{sep}_i^{-}+{sep}_i^{+}}}\left(0\le c_i\le 1\right)$$

(10)

The value of the closeness coefficient ranges between 0 and 1. The larger the value, the closer the evaluation object is to the optimal level; conversely, the smaller the value, the farther the evaluation object is from the optimal level. This coefficient provides a quantitative measure of how closely each evaluation object approximates the positive ideal solution, allowing for a ranking of the objects based on their performance.

4.3.3. Evaluation Criteria

This study refers to Yin Changfeng’s criteria for evaluating the comprehensive development level of rural tourism and rural revitalization [84], dividing the effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization into five levels: below 0.2 as Minimum level; from 0.2 to 0.35 as Lower level; from 0.35 to 0.5 as Moderate level; from 0.5 to 0.65 as Higher level; and above 0.65 as Top level.

4.3.4. IPA Method

The IPA Method, also known as Importance–Performance Analysis, provides a more visual and intuitive evaluation of satisfaction. It constructs a quadrant analysis chart with importance on the X-axis, satisfaction on the Y-axis, and the means of both as the origin Figure 3 [85]. The advantages of the IPA method lie in its intuitive and clear model, which is easy to understand and can clearly display the priority of various projects, facilitating quick decision-making by managers. Therefore, this study employs the IPA method to visually present the 27 indicators of rural revitalization driven by different tourism development models in Shibadong Village and Yuanjia Village on a quadrant chart for easy comparison.

5. Results and Analysis

5.1. PA Results Analysis

Based on the survey data, the mean importance scores (I1 = 3.8519, I2 = 3.8511) and the mean satisfaction scores (P1 = 3.5606, P2 = 4.2399) are utilized as the intersection points for the construction of the Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) diagram. This analysis effectively visualizes the 27 indicators related to the impact of rural tourism on the revitalization of rural areas, as illustrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

5.1.1. Quadrant I (High Importance–High Satisfaction): The Area for Continued Improvement

In Quadrant I, both villages encompass indicators from the cultural and environmental dimensions, as well as the indicators pertaining to the optimization of the rural industrial structure (C7). Culture and the environment serve as the “two major tools” for rural tourism development; they represent significant attractions for tourists and are the most direct elements through which changes in rural areas can be perceived [86]. Consequently, these factors hold a high level of importance. The survey results reveal that residents in both villages have assigned high and relatively consistent scores to the indicators associated with these two dimensions. Through the development of the tourism industry, both regions have optimized their industrial structures, transitioning from a primary focus on the primary and secondary industries to a convergent development involving the tertiary sector [87]. Additionally, indicators from the talent and management dimensions in Yuanjia Village are also included within this quadrant. Yuanjia Village has established a magnetic effect on various industries, thereby attracting a diverse array of talents, with social talents actively participating in rural construction (C22), which has emerged as a notable advantage. In the quest for rural development, grassroots party organizations in Yuanjia Village have reinforced their leadership role and enhanced community cohesion. With effective leadership in place, the county government has proactively coordinated joint management across multiple departments. With effective leadership in place, the county government has proactively coordinated joint management across multiple departments. In selecting university student village officials, thorough consideration is given to Yuanjia Village’s requirements regarding both the quality and quantity of talent, thereby improving the overall quality of the village cadre team. The satisfaction score for the grassroots organizational governance level indicator (C24) is high, reflecting its placement in Quadrant I.

5.1.2. Quadrant II (Low Importance–High Satisfaction): The Area for Steady Advancement

Both villages have four indicators falling into Quadrant II, including the indicators for the increase in rural cultural and entertainment resources and facilities (C17) and the optimization of grassroots organizational structures (C25). Shibadong Village hosts large-scale festive folk activities annually, while Yuanjia Village is equipped with a stage for traditional performances, an outdoor movie screen, and a café, all of which have enriched the leisure activities of local residents. Residents from both villages have given high evaluations in terms of the increase in rural cultural and entertainment resources and facilities. To achieve effective rural management, both villages have increased the number of party members to strengthen the party ranks, introduced university-educated village officials, improved the quality of cadres, and optimized grassroots organizational structures. The extension of Shibadong Village’s tourism industry chain (C3) and the gradual reduction in tourism carbon emissions (C10) fall into this area, indicating achievements in these two aspects, but there is still a need for continuous improvement and enhancement. Research indicates that Yuanjia Village has focused on developing a regional, personalized, and serialized cultural tourism product industry chain centered around folk and creative cultures [88], gradually extending its reach to major cities nationwide, which enhances its brand value and amplifies the influence of its tourism culture (C18). Furthermore, Yuanjia Village has actively encouraged residents to establish their own businesses and join cooperatives, thereby increasing the level of rural organization (C26). Through the implementation of a shareholding cooperative model, villagers have experienced tangible benefits.

5.1.3. Quadrant III (Low Importance–Low Satisfaction): The Area for Active Expansion

In Quadrant III, Shibadong Village includes five indicators, while Yuanjia Village includes six indicators. The three economic dimension indicators of the two villages—namely, the improvement of tourism resource conversion rate (C4), the reduction in energy consumption per unit of tourism output (C5), and the transformation and upgrading of rural industries (C6)—are all categorized in Quadrant III. This classification suggests that both areas require ongoing transformation and upgrading, improved resource utilization, and the achievement of high-quality, sustainable development in rural tourism. Although the indicators of enhanced tourism cultural influence (C18) and increased rural organizational level (C26) for Shibadong Village also fall into Quadrant III, on-site observations suggest that these factors significantly contribute to rural development. The unique ethnic minority culture of Shibadong Village is its advantage, but there is an urgent need for cultural promotion and outreach to let more people become aware of Shibadong Village [89]. Cooperatives should also exert their maximum strength to enhance the level of rural organization and organize villagers to increase their income and wealth together.

In contrast, due to the higher level of industrial development in Yuanjia Village, residents are engaged in different segments of the tourism industry chain and possess a deeper understanding of its intricacies. Nevertheless, the current state of Yuanjia Village’s tourism industry chain may reveal discrepancies compared to the more established tourism industry chains in developed areas. Therefore, the score for the indicator of tourism industry chain extension (C3) is relatively low, which is reflected in Quadrant III. It has also implemented comprehensive advancements and constructions in sewage treatment, gas supply to villages, and environmental remediation, which are relatively mature in various aspects. Tourism carbon emissions have become an issue that needs to be considered for continued transformation and upgrading. The rapid development of tourism in Yuanjia Village has not only advanced rural material civilization but also enhanced local spiritual civilization [90]. Villagers have become more open-minded, and the community adheres to the concept of “common prosperity”, encouraging participation from all and sharing of outcomes. Villagers have a stronger sense of autonomy and demand more say. The data indicate that the indicator of increased tourism discourse power (C27) falls into Quadrant III. According to the research findings, villagers express that they have considerable say and are satisfied with the management of village officials. If this aspect continues to be strengthened, there is a prospect of moving into Quadrants I and II.

5.1.4. Quadrant IV (High Importance–Low Satisfaction): The Area for Focused Improvement

In Quadrant IV, both villages include indicators from the economic and talent dimensions. The economic dimension pertains to livelihood issues, which are of the utmost concern to residents and can significantly influence their attitudes towards rural development. This dimension is also highly susceptible to the influence of various factors, resulting in the lowest scores. The uneven development among the four villages in Shibadong and the disparity in residents’ incomes have significantly impacted the scoring in the economic dimension. The income of residents in Yuanjia Village’s new and old streets has also varied due to the influence of geographical location and policy. Regarding the talent effect, both villages share common issues, namely, how to “attract talent”, “retain talent”, and “cultivate talent”. In the management dimension, Shibadong Village’s indicators of improved grassroots organizational governance level (C24) and enhanced villagers’ tourism discourse power (C27) fall within this quadrant. Shibadong Village primarily relies on government guidance, with villagers having fewer opportunities to participate directly in the management of local tourism development and a limited understanding of grassroots organizations. For instance, one villager stated, “I don’t know much about the village committee”. Therefore, the scores for these two indicators are comparatively low.

5.2. Effect Difference Analysis

To further elucidate the differential effects of two tourism development models on the promotion of rural revitalization, an independent samples t-test was conducted on the effect scores of Shibadong Village and Yuanjia Village. The results indicate that, after the test for homogeneity of variances, the data for the five major effects meet the prerequisites for t-tests (

Table 10. Significance test of effect differences.

		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-Test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (Two-Tailed)	Mean Difference	Standard Error	Difference 95% Confidence Interval
									Lower Limit	Upper Limit
Economic Effects	Assumption of Equal Variances	1.879	0.196	−3.536	12	0.004 **	−0.16883	0.04775	−0.27286	−0.06480
	Assumption of Unequal Variances			−3.536	8.358	0.007	−0.16883	0.04775	−0.27806	−0.05960
Environmental Effects	Assumption of Equal Variances	1.024	0.341	−1.686	8	0.130	−0.04170	0.02474	−0.09874	0.01534
	Assumption of Unequal Variances			−1.686	7.789	0.131	−0.04170	0.02474	−0.09901	0.01561
Cultural Effects	Assumption of Equal Variances	1.523	0.245	−2.606	10	0.026 *	−0.07682	0.02947	−0.14249	−0.01114
	Assumption of Unequal Variances			−2.606	6.159	0.039	−0.07682	0.02947	−0.14849	−0.00515
Talent Effects	Assumption of Equal Variances	0.034	0.861	−8.339	6	<0.001 ***	−0.16632	0.01995	−0.21513	−0.11752
	Assumption of Unequal Variances			−8.339	5.917	<0.001	−0.16632	0.01995	−0.21530	−0.11735
Management Effects	Assumption of Equal Variances	1.763	0.221	−5.522	8	<0.001 ***	−0.14896	0.02697	−0.21116	−0.08676
	Assumption of Unequal Variances			−5.522	4.855	0.003	−0.14896	0.02697	−0.21893	−0.07899

Note: *** indicates p < 0.001; ** indicates p < 0.01; * indicates p < 0.05.

). Additionally, the Sig. values for the economic effect, cultural effect, talent effect, and management effect are all less than 0.05, suggesting that there are statistically significant differences in the perception of these four effects.

5.2.1. The Economic Effect Shows Extremely Significant Differences

Shibadong Village has achieved the goal of increasing employment opportunities and diversifying villagers’ income by developing tourism and other characteristic industries in line with local conditions through supportive policies. In 2023, the village received 838,000 tourist visits, with tourism revenue amounting to CNY 19.745 million, and it radiated to drive employment for 30,000 people in the surrounding areas. The per capita income increased from CNY 1668 in 2023 to CNY 25,456 (Figure 6). Yuanjia Village has primarily focused on self-development, establishing a tourism company to promote folk culture tourism, which has absorbed employment for approximately 3500 people. Despite the impact of the pandemic in 2021, Yuanjia Village still achieved a total annual tourism revenue of over 1 billion yuan, with per capita net income exceeding CNY 100,000. It can be observed that tourism has a positive impact on the rural economy [91].

The effect values indicate that there are significant differences in the economic effect indicators between the two villages, with all secondary indicator effect values for Yuanjia Village being greater than those for Shibadong Village. Shibadong Village began its tourism development relatively late, primarily focusing on rural tourism and red party-building study tourism, which are somewhat limited in form. The majority of villagers initially earned income through traditional methods, such as operating agritourism and selling local specialties, resulting in significant disparities in income and opinions regarding the distribution of tourism revenues. There are “not many, very few” people around (who are engaged in tourism-related work), and the majority of the young and middle-aged labor force still chooses to work outside the village. Although the local industrial structure has been adjusted and optimized, a complete industrial chain has not been formed, which is detrimental to sustainable development. Yuanjia Village has a clear positioning, focusing on the “Guan Zhong Impression Experience” to create a comprehensive tourist destination, attracting a diverse range of tourists and demonstrating a more mature development. Yuanjia Village has established cooperatives to facilitate local employment, generating significant revenue and regularly distributing dividends among local shareholders, technical personnel, and merchants, thereby sharing the benefits and outcomes of development. Residents of Yuanjia Village stated, “The village collected the original land and allowed villagers to become shareholders, subsequently distributing dividends to the villagers”. Starting in 2012, the village began a transformation and upgrading process, gradually transitioning from rural tourism to rural vacationing. After a decade of development, agritourism has evolved from version 1.0 to the current version 4.0. Furthermore, they have actively attracted investment to enhance economic vitality, established e-commerce platforms for multi-channel sales of local specialties, and continuously cultivated and developed new drivers for growth. The greatest difference in economic effect indicators between the two locations is the energy consumption per unit of tourism output. In Shibadong Village, “most cooking is done with firewood, and agritourism establishments also use firewood”, primarily to experience the original ecological lifestyle, for which villagers give a lower score (2.03). In contrast, Yuanjia Village converted entirely to natural gas in 2021, and villagers have given a higher score (4.1).

5.2.2. The Environmental Effect Shows No Significant Difference

The perception of environmental effects among villagers in both villages is relatively consistent (Shibadong Village: 0.7274; Yuanjia Village: 0.7165), and this viewpoint is also confirmed by on-site interviews. Shibadong Village has a forest coverage rate of 78%, preserving its natural landscapes, which is a natural advantage for its tourism development. In addition, the local area has implemented directives, such as “no potted landscapes, no staged scenery”, and “no special treatment, but there must be changes”, adhering to overall planning, focusing on traditional Miao villages, and creating distinctive village settlements. They have carried out the “Five Improvements” and “Six Services to Households” projects, established a sewage treatment plant and upgraded the village primary school and health clinic, effectively improving the living environment. A resident of Shibadong Village stated, “I feel that the roads here have improved” and “the toilets have also been renovated into flush toilets; previously, the internet was less used, but now it is more widespread than before”. Yuanjia Village has received high praise from residents and tourists for its environmental aspect, with great satisfaction regarding the current ecology and living conditions. The village is entirely planned and designed by its own people, with a high green coverage rate and flowing water throughout the entire scenic area, offering a beautiful natural environment. The living conditions of the villagers have significantly improved, with well-established basic service facilities that can meet their production and living needs [92]. According to the original inhabitants of Yuanjia Village, “The greening here is getting better and better. Living conditions are also quite good, with convenient access to water, electricity, and the internet”. “Every morning at half past seven, villagers in the village voluntarily go to the streets to pick up trash, and on Saturdays and Sundays, they volunteer to clean up the green belts”, which not only fosters environmental awareness among the villagers but also strengthens their sense of community cohesion.

5.2.3. The Cultural Effect Shows Significant Differences

Shibadong Village possesses a unique Miao ethnic cultural charm and is recognized as the “pioneering site of targeted poverty alleviation”. It has been creatively endowed with red cultural resources and serves as a base for party education, youth study tours, and patriotism education, showing a positive development trend. In addition to these, the local area also features a book house, poetry society, tea house, and intangible cultural heritage museum, which disseminate knowledge and culture to local residents and provide places for learning. “The Poetry House was established here by a businessman from Changsha, Hunan, and it is open to the public for free”. Yuanjia Village takes the Guanzhong folklore and rural lifestyle as its core content, relying on tangible cultural heritage, such as traditional residential architecture and old workshops, as well as intangible cultural heritage. Characterized by rural life, Guanzhong cuisine, and the participation of villagers in management, the village has developed the Guanzhong Impression Experience Scenic Area. With the development of tourism, the villagers of both villages have broadened their horizons and gained a deeper understanding of their local culture, thereby enhancing their confidence in their cultural heritage (Shibadong Village: 0.7264; Yuanjia Village: 0.7564) [88].

The differences in cultural effects between the two villages are primarily reflected in three indicators: the enhancement of villagers’ cultural literacy (C13) (Shibadong Village: 0.6858; Yuanjia Village: 0.7829), the protection, inheritance, and development of intangible cultural heritage (C16) (Shibadong Village: 0.697; Yuanjia Village: 0.7895), and the strengthening of the influence of tourism culture (C18) (Shibadong Village: 0.5513; Yuanjia Village: 0.7479), all of which show that Yuanjia Village outperforms Shibadong Village. With the development of the tourism industry, the villagers of Shibadong Village have been subtly influenced by external cultures. However, due to the closed environment and the backwardness of educational resources, the improvement of villagers’ cultural literacy has been slow. In the research, it was found that the villagers of Yuanjia Village have a stronger receptivity and tolerance towards culture. Shibadong Village places great emphasis on the protection of intangible cultural heritage and has established a Miao embroidery cooperative where villagers can learn for free. However, its efforts in cultural outreach are insufficient. Although there is a museum dedicated to intangible cultural heritage, it is not located in a popular tourist area and is not open to the public, resulting in a lack of cultural experience for visitors. The local efforts in revitalizing and exploring intangible cultural heritage need to be enhanced. Yuanjia Village has delved deeply into its culture, creating a distinctive cultural impression and gathering inheritors of intangible cultural heritage. This approach has not only added appeal to the scenic area and protected the intangible cultural heritage but also provided a basic livelihood for those who carry on these traditions. Shibadong Village’s tourism culture has not had a strong influence. Although some college students have returned to their hometowns to start businesses and promote Shibadong Village through live streaming, not many have been able to continue with this. A villager said, “Some college students came back to work online, but in recent years, they have gone to Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai to work”. Yuanjia Village has developed its own intellectual property (IP) and established a recognizable brand, which has been promoted nationwide.

5.2.4. The Talent Effect Shows Extremely Significant Differences

Shibadong Village has formed an industrial cluster, attracting talents to return to their hometown for entrepreneurship, and has cultivated a group of “local experts” and “field scholars”. College students also return to their hometown to start businesses, using live streaming to tell the “story of Shibadong Village”, helping villagers sell agricultural products. There are also professional managers and technical personnel providing corresponding guidance. In addition, government-dispatched village workers actively participate in rural construction. Yuanjia Village focuses on the utilization of talent, internally cultivating local worthies and externally attracting capable individuals. They provide on-the-job training and regular training for villagers and merchants, resulting in a high level of local service and well-developed infrastructure and supporting facilities, creating a favorable “soft” environment for attracting talent [93].

Yuanjiacun and Shibadongcun exhibit significant disparities in various talent effect indicators, with Yuanjiacun demonstrating superior talent effects (0.6783) relative to Shibadongcun (0.5328). While Shibadongcun has drawn several talents back for employment in the tourism sector, economic challenges have led to a notable talent outflow. As one local noted, “There are some college graduates who have returned, but their numbers are low; most have sought employment elsewhere”. This situation highlights the critical issue of talent retention. Furthermore, because “most of the workers are local villagers with modest expectations and minimal training”, the professional competence within the local workforce is insufficient. The investigation uncovered a considerable number of external management personnel who, while contributing positively to local tourism development, may inadvertently diminish the autonomy of local villagers [94]. Conversely, Yuanjiacun has proactively established entrepreneurial platforms for farmers, implementing favorable policies that enable them to engage in business activities at minimal or zero cost. The compelling proposition of converting “lucid waters and lush mountains” into “mountains of gold and silver” appeals as a pathway for returning talents to initiate enterprises and remain in their hometowns. In addition, Yuanjiacun has actively recruited external social talents, amassing over 1500 entrepreneurs who have since invested and opened businesses. To elevate talent quality, Yuanjiacun has cultivated a specialized talent workforce, instituted farmer training schools for local villagers, and facilitated opportunities for exchange and learning for both villagers and inheritors of intangible cultural heritage, thereby significantly enhancing villagers’ autonomy.

5.2.5. The Management Effect Shows Extremely Significant Differences

The village party branch of Shibadong Village actively plays a leading role, serving as the head of economic organizations to guide and oversee important rural decisions. It actively develops party members, strengthens the grassroots party ranks, and incorporates returning college students and young reserve cadres into the youth league branch committee, which enhances governance in the rural area. Yuanjia Village is centered around the party branch and takes the villagers as the main body in developing wealth-generating rural industries. It uses shareholding cooperatives to regulate income distribution, prevent polarization, and achieve common prosperity. The village committee and village officials have strong credibility, enabling effective governance in the countryside [95].

There are significant differences in the management effects under the two tourism development models. In this dimension, Yuanjia Village scores higher than Shibadong Village on all indicators. There is a significant difference between the two locations in terms of villagers’ increased discourse power in tourism (C27) (Shibadong Village: 0.4759; Yuanjia Village: 0.7385). Shibadong Village, with government support, has attracted corporate investment, making enterprises the main body in the development of rural tourism. Apart from a few villagers who run agritourism businesses and shops or are employed by enterprises, most are outsiders to the development of rural tourism. The village collective lacks control and merely acts as an intermediary for communication and coordination among multiple stakeholders, with village officials becoming coordinators [96]. Yuanjia Village is led by village officials and takes the villagers as the main body, controlling the means of production and generating income themselves, which has enhanced the villagers’ sense of community participation. Enterprises driven by community forces have become the leaders and maintainers of tourism development, with villagers becoming important supporters and service providers for rural tourism. The village collective has become the organizer of tourism development and the coordinator of multiple stakeholders [43]. The economic cooperative in Shibadong Village has not leveraged its full potential (0.578); it primarily engages in the collection and centralized sale of agricultural products or provides limited employment opportunities for its residents. In contrast, Yuanjia Village, spearheaded by village leaders, has effectively established an economic cooperative that generates tangible economic benefits for the local community, enabling villagers to actively participate in and share the rewards (0.7072). Residents of Yuanjia Village maintain a positive outlook on local governance, asserting that “the village ensures fair treatment for everyone”. In comparison, the Shibadong Village model offers fewer opportunities for community engagement and participation in tourism, resulting in diminished influence in tourism-related decisions. Residents of Shibadong Village express concern that “decisions in the village are made exclusively through party member voting, leaving villagers without the power to vote”.

5.3. The Mechanism of Impact of Rural Tourism Development Models on the Effect of Rural Revitalization

The rise of rural tourism is both a reflection of market demand and a direct result of the need for poverty alleviation in rural areas. Numerous cases have demonstrated that rural tourism is an important pathway for promoting rural development. However, under different tourism development models, their impact on rural revitalization varies. This paper aims to clarify the logical relationship between tourism development models and the effects on rural revitalization and to elucidate the internal mechanisms through which tourism development models operate (Figure 7).

5.3.1. The Management Effect Shows Extremely Significant Differences

The development models of rural tourism in China are significantly influenced by regional characteristics, with differences in location, resources, market, and self-governance capabilities among various rural areas leading to a diversified range of development paths [11]. The choice between government-led and community-led tourism development models depends on local economic conditions, resource characteristics, community capabilities, and the degree of dependence on external assistance. The government-led model is suitable for areas with high initial investment and strong policy support needs, especially those with weak economic foundations and insufficient community strength. In places like Shibadong Village, government intervention aims to rapidly promote economic growth and infrastructure development, and to kick-start the tourism industry [97]. Relatively speaking, the community-led model is more suitable for areas with strong community power and high resident participation [42]. For instance, in Yuanjia Village, this model focuses on safeguarding the interests of farmers and the long-term development of the community, striving for the organic integration of tourism management and community development. Such a model helps to stimulate the participation and enthusiasm of local residents and truly opens up pathways for local residents to engage in tourism development. It enables traditional villages to remain active and move towards sustainable protection and development.

5.3.2. Community Status and Depth of Villager Participation

In the sustainable development of rural tourism, community participation is not only a core driving mechanism but also a key factor in ensuring that farmers have a voice and broad involvement in tourism development. It directly affects the effectiveness of different tourism development models [98]. The comparative analysis of Shibadong Village and Yuanjia Village reveals the importance of community status and the agency of villagers. In Shibadong Village, the marginalized participation of villagers and external dependency have led to a lack of internal motivation, weak market competitiveness among villagers, uneven distribution of benefits, and a decline in community cohesion. In contrast, Yuanjia Village has strengthened the primary position of villagers through shareholding cooperation, achieving shared benefits, and enhancing community cohesion. The underlying motivation for community participation lies in promoting the healthy development of the community and improving the quality of life for residents. Establishing an effective community participation mechanism is crucial for ensuring the interests of the residents. Empirical studies have shown that the methods, stages, and awareness of community participation are vital to the success of rural tourism. Yuanjia Village’s concept of “co-consultation, co-construction, and sharing” has strengthened the villagers’ sense of community, while the uneven development and individual production methods in Shibadong Village have weakened the community’s centripetal force. The significance of rural tourism goes beyond economic income; it is more about achieving poverty alleviation through intellectual support and capacity building, which emphasizes the principle of “lifting intelligence before lifting poverty” [99]. Yuanjia Village’s model has stimulated the initiative and creativity of the residents, making them active participants and beneficiaries of rural tourism. This has provided talent and intellectual support for the success of rural tourism, whereas Shibadong Village’s approach is more focused on economic poverty alleviation. As a result, the two villages exhibit significant differences in the talent effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization.

5.3.3. Government Role and Exogenous Dynamics

Local governments, as policy practitioners, play a crucial role in the development of rural tourism [52]. They are not only the pioneers and trailblazers in the initial stages but also the rule-makers and supervisors during the development phase and the coordinators and balancers of interests in the mature phase [100,101]. The role of the government varies under different tourism development models, and its management or supervisory effectiveness also differs [41]. In the Yuanjia Village model, the government acts as a pioneering manager, introducing tourism management companies through market-oriented operations. This approach ensures effective management and avoids contradictions in community management. In contrast, in the Shibadong Village model, the government serves as a leader and supervisor. Due to the lack of external management forces and ineffective supervision, this has led to issues such as unregulated competition in tourism and the destruction of the ecological environment. These two cases illustrate the importance of the government’s primary role and regulatory effectiveness for the healthy development of rural tourism, as well as the key roles of community participation and government involvement in rural revitalization. In Shibadong Village, the government has supported corporate investment, making enterprises the leading force in tourism development, while the collective village and village officials have limited say in the process, with village officials primarily playing a coordinating role. Under this model, villagers have not fully benefited from the development of tourism, leading to distrust and resistance towards village officials, which has impacted the overall development of the village. In contrast, Yuanjia Village has adopted a development model led by village officials and centered on the villagers as the main body. Through shareholding cooperation, villagers have gained control over the means of production, achieving self-employment and involving the entire community in tourism development. The successful transformation of Yuanjia Village is attributed to the proactive efforts of village officials and the widespread participation of villagers. Party members and officials have engaged deeply with the masses, guiding them to recognize the potential benefits of tourism, stimulating a collective development consciousness among villagers, and jointly pursuing increased income and prosperity. Therefore, these two cases exhibit significant differences in the management effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization.

6. Conclusions and Discussion

6.1. Discussion

In this study, we conducted empirical research, constructed an evaluation index system for tourism’s role in promoting rural revitalization, assessed the promotional effects of two tourism development models on rural revitalization, and provided an in-depth analysis of their differences. The theoretical contributions of this paper are mainly reflected in the following three aspects:

Firstly, this study verifies that tourism can have a positive promotional effect on rural revitalization. At present, rural tourism is developing rapidly and showing a positive trend, having become an important force in promoting rural revitalization. Its positive effects are mainly reflected in promoting the transformation and upgrading of agriculture [102], the improvement of rural economies [103], and the increase in farmers’ income [104]. These achievements validate the correctness and importance of policies that use tourism to boost rural revitalization. Evaluating the impact of rural tourism can help us understand the current state of rural tourism development and provide a basis for policy adjustments [37]. This paper, through empirical research and from a micro perspective, collects data to evaluate the effects of rural tourism, further revealing that tourism is an important pathway to achieve comprehensive rural revitalization.

Secondly, this study compares the effects of two different tourism development models on rural revitalization, revealing the impact of model differences on the effects. Studies have indicated that tourism development models mainly consist of three types: government-led, community-led, and enterprise-led, each with its own characteristics and distinct mechanisms of motivation, leading to varied effects in rural tourism. Therefore, selecting an appropriate development model is crucial to the success or failure of rural tourism [11]. Existing research often focuses on the characteristics of models, current issues, and comparisons of typical cases [11], or discusses the evolutionary logic of models [105], but most of these studies are qualitative and lack quantitative analysis. Furthermore, although some scholars have evaluated the contribution of tourism to rural revitalization, few have distinguished and compared it from the perspective of different models. This study employs a combined qualitative and quantitative research methodology to clarify the effect differences between government-led and community-led models, thereby enriching the research on how rural tourism promotes rural development. Not only does this study enhance the explanatory power of tourism’s role in rural revitalization but it also refines the relevant theoretical framework, offering more targeted management insights and research guidance. Furthermore, this study points out that the development of rural tourism should not rely entirely on a single force; rural revitalization is a systematic project aimed at achieving comprehensive rejuvenation. It is unrealistic to rely solely on any one party’s efforts. Therefore, the “multiple interlocking model” integrates the forces of the government, villagers, and the market to form an internal cohesive force that promotes comprehensive rural revitalization [50], which may become an inevitable choice for future rural tourism development models. This model is capable of fully leveraging the advantages of various stakeholders, achieving an organic combination of government guidance, villager participation, and market support.

Lastly, this study has enriched and refined the evaluation index system for the effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization. Starting from the perspective of resident perceptions and considering the inherent coupling between rural tourism and rural revitalization, this paper draws on existing research on the effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization to comprehensively integrate the impact factors of rural tourism into the evaluation system of rural revitalization. Specifically, a framework comprising five dimensions and 27 specific indicators has been constructed. This system provides a tool for the micro-level quantification of the effects of tourism on rural revitalization, thereby complementing and enhancing the theoretical framework of tourism’s role in rural revitalization to a certain extent.

6.2. Conclusions

Rural tourism, as an effective means of rural economic development and resource integration, plays a profound role in promoting poverty alleviation and revitalization in rural areas [106]. It brings new opportunities for economic benefits and cultural heritage to rural areas and promotes the diversification and sustainable development of the rural economy [54]. By attracting urban residents to experience, leisure, vacation, and sightseeing, rural tourism becomes an important part of the tourism industry, with an industry chain covering multiple links and forming a relatively complete industrial ecosystem. In this process, rural tourism creates a large number of employment opportunities and promotes the increase in farmers’ income, while also playing a positive role in solving the “three rural issues” by improving rural infrastructure and the development of modern services [54]. Cases of Shibadong Village and Yuanjia Village show that tourism has a positive effect on rural revitalization [107], transforming these poor mountain villages into star villages and achieving comprehensive poverty alleviation and revitalization in rural areas. The entry of tourism improves the living standards of the local people, promotes local production development, and improves the local ecological environment, achieving a win–win situation for the economy, society, and ecology. Additionally, the development of the rural tourism economy faces unprecedented opportunities and challenges, which require in-depth thinking to maximize its potential for rural revitalization. The intrinsic motivation and complementary characteristics in tourism development help to deeply explore the economic potential of the local area, and its deep integration characteristics promote the effective use of destination culture and social resources, creating a good rural governance social environment through empowerment, and moderate development achieves the protection of local ecological resources [108]. Moreover, through the participation of multiple stakeholders and the continuous expansion of the network, cross-domain resource integration is achieved, laying the foundation for the long-term sustainability of rural tourism.

When discussing the impact of rural tourism on rural revitalization, we see that the development strategies and effects under government-led and community-led models have their own focuses, and the community-led model shows its unique advantages. The government-led model, through policy support and financial investment, quickly integrates resources and improves infrastructure, promoting the revitalization of rural industrial structures and aiding comprehensive rural revitalization [109]. Under this model, the development of rural tourism is not entirely community-oriented, and the dominant power is still in the hands of the government or investors, with community participation being mainly formal and symbolic [110]. In contrast, the community-led model focuses more on cultivating rural endogenous dynamics and improving community governance, which can better protect rural traditional culture and ecological environment and promote harmony and self-governance within the community. The endogenous rural tourism development led by the community, as shown in the case of Lujiacun in Zhejiang Province, sees villagers actively participating in the development and operation of community tourism under the leadership of community elites, and the benefits are mostly retained within the community, with a relatively complete and fair distribution mechanism [111]. Under this model, villagers truly become the beneficiaries of rural tourism development, having wage income from working in village enterprises, entrepreneurial income from running their own agritourism businesses, and annual equity dividends, with villagers holding shares without spending a penny, achieving “one person, one share” [111]. The community-led model, in promoting rural revitalization, not only stimulates the active participation of community residents but also effectively protects and inherits rural culture, achieving sustainable community development and promoting the transformation of grassroots government functions, all of which are the unique advantages of the community-led model in rural revitalization [112].

In the development of rural tourism, striking a balance between the government and the community is crucial, which helps to achieve efficient allocation of resources and the maximization of benefits [11]. This study, through a comparative analysis combining qualitative and quantitative methods, explores the differences in the effects of tourism in promoting rural revitalization under government-led and community-led models. It also proposes a collaborative framework that integrates resources from businesses, non-profit organizations, and other stakeholders to enhance community participation and design equitable benefit distribution mechanisms. This approach aims to ensure the sustainability of rural tourism and guarantee that villagers receive tangible benefits. However, this study’s limitations lie in the fact that it does not yet include comparisons of the corporate-led model and the multiple interlocking model, and it acknowledges that tourism development models are continuously evolving and require dynamic adjustment. Therefore, future research should expand its scope to include models with more stakeholders’ participation and conduct longitudinal tracking surveys. This will enable a more comprehensive understanding and optimization of rural tourism development models, leading to efficient resource allocation and the maximization of benefits. Such research will provide stronger theoretical and practical support for rural revitalization.