Thematic Evolution and Transmission Mechanisms of China’s Rural Tourism Policy: A Multi-Level Governance Framework for Sustainable Development

Abstract

Rural tourism is a key engine for sustainable development, elevated to a strategic level under China’s “Rural Revitalization Strategy”, creating a complex multi-level governance (MLG) policy system whose internal mechanisms are not fully understood. This study aims to analyze the thematic structure, spatio-temporal evolution, and transmission mechanisms of China’s rural tourism policy across central, provincial, and city/county levels. We applied BERTopic topic modeling and spatio-temporal analysis to a corpus of 1174 policy documents from 2005 to 2024. The results reveal a “centrally guided Type I governance” model with a clear functional division: the central level acts as a “top-level strategic designer”, the provincial level as a “key regional hub” for adaptation, and the city/county level as the “frontline of policy implementation”. We identified a vertical transmission chain characterized by a 1–2-year lag, alongside spatial differentiation driven by regional resource endowments at the provincial level and functional needs at the city/county level. This study concludes that China’s rural tourism governance framework is an efficient synergistic system that combines strong central guidance with dynamic local adaptation, providing empirical support for MLG theory in a unitary state and offering insights for optimizing policy coordination.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background and Problem Formulation

A broad consensus has emerged in both scholarly and policy communities worldwide that rural tourism is a key engine for driving regional sustainable development [1,2]. As a multifaceted industry that organically integrates the objectives of economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection, rural tourism is widely regarded as an effective pathway for achieving diversified development in rural areas, preserving cultural and natural heritage, and enhancing community well-being [3,4]. Particularly in developing countries, promoting rural sustainability through the formulation and implementation of appropriate tourism policies has become a key governance agenda [5]. This global trend is reflected with particular profundity and force in China. With the full-scale implementation of the national “Rural Revitalization Strategy” in 2017, rural tourism has been elevated to an unprecedented strategic level, serving as one of the core instruments for optimizing rural industrial structures, increasing farmers’ incomes, and achieving integrated urban–rural development [6,7,8].

In response to this national strategic call, various levels of Chinese government (including central, provincial, city, and county) have intensively issued a vast number of policy documents to guide and support the standardized development of rural tourism. This rapid proliferation of policies, while demonstrating the national strategic will, has also constructed a large-scale, hierarchically distinct, and complex governance system characterized by inter-departmental overlap [9]. However, a surge in the number of policies does not necessarily equate to an enhancement in governance effectiveness. Existing research has noted that this multi-actor, multi-level policy system faces numerous challenges in practice, such as poor policy coordination due to departmental fragmentation, inadequate supporting measures, and potential deviations in policy objectives during their transmission across administrative levels [9,10]. Therefore, although the policy framework is becoming increasingly comprehensive, its internal operational mechanisms—specifically, how policy themes differentiate, evolve, are transmitted, and adapt across different administrative levels—remain a “black box” that has not been fully explored. A systematic review and analysis of this complex policy system is not only a prerequisite for evaluating its governance effectiveness but also an urgent necessity for optimizing future policy design and ensuring that rural tourism genuinely serves the goal of sustainable development.

1.2. Literature Review and Theoretical Basis

1.2.1. Core Analytical Perspective: Multi-Level Governance (MLG) Theory

To systematically analyze the complex dynamics of China’s rural tourism policy system, this study adopts multi-level governance (MLG) theory as its core analytical framework. The emergence of MLG theory marks a profound shift in the academic understanding of modern state governance, transcending the traditional state-centric analytical paradigm to focus on the vertical dispersion of governing authority across different levels (e.g., supranational, national, sub-regional, and local) and the extensive participation of non-state actors in the governance process [11,12]. The core tenet of this theory is that public authority is no longer exclusively concentrated within the central government; instead, through upward, downward, and horizontal flows, it forms a complex, networked governance structure composed of multiple actors and various jurisdictions [13]. Although MLG theory was initially developed primarily to explain the process of European integration, its robust explanatory power has allowed it to rapidly transcend its specific geographical origins. It is now widely applied to the analysis of diverse political systems and policy domains globally, such as climate change, energy policy, and public health [14,15,16], continually sparking in-depth discussions about its conceptual applicability and theoretical boundaries [17].

Within the developmental trajectory of MLG theory, the typology proposed by Hooghe and Marks is of landmark significance. They distinguish between two ideal types: Type I MLG, characterized by the dispersion of authority to general-purpose, clearly bounded, and hierarchically nested jurisdictions, presenting a relatively stable and orderly structure; and Type II MLG, which manifests as authority organized around specific tasks, forming governance arrangements that are functionally specific, feature overlapping and intersecting boundaries, and are highly flexible [18]. This classic distinction has not only provided a foundational analytical tool for subsequent research but has also prompted scholars to examine the hybrid forms and operational logic of different governance models in the real world. The continuous evolution of MLG theory reflects a deepening academic understanding of the nature of contemporary governance—a shift from a static, hierarchical model to a more dynamic, process-oriented perspective that emphasizes interaction and adaptation. In this context, power interactions, resource dependencies, policy coordination, conflict resolution, and cross-level policy learning and diffusion among different tiers have consistently been core themes of MLG inquiry. These themes provide the key theoretical entry points for this study to dissect the evolution and transmission mechanisms of China’s rural tourism policy [19,20].

1.2.2. Contextualizing the Theory: China’s Policy Process and Central-Local Relations

Applying MLG theory to the Chinese context requires full consideration of its unique administrative system and the dynamics of its central-local relations. China’s governance system is built upon a unitary state structure, yet it exhibits complex interactive features characterized by the coexistence of centralization and decentralization [21,22]. Under this model, local governments possess a degree of autonomy in economic development and the provision of certain public services. However, the central government maintains a strong macro-control capacity through personnel appointments, intervention in key policy areas, and the formulation of strategic plans [23,24]. This unique power configuration dictates that multi-level governance in China must simultaneously motivate local initiative while ensuring the effective transmission and implementation of central government directives, a significant departure from Western federal or confederal models [25].

The “tiao-kuai relations” represent a structural feature of the Chinese administrative system that profoundly impacts the policy process [26]. This refers to the intertwined relationship between the vertical leadership from central ministries (tiao) and the comprehensive territorial administration of local governments (kuai). Consequently, local functional departments often face a dual responsibility to both their superior line agencies and the local government at the same administrative level [27]. This system of dual responsibility can easily lead to departmentalism and coordination failures, a phenomenon referred to in academia as “tiao-kuai fragmentation” or “fragmented governance” [28,29]. For complex policy domains like rural tourism, which require collaboration among multiple sectors such as agriculture, culture and tourism, natural resources, and finance, this “tiao-kuai fragmentation” poses a persistent challenge to effective governance [30].

At the implementation level, understanding concepts such as the “implementation gap” and “policy drift” is crucial. The former refers to the discrepancy between policy intent and actual implementation outcomes, while the latter describes the phenomenon where existing policies gradually lose their effectiveness due to a failure to adapt to changing socioeconomic conditions [31,32]. Furthermore, China’s policymaking and implementation are often characterized by a combination of “selective centralization” and “local policy experimentation.” The central government tends to strengthen vertical management in specific areas to ensure the achievement of national strategic goals, while simultaneously encouraging local governments to conduct policy innovations and pilot initiatives within designated regions. This fosters a dynamic policy learning mechanism that combines top-down guidance with bottom-up feedback [33,34,35]. This mechanism is a key driver of policy diffusion and evolution in China and offers a unique window through which to observe the practice of MLG in the Chinese context.

1.2.3. Research Focus: Rural Tourism Policy

As a policy instrument for promoting socioeconomic development and achieving sustainability goals in rural areas, rural tourism policy has become a focal point of academic attention both domestically and internationally. Different countries and regions have developed distinctive policy systems based on their unique resource endowments, developmental stages, and institutional contexts. In Europe, for example, rural tourism policy has long been regarded as a vital means for regional development and ecological conservation, with policies in countries like Italy, Spain, Romania, and Hungary often emphasizing the assessment of ecological benefits, the integration of green infrastructure, and the incorporation of concepts such as “slow tourism” [36]. In contrast, rural tourism policies in Asian countries tend to exhibit stronger government guidance. For instance, research in South Korea has confirmed the positive effect of government-led rural tourism projects on increasing farmers’ non-farm income [37], while policy reforms in Japan have effectively encouraged non-agricultural enterprises to participate in the rural hospitality sector [38]. These international experiences highlight the critical role of policy in shaping the development trajectory of rural tourism, but they also reflect the necessity for policy design to be closely aligned with specific national contexts.

In China, the evolution of rural tourism policy is closely linked to major national strategies and plays a central role in promoting economic, social, and ecological sustainable development in rural areas [39]. Existing research indicates that China’s rural tourism policy exhibits features of “polycentric coordination”, involving multiple departments such as the State Council, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism [9]. The focus of policy instruments has also evolved, shifting from an early emphasis on infrastructure construction to a greater focus on incentive measures and capacity building [9]. In terms of governance models, a multi-level structure has preliminarily formed, wherein the central government provides macro-guidance, provincial governments promote policies adapted to local conditions, and local governments are responsible for specific implementation [39,40]. In practice, multi-stakeholder collaboration models such as “government + village committee + enterprise + farmer” are commonly adopted, reflecting the concerted efforts of diverse actors [40,41]. Research on specific areas like low-carbon rural tourism further reveals that within the national policy framework, provinces exhibit different policy adoption patterns, and diverse implementation pathways—such as technology-driven, community-led, and policy-guided approaches—have emerged at the local level [42].

Although existing studies have explored the content, evolution, and governance models of rural tourism policy from various perspectives, a systematic analytical framework that encompasses the entire landscape of multi-level governance has yet to be established. The current literature tends to focus either on interpreting macro-level policies or on case studies of specific regions. It has not yet provided a fine-grained depiction, based on large-scale, long-term textual data, of how policy themes systematically differentiate and dynamically evolve across central, provincial, and city/county levels, nor has it fully illuminated the complex vertical transmission mechanisms and horizontal spatial adaptation patterns that underpin these processes. Similarly, there is a lack of sufficient empirical support regarding the specific functional positioning of different government levels within the policy system, the dynamic adjustments in their policy instrument preferences, and the process by which central strategic intentions are selectively interpreted and adaptively implemented at the local level. Methodologically, traditional qualitative analysis faces challenges in processing massive volumes of policy texts, whereas emerging computational social science methods offer new possibilities; however, their application in this field is still in its nascent stages. Therefore, while existing research provides an important foundation for understanding this field, it also leaves a significant knowledge gap that urgently requires more systematic and in-depth investigation.

1.3. Research Gaps, Core Questions, and Paper Structure

In summary, although the existing literature has explored multi-level governance theory, China’s policy process, and rural tourism policy from multiple perspectives, a significant research gap remains in systematically integrating this knowledge to thoroughly analyze the multi-level governance practices of China’s rural tourism policy. First, there is a theoretical and empirical gap: a lack of studies that provide systematic empirical validation of MLG theory within a specific Chinese policy field (particularly rural tourism) based on large-scale, long-term policy text data. Second, a process and mechanism gap exists. The current understanding of the internal mechanisms governing how policy themes dynamically and synergistically evolve, vertically transmit through hierarchical levels, and horizontally adapt across spatial areas within the “central–provincial–city/county” three-tiered governance system is insufficient; the policy process largely remains a “black box”. Finally, there is a methodological gap. Traditional policy content analysis methods have limitations in processing vast amounts of textual data, mining deep semantic structures, and dynamically tracking thematic evolution. The BERTopic topic model introduced in this study, by leveraging the powerful semantic understanding capabilities of pre-trained language models, can more accurately and objectively capture the internal structure and evolutionary trajectory of policy texts, thereby offering an innovative methodological pathway to address the aforementioned gaps.

To address these research gaps, the core research questions of this paper are: From the perspective of multi-level governance, what are the thematic structural characteristics and spatio-temporal evolution patterns of China’s rural tourism policy at the central, provincial, and city/county levels? What are the transmission mechanisms for these policy themes across different levels and their adaptive patterns across different regions? To answer these questions, the remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 elaborates on the research design and methodology; Section 3 presents the results of the empirical analysis; Section 4 provides an in-depth theoretical discussion of the findings; and Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. Research Design and Methods

2.1. Research Context and Object

This study is situated within the specific context of China. As the world’s largest developing country and a transitional economy, China’s vast territory, significant regional disparities, characteristic policy-driven development, and unique central-local relations provide a rich and complex case for observing multi-level governance and policy evolution. Against this backdrop, rural tourism policy stands out as a quintessential domain where national strategies and local practices are tightly interwoven, making its multi-level governance features particularly prominent.

Therefore, the direct object of this study is the official policy documents explicitly related to the theme of rural tourism that were formulated and issued between December 2005 and December 2024. These documents originate from the central government, the governments of 31 provincial-level administrative divisions (including provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities), and local governments at the city and county levels (including prefecture-level cities, autonomous prefectures, leagues, as well as counties, county-level cities, municipal districts, and banners).

2.2. Data Source and Processing

The policy text data for this study were primarily sourced from the “PKULaw” database, which is one of China’s authoritative databases for laws, regulations, and policy documents. This was supplemented by data from official local government websites to ensure comprehensive coverage. The data collection was completed in early 2025.

The research team conducted searches using “rural tourism” as the core keyword, supplemented by related terms such as “leisure agriculture”, “homestays”, and “agritainment” when they explicitly referred to rural tourism activities. To ensure the accuracy of the analysis, the initially retrieved policy texts underwent a rigorous screening process. Texts with low relevance to the theme of rural tourism, non-policy documents (e.g., meeting notices, competition records), and duplicate publications were excluded. After this screening, a final database containing 1174 valid policy documents was constructed, comprising 56 policies at the central level and 1118 at the local level (covering both provincial and city/county tiers).

The temporal scope of this policy sample spans 19 years, from December 2005 to December 2024, comprehensively covering the key historical stages of China’s rural tourism, from its preliminary exploration to its rapid development and integration into the national Rural Revitalization Strategy. In terms of administrative levels, the dataset includes 595 provincial policies and 523 city/county-level policies, a relatively balanced distribution that provides a solid foundation for multi-level comparative analysis. Geographically, the local policy sample covers all 31 provincial-level administrative divisions in the country.

To prepare for the subsequent textual analysis, we performed systematic preprocessing of the collected policy documents. First, basic information for each policy (including title, issuing institution, publication date, document number, and level of authority) was recorded in a standardized format. Second, the issuing institutions were coded according to their administrative level (central, provincial, city, county) and geographical location (specific province and city). Finally, the full text of each policy was extracted. Information on jointly issuing institutions was also preliminarily extracted for potential future analyses (such as collaborative network analysis, which is not a primary focus of this paper). Through this process, a structured policy text database was created, providing reliable data support for the thematic evolution analysis in this study.

2.3. BERTopic Topic Modeling Method

This study employs the BERTopic model for its topic modeling analysis. As an unsupervised topic modeling method based on BERT, BERTopic integrates pre-trained language models, document embedding dimensionality reduction, and clustering techniques to effectively identify latent themes within texts. During the data preprocessing stage, we utilized the Harbin Institute of Technology’s LTP 4.2.0 tool for word segmentation. Based on the content of the policy texts, we constructed a custom dictionary of specialized terms for the rural tourism domain and a stop-words dictionary to ensure the accuracy and professionalism of the text preprocessing. Subsequently, we adopted paraphrase-multilingual-MiniLM-L12-v2 as the embedding model. This model is a lightweight, multilingual BERT variant that can effectively process Chinese text and generate 384-dimensional document embedding vectors.

After document embedding, the model uses the UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) algorithm for dimensionality reduction. UMAP preserves the global structure of the data by constructing a fuzzy topological representation in the high-dimensional space and optimizing the corresponding low-dimensional embedding [43]. Its mathematical expression is:

$$\sum _{i\sim j}{w}_{ij}log\left({\displaystyle \frac{w_{ij}}{{\mu }_{ij}}}\right)+\left(1-w_{ij}\right)log\left({\displaystyle \frac{1-w_{ij}}{1-{\mu }_{ij}}}\right)$$

where $w_{ij}$ represents the weight between points i and j in the high-dimensional space, and ${\mu }_{ij}$ represents a distance metric between the corresponding points in the low-dimensional space.

Following this, the model employs the HDBSCAN (Hierarchical Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise) method for density-based clustering [44]. HDBSCAN constructs a hierarchical clustering tree by calculating core distances and mutual reachability distances:

$$\begin{array}{c}cor{e}_k\left(p\right)=dis{t}_k\left(p\right)\\ mutua{l}_{r}eachabilit{y}_k\left(a,b\right)=max\left(cor{e}_k\left(a\right),cor{e}_k\left(b\right),d\left(a,b\right)\right)\end{array}$$

where $dis{t}_k\left(p\right)$ is the distance from point $p$ to its $k$-th nearest neighbor, and $d\left(a,b\right)$ is the distance between points $a$ and $b$.

For textual feature extraction, the model uses CountVectorizer for word frequency statistics and identifies topic keywords by calculating a class-based TF-IDF (c-TF-IDF) score [45]:

$$c-TF-ID{F}_{t,c}={\displaystyle \frac{t_c}{w_c}}\cdot log\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_i^{\left|C\right|}{w}_i}{w_c}}\right)$$

where $t_c$ is the frequency of term t in class $c$, $w_c$ is the total number of words in class $c$, and ${\sum }_i^{\left|C\right|}{w}_i$ is the total number of classes.

This model configuration supports the automatic determination of the optimal number of topics (nr_topics = None), thereby avoiding the subjective bias introduced by manual setting. Compared to traditional topic models, the BERTopic model adopted in this study offers several advantages. First, by leveraging a multilingual pre-trained model, it can accurately grasp the semantic meaning of Chinese policy texts. Second, the combination of UMAP and HDBSCAN better preserves both the local and global structure of the data, improving clustering quality. Finally, the modified c-TF-IDF algorithm enhances the interpretability of the topics, facilitating the interpretation and analysis of policy text themes.

3. Results

This section systematically presents the spatio-temporal evolution patterns and thematic structural characteristics of China’s rural tourism policies (2005–2024) within a multi-level governance framework, as revealed by the analysis of 1174 policy documents. The analysis focuses on the objective performance of policies at the central, provincial, and city/county levels in terms of quantity, temporal distribution, spatial distribution, and thematic content, thereby providing an empirical foundation for the subsequent theoretical discussion.

3.1. Spatio-Temporal Evolution of Rural Tourism Policies in China

3.1.1. Temporal Characteristics of Policy Issuance and Inter-Level Interactions

Since 2005, the number of rural tourism policies issued in China has exhibited distinct phases, revealing patterns of interactive transmission among different administrative levels. As shown in Figure 1, although the total number of policies issued at the central level is limited, they play a strategic guidance role at key junctures, with three peaks in policy issuance occurring in 2011, 2017, and 2023. These years typically correspond to major adjustments or emphases in the national rural tourism development strategy.

In comparison, the evolution of provincial and city/county policies demonstrates clearer phases: an exploratory phase from 2005 to 2010 with a relatively small number of policies; a preliminary development phase from 2011 to 2014 with an increase in policy volume; and a rapid development phase after 2015. Notably, 2015 marked a distinct policy turning point, with the number of provincial policies increasing by 178.9% compared to the previous year. This aligns with the policy context in which rural tourism was elevated to a national strategic level for the first time.

From the perspective of inter-level policy interactions, the data clearly show a vertical transmission effect. Following the introduction of major central policies or strategic adjustments, the provincial and city/county levels typically experience a corresponding increase in the density of policy issuance within one to two years. This transmission is evident not only in the vertical dimension from the central to local levels but also reflected in an approximately one-year lagged response between provincial and city/county policy issuance. Furthermore, the data indicate a cyclical focus among the active policymaking bodies in different periods. This indirectly reflects the potential for dynamic equilibrium and synergistic mechanisms within the multi-level governance system, offering a preliminary perspective for understanding the policy diffusion process.

3.1.2. Spatial Patterns and Regional Agglomeration of Policy Issuance

The spatial distribution of rural tourism policy issuance in China exhibits significant regional disparities and distinct agglomeration patterns specific to different administrative levels. At the provincial level (Figure 2a), policy density has primarily formed a “resource endowment-oriented” pattern, where provinces with unique tourism resources issue policies more intensively. For example, Hainan Province, leveraging its tropical island resources [46], ranks first in the nation in policy quantity. Jilin Province follows, drawing on its northeastern folk culture and ice-and-snow resources [47]. Chongqing Municipality also ranks among the top due to its rich mountain and ethnic cultural resources [48]. This phenomenon indicates that at the provincial level, inherent regional resource conditions, rather than purely economic development levels, are the key driving factors influencing the focus on rural tourism policy.

At the city/county level (Figure 2b), policy issuance displays different agglomeration characteristics, presenting an “administrative center-oriented” or “provincial capital-led” model. Among the top ten cities in terms of policy issuance, seven are provincial capitals, with Hefei, Fuzhou, and Haikou leading in policy volume. This distribution pattern reflects the pivotal role of administrative hierarchy and central cities in local policy innovation and diffusion. Provincial capitals, by virtue of their status as political and economic centers and their relatively strong policymaking and innovation capacities, typically become the primary epicenters and pilot zones for city/county-level rural tourism policies.

A comparative analysis of the spatial distribution of policies across different levels further reveals a synergistic and complementary relationship between provincial and city/county policy focuses. On the one hand, their policy densities are consistent in certain regions; for instance, Hainan Province and its capital, Haikou, both rank at the top of their respective levels. On the other hand, a “hierarchical mismatch” in policy density exists in some areas. For example, while Anhui’s provincial policy count is in the middle range, its capital city, Hefei, ranks first in city/county-level policy issuance. This may suggest the presence of specific local drivers for policy innovation or a need for vertical coordination in these regions.

Overall, the differentiated spatial pattern of China’s rural tourism policy reflects a diversified adaptation mechanism in policymaking to varying regional conditions. In the economically developed eastern regions, policies may focus more on industrial upgrading and quality improvement. In the southwest and unique coastal areas rich in tourism resources, policies might emphasize resource revitalization and the creation of distinctive brands. Meanwhile, in traditional agricultural areas and regions like the northeast, policies are likely to highlight the functions of industrial transformation and regional revitalization. This regionally differentiated policy configuration is an objective response to the variations in resource endowments, economic foundations, and developmental stages across localities, reflecting the regional sensitivity and adaptability inherent in China’s rural tourism policymaking.

3.2. Thematic Structure and Evolution of Rural Tourism Policies from a Multi-Level Governance Perspective

Building on the preceding analysis of the spatio-temporal distribution of rural tourism policies, this section employs the BERTopic topic modeling method to further investigate the differences in thematic content, structural characteristics, and temporal evolution patterns of policy texts across different administrative levels (central, provincial, and city/county). The aim is to reveal the thematic distribution features, the functional division of labor among levels, and the dynamic transmission mechanisms within China’s rural tourism policy system.

3.2.1. Hierarchical Differentiation and Functional Positioning of Policy Themes

The topic modeling results (see

Table 1. Thematic Analysis of Rural Tourism Policy Documents across Administrative Levels in China.

Level	Topic ID	Topic Name	Document Count	Representative Keywords
Central	0	Rural Revitalization Support and Innovation	24	Support, Funding, Talent, Innovation, Rural Revitalization
Central	1	Agritourism Demonstration Parks and Counties	12	Sightseeing Garden, Demonstration Zone, Park, Demonstration County, Eco-park
Central	2	Rural Tourism Governance and Policy Implementation	15	Practitioners, Demonstration County, Policy Measures, Leadership, Tourism Department
Central	3	Rural Homestay Development and Regulation	5	Renovation, Housing, Supervision, Context-based Approach, Integration
Provincial	0	Rural Characteristic Agriculture and Leisure Tourism	431	Characteristic, Agriculture, Leisure, Resources, Ecology
Provincial	1	Rural Tourism Rating and Assessment	86	Assessment, Scenic Area, Rating, Ecology, Farm
Provincial	2	Coconut-Grade Rural Tourism Sites Assessment	26	Coconut Grade, Assessment, Rating, Tourism Site, Quality
Provincial	3	Key Rural Tourism Villages Selection	25	Key Rural Tourism Village, Selection, Evaluation, Tourism Leader, Demonstration Village
Provincial	4	Poverty Alleviation through Rural Tourism	27	Poverty Alleviation Office, Poverty Alleviation, District, Achievement, Development
City/County	0	Star-rated Rural Tourism Zone Assessment	112	Preliminary Assessment, Three-star, Four-star, Tourism Zone, Assessment Criteria
City/County	1	Rural Tourism Financial Support and Land Use	113	Loan, Finance, Renovation, Credit, Land Use
City/County	2	Beautiful Leisure Village Selection	57	Select the Best, Beautiful Leisure Village, Preliminary Review, Demonstration County, Voluntary
City/County	3	Rural Tourism Development Proposal and Strategy	53	Key Tourism Village, Proposal, Context-based Approach, Rural Revitalization, Research Tourism
City/County	4	Rural Tourism Supervision and Modernization	93	Guidance, Renovation, Supervision, Land, Modernization
City/County	5	Rural Revitalization Concept and Development	56	Development Concept, Rural Revitalization Strategy, Renovation, Land Use, Health and Wellness
City/County	6	Rural Tourism Expert Evaluation System	38	Appointment, Expert Group, Three-star, Evaluation, Quality Control

Note: This table presents the results of an unsupervised machine learning-based topic modeling analysis of rural tourism policy documents across three administrative levels (Central, Provincial, and City/County) in China.

) accurately reveal the systematic functional division of labor in China’s rural tourism policy within the MLG framework. Different administrative levels have formed clear role definitions centered around unique combinations of policy themes.

The functional positioning of the central level is that of the “top-level strategic designer”. Its policy theme structure is centered on “rural revitalization support and innovation”, supplemented by themes such as “demonstration and leadership” and “regulation and standardization”, which collectively form the macro-strategic layout at the national level. This relatively balanced thematic distribution reflects the central government’s leading role as the highest authority in the policy system, responsible for setting overarching goals, guiding innovation, and constructing the governance framework.

Provincial policies play the role of a “key regional hub” within the MLG system. Their thematic structure presents a “one primary, multiple secondary” pattern, with “rural characteristic agriculture and leisure tourism” as the dominant theme. This demonstrates that the core function of provincial governments is to integrate regional resource endowments and “translate” the central government’s macro-strategies into development directions that align with local realities. Concurrently, auxiliary themes such as “standards assessment” and “demonstration project creation” reflect their crucial bridging role in linking higher and lower levels, facilitating the implementation of specific standards and demonstration projects.

City/county-level policies constitute the “frontline of policy implementation”. Their thematic structure is characterized as “diversified and balanced”, with a strong focus on concrete operations and local practices. Among these, the two core themes—“rural tourism financial support and land use” and “star-rated rural tourism zone assessment”—directly reflect the practical concerns of grassroots governments regarding the safeguarding of core resource elements and the enforcement of industry standards during policy implementation. The other diverse themes further confirm that as the final implementers of policy, city and county governments must directly address diverse local needs and exploratory innovations.

In summary, the policy themes across the three levels are not only functionally distinct but also collectively shape a clear functional transmission chain: “central strategic guidance → provincial transmission and adaptation → city/county implementation and innovation”. This interlinked structure, wherein each level has its own defined responsibilities, is a concrete manifestation of the institutional logic behind the synergistic operation of China’s rural tourism policy within the multi-level governance framework.

3.2.2. Temporal Evolution of Policy Themes and Vertical Transmission Mechanisms

An analysis of the temporal evolution of policy themes (Figure 3) further reveals the dynamic adjustment process of China’s rural tourism policy and the vertical transmission mechanisms between government levels.

The evolution of central policy themes clearly demonstrates its agenda-setting function, with the strategic focus gradually shifting from “demonstration and leadership” and “regulation and standardization” in the early stages to “revitalization and innovation” in later years. Particularly after 2019, the theme of “rural revitalization support and innovation” became absolutely dominant, signaling a comprehensive strategic transformation in national top-level design. The policy orientation shifted from providing specific guidance to a more macro-level, innovation-driven strategic leadership.

The evolutionary pattern of provincial policies can be described as “adaptive adjustment under a stable main theme”. The core theme, “rural characteristic agriculture and leisure tourism”, remained stable throughout the period, while auxiliary themes responded precisely to national strategies, such as the high degree of synchronization with the national poverty alleviation strategy in 2015. This structure showcases the capacity of provincial governments to act as “interpreters” and “adapters” of regional policy, flexibly translating central directives into regionalized forms and innovations while maintaining their own primary development axis.

The evolutionary trajectory of city/county-level policies is the most complex, reflecting a profound transformation in their implementation logic from “resource safeguarding” to “institutional development and strategic planning”. Policy hotspots rotated among diverse topics over time, shifting from an early focus on “financial and land support” to later themes emphasizing governance capacity and long-term planning, such as “regulatory modernization”, “development strategy”, and “star-rated assessment”. This reflects a dynamic process of continuous deepening and exploration in grassroots governance.

Viewed comprehensively, the thematic evolution across the three levels forms a closely linked relationship in the time series, jointly constructing a vertical transmission chain: “central leadership sets the tone → provincial responsive adaptation → city/county implementation and exploration”. Strategic shifts at the central level typically lead by one to two years, setting the tone for the overall policy agenda. The provincial level then engages in regionalized response and adaptation, which ultimately triggers a series of concrete implementation actions and innovations at the city/county level. This temporal pattern is not only an objective manifestation of the top-down, level-by-level transmission of policy information but also a profound reflection of the functional positioning and dynamic synergistic mechanisms of each tier within the multi-level governance system.

3.3. Spatial Clustering Patterns and Regional Differences in Rural Tourism Policy Themes

Following the analysis of the hierarchical structure and temporal evolution of policy themes, this section further explores the allocation patterns of different policy themes in the spatial dimension. By applying K-means clustering analysis to the distribution data of provincial and city/county policy themes, this study aims to identify similarity patterns in the thematic structures of different geographical units, thereby revealing the spatial clustering characteristics and regional differentiation of China’s rural tourism policy themes.

3.3.1. Regional Clustering Characteristics of Provincial Rural Tourism Policy Themes

Based on the distribution proportions of the five main policy themes at the provincial level, a K-means clustering analysis was conducted on 31 provincial-level administrative regions across the country. This resulted in the formation of five distinct policy clusters (see

Table 2. K-means clustering results of provincial rural tourism policy distribution in China.

Cluster	Number of Provinces	Total Policies	Provinces
1	19	384	Jilin, Guangxi, Shandong, Anhui, Beijing, Guizhou, Hebei, Shanghai, Fujian, Gansu, Sichuan, Guangdong, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi, Zhejiang, Hunan, Liaoning, Heilongjiang, Tianjin
2	2	51	Chongqing, Hubei
3	1	56	Hainan
4	4	50	Shanxi, Xinjiang, Jiangsu, Yunnan
5	5	54	Jiangxi, Henan, Ningxia, Tibet, Qinghai

Note: The clustering analysis identified five distinct policy patterns across provincial regions, revealing significant geographical variations in policy focus and implementation. Each cluster represents a group of provinces with similar policy topic distribution characteristics.

, Figure 4), with the core logic of this division being highly correlated with each province’s resource endowments, development stage, and strategic positioning, rather than strict geographical proximity.

Cluster 1, the largest group (19 provinces), exhibits a highly standardized policy model, commonly using “rural characteristic agriculture and leisure tourism” as its primary instrument, which reflects a convergence of policy approaches in most regions. In contrast, the other clusters display distinct regional characteristics: Cluster 2 (Chongqing, Hubei) closely integrates tourism development with the poverty alleviation strategy; Cluster 3 (Hainan), with its diverse combination of themes and particular emphasis on the “coconut-grade assessment”, directly reflects its unique positioning as an “international tourism island”; Cluster 4 (Shanxi, Yunnan, etc.) favors a demonstration-led approach through “key villages selection”; and Cluster 5 (Jiangxi, Henan, etc.) places a high value on “rating and assessment”, indicating that it is in a developmental stage that requires standardization and quality improvement. These differences suggest that at the provincial level, the choice of policy focus is primarily an adaptive response to regional macro-development conditions.

3.3.2. Clustering Patterns and Regional Differentiation of City/County-Level Rural Tourism Policy Themes

The policy clusters at the city/county level (see

Table 3. K-means clustering results of city/county rural tourism policy distribution in China.

Cluster	Number of Cities	Total Policies	Representative Cities
1	26	43	Lüliang, Guigang, Sanya, Chongzuo, Wanning, Hezhou, Nanchong, Lijiang
2	9	64	Fuzhou, Nanchang, Guangzhou, Xuzhou, Quzhou, Nanjing
3	11	25	Xiamen, Changchun, Zhongshan, Changsha, Wuhan, Deyang
4	20	167	Hefei, Haikou, Qingdao, Guilin, Guiyang, Nanning, Suzhou
5	60	141	Xining, Huzhou, Haidong, Zaozhuang, Wuxi, Lhasa, Qinzhou
6	10	60	Yinchuan, Zhengzhou, Zibo, Suzhou, Anshan, Fushun
7	18	28	Huainan, Yulin, Luoyang, Tianshui, Beihai, Xuchang

Note: The clustering reveals seven distinct policy patterns across city/county regions, demonstrating significant regional variations in policy focus. Each cluster represents a group of cities with similar thematic priorities in their rural tourism policies, highlighting the diverse approaches to rural tourism development at the local level.

, Figure 5) exhibit a more granular differentiation pattern driven by urban functional positioning and development tasks, a model that, to some extent, transcends geographical constraints. For instance, certain regions experiencing rapid tourism development (Cluster 1) have an urgent need for “supervision and modernization”. Regional centers such as Fuzhou and Nanchang (Cluster 2) are pioneers in introducing “expert evaluation system”, transitioning toward more mature governance models. Provincial capitals or major tourism cities like Hefei and Haikou (Cluster 4) commonly leverage “star-rated assessment” as a key instrument to advance industry standardization. Meanwhile, the largest group, comprising numerous second- and third-tier cities and counties (Cluster 5), relies heavily on “financial support and land use”, reflecting their position in the initial or catch-up stages of development. Furthermore, some cities concentrate on long-term “development strategy” (Cluster 6) or actively respond to the “rural revitalization” concept (Cluster 7). This clustering characteristic, based on developmental tasks rather than geographical location, clearly indicates that the primary consideration for city and county governments in policymaking is to address the core challenges of their current stage.

Integrating the clustering results from both levels, China’s rural tourism policy exhibits a complex spatial structure characterized by “macro-level differentiation at the provincial scale and micro-level clustering at the city/county scale”. The differentiation in provincial policy primarily stems from macro-level disparities in resource endowments and development strategies among regions, whereas city/county policies tend to form “functional” clusters based more on the cities’ own functional types and developmental stages. This finding offers a crucial perspective for understanding China’s multi-level policy coordination mechanism: effective policy synergy must not only account for vertical transmission across hierarchical levels but also give full consideration to the differentiated needs and proactive adaptations among horizontal regions, which are based on distinct development logics.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Operational Logic of Multi-Level Governance in China’s Rural Tourism Policy

The core findings of this study provide rich empirical evidence for understanding the practice of MLG in China’s rural tourism policy and establish an effective dialogue with the core concepts of MLG theory. The results clearly indicate that, at a macro level, China’s rural tourism policy system exhibits a model of “centrally guided Type I governance”. This model is not a simple replication of MLG theory derived from the European context but is rather a product of the integration of theory and practice within China’s unique unitary state structure and background of “managerial decentralization”. The core feature of this model is that it retains the structural stability of Type I governance—with its clear boundaries and hierarchically nested structure—while embedding a powerful, top-down mechanism for policy agenda-setting and strategic transmission led by the central government [49,50].

First, the systematic functional division of labor among the central, provincial, and city/county levels revealed by this study is direct evidence that China’s rural tourism policy aligns with the Type I governance framework. The central government, acting as the “top-level strategic designer”, focuses its policy themes on the macro-level “rural revitalization support and innovation” and “demonstration and leadership”, thereby defining the national strategic intent and value orientation. This aligns with the view in some studies that even in decentralized systems, the central government still plays an indispensable “gatekeeper” role, guiding local actions by setting macro-level objectives [51,52]. Provincial governments, in turn, act as “key regional hubs”, with their policy themes dominated by “rural characteristic agriculture and leisure tourism”. This reflects their core function of “translating” and “adapting” central macro-strategies into specific development paths that match local resource endowments [53]. Finally, city/county governments, as the “frontline of policy implementation”, are confirmed in their role as practitioners in the final stages of policy execution through their diverse and highly operational policy themes (such as “financial support and land use” and “star-rated assessment”). This hierarchical structure, with its clear division of labor and complementary functions, jointly constitutes a stable and orderly governance framework that ensures a complete chain from strategic formulation to concrete implementation.

Second, the “central guidance” feature identified in this study serves as an important supplement to classic MLG theory in the context of a unitary state. Traditional MLG theories, particularly those based on studies of federal systems or the European Union, tend to place greater emphasis on negotiation, interaction, and even power struggles among different levels [54]. In China’s policy practice, however, the strategic guidance role of the central government is particularly prominent. The temporal characteristics of policy issuance found in this study—the leading effect of central policy peaks on local policy issuance and the transmission lag of approximately one to two years—clearly demonstrate this top-down driving model. By intensively issuing policies at key junctures (such as after the proposal of the “Rural Revitalization” strategy), the central government effectively sets the national policy agenda and triggers a chain reaction of responses from local governments. This model is not one of simple command and control but a more sophisticated “guided governance”: the central government is responsible for “steering” and “setting the tone”, while local governments possess a degree of autonomy to “navigate” within the established course [55,56]. This dynamic process, combining strong central guidance with adaptive local implementation, ensures both the unified execution of national strategies and the necessary flexibility for locality-specific policy innovation [57].

In conclusion, the “centrally guided Type I governance” model proposed by this study accurately encapsulates the operational logic of China’s rural tourism policy system. It reveals that in a unitary state, MLG does not necessarily imply a weakening of central authority but can manifest as a more efficient form of synergistic governance characterized by clear hierarchical functions and driven by central strategy. This finding not only provides strong empirical support for the applicability of MLG theory in non-Western, non-federal countries [58] but also deepens our understanding of how central-local relations achieve a dynamic equilibrium through the policy process within specific Chinese policy domains.

4.2. “Learning” and “Adaptation” in the Transmission of China’s Rural Tourism Policy

Within the “centrally guided Type I governance” model, policies are not simply replicated top-down through hierarchical levels. Instead, they undergo a complex and dynamic process of “learning” and “adaptation” during their transmission [59,60]. The vertical transmission chain revealed in this study—“central leadership sets the tone → provincial responsive adaptation → city/county implementation and exploration”—vividly embodies the core mechanisms of policy diffusion theory. A strategic shift by the central government acts as an “initial shock” for policy diffusion, setting a new agenda and direction for the entire governance system [61]. However, as this agenda is transmitted downward, it is not passively received but is actively interpreted, filtered, and integrated with local contexts by sub-national governments in a process replete with selective learning and adaptive innovation [62,63].

The policy responses at the provincial level provide an excellent window for observing this “creative transformation”. Taking Hainan Province as an example—the most active province in policymaking and the one with the most unique thematic structure in this study—its policy practice fully demonstrates the key role of provincial governments as “policy converters”. When the central level emphasized the macro-strategy of “rural revitalization support and innovation”, Hainan did not simply echo this slogan. Instead, it closely aligned with its national strategic positioning as an “international tourism island” and its unique tropical island resource endowments to creatively launch a policy portfolio centered on the “coconut-grade rural tourism sites assessment” [64,65]. This localized standard system is both an active response to the central macro-strategy (by enhancing tourism quality through standardization to serve revitalization goals) and a precise response to its own specific development needs (by building a tourism brand with a distinct tropical island identity). The case of Hainan demonstrates that provincial governments are not passive “relay stations” in the policy transmission chain but are active “interpreters” and “adapters” that, through policy learning, transform the general directives of the central government into specific, locally competitive solutions [42].

The final link in policy transmission—implementation and exploration at the city/county level—further reveals the adaptive variation in policy in the “last mile”. This study finds that the clustering of city/county policy themes exhibits a distinct feature of “functional differentiation”, meaning that cities at similar developmental stages or facing similar tasks tend to adopt similar policy portfolios. Taking Hefei, the capital of Anhui Province, as an example, the city ranked first in the number of city/county-level policies in this study, with its themes highly focused on “star-rated assessment” and “financial support and land use”. This clearly reflects how, as a regional center and policy pilot zone, the Hefei municipal government broke down the macro-strategy into two core tasks at the executive level: first, to rapidly improve the overall quality and management standards of rural tourism in the region through standardization (star-rated assessment); and second, to clear obstacles for industrial development by providing key resource guarantees (finance and land) [66,67]. This highly pragmatic and operational policy choice represents not only the final execution of higher-level policy intent but also, more importantly, a direct response to the core needs of its local stage of development. It demonstrates that at the end of the policy transmission chain, the success of a policy largely depends on whether it can be transformed into an effective tool for solving specific local problems.

Therefore, a dynamic examination of the policy transmission process reveals the inherent resilience and vitality of China’s multi-level governance system. It is not a rigid, top-down command-delivery system but rather an ecosystem filled with learning, adaptation, and innovation. The central government’s “starting gun” sets the direction of the race; the provincial “converters” design customized running shoes for competitors on different tracks; and the city/county “reactors” ultimately transform policy potential into the concrete momentum that drives local development. It is precisely this dynamic cross-level interaction and adaptive adjustment that collectively constructs the complete picture of China’s rural tourism policy evolution.

4.3. Uniqueness of the Governance Model from an International Comparative Perspective

Placing the governance model identified in this study within a broader international comparative perspective further highlights its uniqueness. Although MLG theory has been widely applied globally, its concrete manifestations vary significantly across different political systems. A comparison with typical Western MLG practices, particularly the EU model and those of federal states, allows for a clearer elucidation of the internal logic of the governance model for China’s rural tourism policy.

Compared to the EU’s MLG model, the Chinese model’s distinctiveness lies in the source of its authority and the mode of interaction. The EU’s governance structure is largely formed based on the voluntary ceding of partial sovereignty by member states and is characterized by continuous negotiation, bargaining, and contests over interests between supranational institutions (like the European Commission) and member-state governments [18,68]. Within this system, policymaking relies more on horizontal networked coordination and consensus-building; although top-down directives exist, the basis of authority is relatively dispersed [69,70]. In stark contrast, the governance model for China’s rural tourism policy found in this study has the central government as its consistent, core source of authority. The vertical transmission of policy does not originate from negotiation among equals but from the strategic agenda set by the center. This feature of “strong central guidance” results in a much higher degree of governance efficiency and directionality compared to the often-protracted coordination processes common in the EU model, although it also leads to different manifestations of flexibility and local autonomy.

Compared to the MLG models of federal states (such as Germany and the United States), the Chinese model exhibits a unique combination of rigidity and flexibility in its central-local relations. In typical federal states, the boundaries of power and responsibility between the central and local (state, Land) governments are usually clearly defined by a constitution, granting local governments a high degree of autonomy and legislative power in specific policy areas, thus forming a relatively rigid division of power [71,72]. Although federal governments also guide local policy through fiscal and other means, “non-cooperation” or “deviation” by local governments has stronger institutional safeguards [52]. However, the “centrally guided Type I governance” model identified in this study displays a quality that combines both rigidity and flexibility. Its “rigidity” is manifested in the central government’s dominance over the overall national strategic direction and key policy agendas, ensuring the unity of the national will. Its “flexibility” is reflected in the allowance for extensive adaptive innovation by local governments at the implementation level, as demonstrated by the significant regional and functional differentiation in provincial and city/county policy themes found in this study. This governance model—highly unified at the macro level while permitting diverse exploration at the micro level—is a unique institutional arrangement under China’s unitary state structure, differing from both the EU’s negotiation-based governance and the rigid division of power in federal systems.

Therefore, one of the contributions of this study is that, through an empirical analysis of China’s rural tourism policy, it provides empirical evidence for understanding the concrete operation of MLG theory in unitary and transitional countries. The results show that MLG does not necessarily entail a weakening of central authority but can manifest as an efficient form of synergistic governance characterized by clear hierarchical functions and driven by central strategy [11]. This observation challenges the long-standing, Western-derived singular narrative of “decentralization” or “dispersal of power” within MLG theory [54]. It suggests that the core of MLG may not lie in the simple dispersal of power but rather in whether a functional synergistic relationship can be established among different levels—one that can both guarantee strategic unity and stimulate local vitality. This insight not only offers a new analytical perspective for understanding China’s policy process but also provides an empirical observation from the East for the global applicability and localized development of MLG theory.

5. Conclusions and Implications

5.1. Core Research Findings

Using MLG theory as its analytical framework, this study conducted a systematic analysis of 1174 central, provincial, and city/county-level rural tourism policy documents from 2005 to 2024 to investigate their thematic structure, spatio-temporal evolution patterns, and policy transmission mechanisms. The study aimed to open the “black box” of China’s multi-level policy system, providing empirical evidence for understanding governance practices in a specific policy domain within a unitary state. The core findings of the research can be summarized as follows:

First, at a macro level, China’s rural tourism policy system exhibits the characteristics of a structurally stable and functionally distinct model of “centrally guided Type I governance”. Within this model, different levels of government play clear and complementary roles: the central level acts as the “top-level strategic designer”, responsible for setting macro-level objectives and directions for innovation; the provincial level serves as the “key regional hub”, responsible for transmitting and adapting national strategies by integrating them with local resource endowments; and the city/county level functions as the “frontline of policy implementation”, focusing on translating macro-policies into concrete, operational measures. This hierarchical division of labor, with each level fulfilling its specific duties, jointly constitutes an efficient and synergistic governance framework.

Second, the transmission of policy across multiple levels is not a simple linear replication but a vertical transmission process characterized by dynamic learning and adaptation. The study clearly identifies a chain-like transmission mechanism of “central leadership sets the tone → provincial responsive adaptation → city/county implementation and exploration”, which includes a transmission lag of approximately one to two years. Strategic shifts at the central level effectively set the national policy agenda, while provincial and city/county governments engage in creative policy transformation and practical innovation by integrating these shifts with their own contexts, reflecting selective learning and adaptive adjustment within the policy diffusion process.

Finally, in the spatial dimension, policy themes exhibit complex patterns of clustering and differentiation driven by distinct logics. The division of provincial policy clusters is primarily driven by macro-regional resource endowments and development strategies, showing a characteristic of “regional differentiation”. In contrast, city/county policy clusters are formed more through “functional” clustering based on the cities’ own functional positioning and developmental stages, a model that, to some extent, transcends traditional geographical proximity. This finding reveals the complex process through which national and provincial policies are differentially interpreted and adapted at the local level, highlighting the agency of local actors within the multi-level governance system.

5.2. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

The findings of this study make distinct contributions to both relevant theoretical fields and policy practice. On a theoretical level, this study first provides strong empirical support for the applicability of MLG theory in unitary and transitional countries. Through an in-depth analysis of the archetypal case of China, the results demonstrate that core elements of MLG—such as the hierarchical functional division of labor, vertical policy transmission, and local adaptation—are clearly visible in a non-federal state, thereby expanding the geographical and institutional boundaries of the theory’s applicability. Second, this study deepens the understanding of the dynamic nature of Type I governance, revealing that even within a seemingly strictly hierarchical governance framework, policy evolution is still replete with dynamic processes of policy learning, interaction, and adaptation. Finally, by examining a specific policy domain, the research offers a micro-level perspective for understanding the policy process under “managerial decentralization”, corroborating the governance model that combines top-down strategic guidance with bottom-up local adaptation.

On a practical level, the conclusions of this study provide a concrete basis for decision-making aimed at optimizing the rural tourism policy systems in China and other transitional economies. First, the hierarchical functional division of labor and the transmission mechanisms revealed by the study can help enhance the synergistic effectiveness of multi-level policies. The central government should focus more on strategic, forward-looking agenda-setting; provincial governments need to strengthen their capacity for transformation and adaptation as “policy hubs”; and city/county governments should be granted more space for innovation at the implementation level. Second, the analysis of the spatial differentiation of policy themes underscores the importance of formulating differentiated regional development strategies. Policymaking should fully consider the resource endowments, urban functions, and developmental stages of different regions to avoid “one-size-fits-all” policy designs, thereby promoting regional specialization and sustainable development. Finally, the study also indirectly reflects the potential challenges that “tiao-kuai fragmentation” may pose to cross-sectoral policy domains like rural tourism, suggesting that policymakers should further strengthen inter-departmental policy coordination and resource integration mechanisms.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

Although this study strives for systematic depth, it has several limitations that also point to directions for future research. First, this study focuses primarily on the analysis of policy texts and does not deeply examine the actual implementation effects of these policies or their multidimensional socioeconomic impacts. Future research urgently needs to combine textual analysis with field studies and performance evaluations to establish a full-chain analytical framework from “policymaking” to “policy outcomes”. Second, while the topic modeling method used in this study can objectively reveal thematic structures, the in-depth interpretation of the results still relies on the researcher’s theoretical perspective. Introducing comparative studies with more qualitative cases would help to more meticulously uncover the operational mechanisms and dynamic bargaining processes of MLG in specific contexts. Third, the conclusions of this study are primarily based on the specific context of China. The theoretical generalization of these findings to other countries, especially those with significantly different political and economic systems, should be approached with caution and requires thorough local validation.

Looking ahead, as the agenda for rural sustainable development continues to advance globally, in-depth research on the multi-level governance of rural tourism policy will remain of significant theoretical and practical importance. Exploring the role of digital technologies in enhancing policy coordination efficiency and promoting cross-level information sharing; comparing the differences in MLG models adopted by various countries when addressing similar challenges; and assessing the long-term impacts of different governance models on rural community resilience and the well-being of local residents will be key research topics deserving of focus in this field in the future.