How Events Empower the Countryside: A Study of Rural Household Livelihoods in Traditional Villages of Ethnic Mountainous Areas Influenced by Guizhou’s “Village Super League”

Abstract

As an emerging sports tourism event, Guizhou’s “Village Super League” injects new vitality into the optimization of human–land relationships and the development of household livelihoods in traditional villages of ethnic mountainous regions. Studying five affected traditional tourism villages from an “event–actor–capital” perspective using mixed methods, this research finds the following: (1) The composite average score of household livelihood capital is 0.3177, indicating a medium–low level, which suggests that households’ livelihood structure still requires significant enhancement despite the tourism boost from the “Village Super League”. (2) There is an imbalance in development among the villages. The livelihoods of households under the influence of the “Village Super League” exhibit distinct characteristics, being “driven by external flows, led by social capital, supported by the material foundation, and coordinated with other forms of capital.” (3) The evolution of household livelihoods follows a pathway of “event-driven supplementation, endogenous renewal of actors, capital integration and synergy.” By constructing shared event memory markers, the livelihoods of villages at different stages of tourism development demonstrate differentiated dynamic mechanisms. The findings deepen the theoretical understanding of livelihoods in traditional villages under event-driven development. Consequently, this study recommends that policymakers and community stewards channel transient social capital and external flows into durable physical and financial assets to ensure livelihood sustainability beyond the initial event boom.

1. Introduction

Livelihood, referring to the means and capabilities of making a living, is a dominant factor driving the evolution of human–land relationships in rural areas [1]. From the perspective of the farmer’s livelihood, it not only enriches the theoretical connotation of research on anti-poverty, but also provides a key analytical framework for addressing the core issues of rural development, such as fairness and sustainability [2,3,4]. China’s 2023 Central Document No. 1 emphasizes respecting and giving full play to the role of rural households as the main agents [5], since the level of their livelihood directly influences the effectiveness and quality of rural revitalization. Traditional villages in ethnic mountainous areas, as typical sites of coupled human–land interactions [6], possess rich natural and cultural heritage attributes that create opportunities for tourism development. However, as tourism development permeates the original livelihood systems of rural households, it also brings risks and challenges, such as increased vulnerability amidst the trend of livelihood diversification. The remote, fragmented geographical features and fragile, sensitive ecological environment of ethnic mountainous areas intensify competition for livelihood resources. Therefore, focusing on rural households in the process of tourism development in traditional villages in ethnic mountainous areas has become a critical pathway to resolving the realistic conflict between the protection of traditional culture and modernization, and to aligning with the requirements of Chinese-style modernization and common prosperity.

The systematic exploration of rural household livelihoods in academia originated from the concept of sustainable livelihoods. Evolving from Chambers’ research on poverty issues in the mid-1980s, various sustainable livelihood analysis methods were established [7]. Among them, the most widely applied is the Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis Framework proposed by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), which provides targeted analytical approaches and solutions for addressing rural household livelihood issues in contexts of vulnerability [8]. Scholars from disciplines such as economics, geography, and tourism have explored research topics including livelihood capital [9,10], livelihood resilience [11,12], livelihood space [13,14,15], and household welfare [16,17,18]. They have established multi-dimensional and multi-level livelihood indicator systems and employed research methods such as sampling surveys and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), as well as mathematical statistics and spatial analysis techniques like descriptive statistical analysis, the entropy method, logistic regression models, and GIS analysis. These methods were applied to comprehensively evaluate rural households’ livelihood capital levels, resilience, external environments, and influencing factors. The research has primarily been conducted at the village/town and county levels, covering diverse regions such as plateau mountainous areas [19,20], old revolutionary base areas [21], poverty alleviation relocation areas [22,23], national key ecological function zones [24], and heritage-based or corridor-type tourism destinations [25,26,27]. With the continuous improvement of the traditional village institutional system, domestic scholars have begun to introduce the sustainable livelihoods framework into research on the impacts of tourism development in traditional villages. Tourism, as an important practical pathway for synergizing heritage conservation and community development, has increasingly become a beneficial supplement to existing livelihood activities [28]. Some studies have also focused on micro-level aspects of livelihood decisions, such as farmers’ perceptions [29], personal preferences [30,31], and emotional inclinations [32], enriching the theoretical research on livelihood development in traditional villages. Although existing studies confirm that tourism development can enhance livelihoods in traditional villages, most remain limited to the static analyses of farmers’ livelihood capital and strategies, lacking exploration of the dynamic responses and formation mechanisms of livelihoods driven by specific “events”. In the context of rural revitalization, viral events—which emerge spontaneously from communities, are rooted in local culture, and are rapidly disseminated through new media—have emerged as a transformative force reshaping rural development. Such events, characterized by their sudden emergence, high transmissibility, and cultural empowerment, can rapidly alter local socio-ecological systems, thereby providing a valuable opportunity to study the dynamic evolution of farmers’ livelihoods.

In May 2023, the Guizhou Rongjiang (Sanbao Dong Village) Harmonious Rural Football Super League (commonly known as the “Village Super League”) kicked off in Rongjiang County as a grassroots, amateur football tournament spontaneously organized by local villagers. As an emerging sports tourism phenomenon, it rapidly transcended the sporting boundaries, not only revitalizing the sporting and festive cultural traditions of ethnic minorities such as the Miao and Dong, but also propelling local cultural elements—including traditional attire, song and dance, and cuisine—into the national spotlight. In 2023, Rongjiang County, host of the “Village Super League”, attracted over 7.6 million visitors and generated RMB 8.4 billion in tourism revenue. Individual matches drew crowds of over 60,000, shattering previous records and setting new benchmarks. This success has firmly established Rongjiang County as the epitome of a viral tourism destination powered by a rural sporting event [33,34]. Consequently, this case demonstrates how development in ethnic mountainous regions can move beyond dependence on singular resources. By leveraging their integrated cultural systems as a whole, these areas can cultivate synergistic advantages, opening up more resilient pathways for livelihood development in traditional villages [35]. However, research within the international academic community has predominantly focused on the impact of major sporting events on urban development and community wellbeing [36,37]. While some studies have also explored the role of smaller-scale events in rural community organization and management [38], there remains a scarcity of research on grassroots, culturally embedded events like Guizhou’s “Village Super League”. Specifically, studies examining how such bottom-up initiatives reshape farmers’ livelihood strategies and reinforce cultural identity are still insufficient.

Based on this context, the study selects five tourism-oriented traditional villages influenced by Guizhou’s “Village Super League” as case sites. It employs methods such as the entropy method, comprehensive evaluation, and semi-structured interviews to systematically reveal the multidimensional characteristics and internal mechanisms of household livelihoods driven by sports cultural events. The study is guided by the following core research question: How does a sudden, community-led sports tourism event like the “Village Super League” dynamically reconfigure household livelihood capital and trigger specific formation mechanisms in traditional villages of ethnic mountainous areas? Our research seeks to contribute to the field by: (1) introducing an “event–actor–capital” analytical framework to capture the dynamic livelihood processes triggered by this unique, bottom-up sports event, thereby transcending static capital assessments; (2) enriching the international literature on rural sports tourism by examining a distinct Chinese case that highlights cultural empowerment and community agency, which stands in contrast to the often commercially driven models prevalent in the West; and (3) offering evidence-informed guidance to policymakers and community practitioners on fostering endogenous revitalization and building sustainable livelihood capacity in traditional villages facing similar modernization challenges.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study focuses on Rongjiang County, the birthplace of Guizhou’s “Village Super League,” as its research area. Located at the junction of Hunan, Guizhou, and Guangxi provinces, the county is dotted with traditional villages and features numerous ethnic architectural structures, such as drum towers and wind-and-rain bridges. This has earned it the reputation as the “Cultural Heartland of the Miao and Dong in China.” Among the six batches of traditionally recognized villages in China, 29 from Rongjiang County have been included. This research selects five of these villages—Dali, Zaidang, Danjiang, Baibei, and Jiayi (Figure 1)—as case studies to analyze the livelihood conditions and tourism development of local households under the influence of the “Village Super League.” The aim is to identify common characteristics among households in traditional mountainous ethnic tourism villages. The traditional villages in the case study area have leveraged their cultural heritage and unique resources to develop rural tourism, earning designations as key rural tourism villages, which has, to some extent, promoted local development. As villages at different stages of tourism development, they serve as exemplary models with strong representativeness, providing valuable references for the revitalization and preservation of ethnic traditional villages.

2.2. Data Sources

This study employed the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methodology to conduct questionnaire surveys and in-depth interviews with rural households, thereby gathering primary data (Appendix A). Building on previous research concerning Guizhou’s “Village Super League” venues and surrounding villages, the research team conducted fieldwork in Dali, Zaidang, Danjiang, Baibei, and Jiayi Villages from 9 to 15 May 2025. The sampling frame was established based on official household rosters provided by the local Village Committees of the five case villages. Using stratified random sampling, households were first categorized into two primary strata: tourism households (engaging in homestays, souvenir sales, or catering) and non-tourism households (relying on farming or migrant labor). A random sample was then drawn from each stratum; we selected a sample representing 10% of the total population (158 households) across the case villages, achieving an actual sample size of 112 households. After data processing, eight invalid questionnaires were excluded, resulting in 104 valid responses. No further missing values were identified in the key indicators of the final valid dataset. The valid sample comprised 54 tourism households and 50 non-tourism households, yielding a response rate of 92.86%. To assess potential non-response bias, we compared the basic attributes (e.g., household size, location) of early and late respondents. No significant differences were found, indicating that non-response bias is unlikely to substantially affect the findings. The total sample size met the scientific sampling requirement of being no less than 5% of the population (79 households). The collected data reflect the fundamental characteristics of rural households in traditional village tourism destinations (

Table 1. Basic statistical data of questionnaire survey respondents.

Survey Item	Category	Sample Size	Proportion
Age	18–30 years	11	10.6%
	31–45 years	38	36.5%
	46–60 years	38	36.5%
	61 years and above	17	16.3%
Gender	Male	46	44.2%
	Female	58	55.8%
Education	Illiterate	21	20.2%
	Elementary school	39	37.5%
	Junior High School	18	17.3%
	High School; Vocational School; Technical School	16	15.4%
	Junior colleges; Bachelor’s degree and above	10	9.6%
Household size	1–2 persons	4	3.8%
	3–5 persons	85	81.7%
	6 persons or more	15	14.5%

). Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted with village officials to understand the villages’ overall socio-economic conditions and the livelihood context of the households. These interview materials were used to corroborate and interpret the quantitative analysis results, thereby enhancing the study’s theoretical depth [39].

2.3. Research Methods

2.3.1. Construction of Livelihood Capital Evaluation Index System

Livelihood assets, also referred to as “livelihood capital,” originate from the Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis (SLA) framework proposed by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). This framework categorizes them into five types: natural, physical, human, financial, and social capital [8]. In line with established practices in livelihood studies, our indicator selection adhered to two principles: (1) theoretical relevance, ensuring each indicator accurately reflects the core meaning of its respective capital dimension as defined by the DFID framework; and (2) contextual adaptation, tailoring indicators to the realities of traditional villages in ethnic mountainous areas and the unique influence of tourism development driven by the “Village Super League” event. The selection of indicators was established based on a review of relevant domestic and international scholarship [31,40,41,42]. Furthermore, these selections were refined through field observations and an understanding of local resource conditions and living customs, ensuring the indicators’ local relevance and measurability. This process resulted in an 18-item livelihood capital evaluation indicator system (

Table 2. The evaluation index system of farmers’ livelihood capital.

Primary Indicator	Secondary Indicator	Indicator Definition and Assignment	Indicator Weight	Indicator Attributes
Natural Capital (N)	Household contracted farmland area (N1)	No cultivation or fallow = 0; (0, 1] mu = 0.25; (1, 5] mu = 0.5; (5, 10] mu = 0.75; 10 mu and above = 1	0.0131	+
	Whether ecological resource utilization changed after tourism development (N2)	Yes = 1, No = 0	0.0052	−
	Has environmental issues arisen due to tourism development in the past three years (N3)	Yes = 1, No = 0	0.0092	−
Physical Capital (P)	Household housing type (P1)	Traditional timber stilt house = 1; Brick-timber structure = 0.75; Brick-concrete structure = 0.5; Other = 0.25	0.0069	+
	Household room area (P2)	(0–70] m2 = 0.25; (70–140] m2 = 0.50; (140–210] m2 = 0.75; 210 m2 and above = 1	0.0784	+
	Tourism operation area (P3)	[0–70] m2 = 0.25; (70–140] m2 = 0.50; (140–210] m2 = 0.75; 210 m2 and above = 1	0.1136	+
	Types of new media communication devices (P4)	1 type = 0.5; 2 or more types = 1 (e.g., mobile phones, computers, cameras, drones)	0.0397	+
Human Capital (H)	Number of household laborers (H1)	Number of laborers per household	0.0189	+
	Educational attainment of labor force (H2)	Illiterate = 0; Elementary school = 0.25; Junior High School = 0.5; High school or vocational school =0.75; College or above = 1	0.0089	+
	Health status of household members (H3)	Chronic illness = 0; Frequent illness = 0.25; Occasional illness = 0.5; Rarely ill = 0.75; Excellent health = 1	0.0072	+
	Mastery of intangible cultural heritage skills (H4)	Number of skills mastered by household (e.g., Dong Grand Song, Dong Opera, Dong Pipa, Miao embroidery, batik, Lusheng)	0.0149	+
Financial Capital (F)	Diversity of household income sources (F1)	Number of household income sources (e.g., agriculture, tourism operations, tourism-related employment, migrant labor)	0.0255	+
	Change in household annual income over the past three years (F2)	Percentage change in household annual income over the past three years (Significant increase = 1; Slight increase = 0.75; Largely unchanged = 0.5; Slight decrease = 0.25; Significant decrease = 0)	0.0141	+
	Access to borrowing channels (F3)	1 channel = 0.5; 2 or more channels = 1 (e.g., bank loans, borrowing from relatives/friends, government subsidies, loan sharks)	0.0251	+
Social Capital (S)	Social organization participation (S1)	Number of social organizations joined (e.g., village football teams, cheerleading squads, tourism cooperatives, intangible cultural heritage associations)	0.1449	+
	Skill training opportunities (S2)	Available = 1; Unavailable = 0	0.1731	+
	Decision-making participation (S3)	Participation in collective decision-making within villages over the past three years (frequent participation = 1; occasional participation = 0.5; no participation = 0)	0.0965	+
	Social connections (S4)	Presence of relatives or friends employed in public institutions, such as village committees or township governments (Yes = 1; No = 0)	0.2048	+

).

2.3.2. Livelihood Capital Measurement

The entropy weighting method was selected over alternatives such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to enhance the validity and reliability of the indicator system. Unlike AHP, which relies on subjective expert judgments, the entropy method determines weights objectively based on the inherent variation within the dataset itself. This data-driven approach minimizes researcher bias and ensures that indicators exhibiting greater variation across households—and thus providing more discriminative information—are assigned higher weights, thereby more accurately reflecting the authentic structure of livelihood capital. Furthermore, compared to PCA, which transforms original indicators into composite components, the entropy method preserves the original meaning and integrity of each indicator, which is crucial for interpreting results within the established DFID livelihood capital framework. To eliminate dimensional effects, the collected data were first standardized using the range method. Entropy weights were then calculated for each indicator, and a comprehensive evaluation model was applied to derive the livelihood capital values and overall status for households in each traditional village (Table 2). Furthermore, to assess the robustness of the entropy-derived weights, we conducted a sensitivity analysis using the single-factor substitution method. Specifically, we sequentially replaced the highest-weighted indicator in each capital category (e.g., S4 in social capital) with the lowest-weighted indicator from the same category (e.g., S1 in social capital) and recalculated the comprehensive livelihood capital scores. Results indicated that the overall ranking of households in the top and bottom 10% remained largely unchanged, demonstrating that the weighting scheme is robust and does not unduly influence the comparative assessment of livelihood capital levels across households. Generally, when an indicator exhibits significant variation among respondents, its entropy value is lower, resulting in a relatively higher weight. The calculation process is as follows:

First, the range standardization method was used to normalize the indicators for the sample farmers [25,42]. The specific equations are as follows:

$$Z_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{X_{ij}-{min(X}_{ij})}{{max(X}_{ij})-{min(X}_{ij})}}$$

(1)

where Z_ij denotes the dimensionless data obtained from the original data after range standardization; i represents the 104 surveyed households; j denotes the total number of indicators; X_ij indicates the value of the j-th indicator variable for the i-th household; min(X_ij) denotes the minimum value of the j-th indicator across all households, while max(X_ij) represents its maximum value.

Standardized data Z_ij undergoes homogeneity quantification and is converted into occurrence probability P_ij (i.e., the proportion P_ij of the i-th sample household indicator value under the j-th indicator). The entropy value e_j of the j-th indicator is then calculated using the formula:

$$P_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{Z_{ij}}{\sum _{i=1}^n{Z}_{ij}}}$$

(2)

$$e_j=-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\ln n}}{\sum }_{i=1}^n(P_{ij}\times \ln P_{ij})$$

(3)

The difference coefficient g_i for the j-th indicator is calculated using g_i = 1 − e_j, followed by determining its relative weight W_j. Finally, the standardized data Z_ij and weight coefficients W_j are substituted into the livelihood capital comprehensive evaluation model to compute the comprehensive evaluation level F_i for each livelihood capital component of the i-th household sample.

$$W_j={\displaystyle \frac{g_i}{{\sum }_{i=1}^n{g}_i}}$$

(4)

$$F_i={\sum }_{i=1}^n(W_j\times Z_{ij})$$

(5)

3. Results

3.1. Livelihood Characteristics of Rural Households in Traditional Villages Tourism Destinations Under the Influence of Guizhou’s “Village Super League”

3.1.1. The Overall Level and Structure of Rural Household Livelihood Capital

Livelihood characteristics represent a crucial dimension that reflect how rural households sustain and develop themselves, while the comprehensive score captures the multidimensional features of these livelihoods. Data analysis revealed:

• Among the five typical village samples, indicator S2 (Skill training opportunities) had the highest mean value (M = 0.0466), indicating that households had greater access to skill training. In contrast, indicator N2 (Whether ecological resource utilization changed after tourism development) showed a very low mean (M = 0.0050) and a minimal standard deviation (SD = 0.0010), jointly indicating that tourism development has had little to no impact on ecological practices and that this non-change is consistent across households. Conversely, S4 (Social connections) exhibited a considerable standard deviation (SD = 0.0837), pointing to notable disparities in social networks across the sample.
• In terms of entropy and weight, S4 (Social connections) exhibited the lowest entropy value (0.6664) and highest indicator weight (0.2048), establishing it as the pivotal capital for households to benefit from tourism. Conversely, N2 (Whether ecological resource utilization changed after tourism development) had the highest entropy value (0.9898) and the lowest indicator weight (0.0052), indicating that the current tourism model has not profoundly altered core ecological resource patterns, such as agricultural production and land use. Other indicators with relatively high weights included S2 (Skill training opportunities, 0.1731), S1 (Social organization participation, 0.1449), and P3 (Tourism operation area, 0.1136), while P1 (Household housing type, 0.0069) and H3 (Health status of household members, 0.0072) were assigned much lower weights.
• The weights assigned to the five types of livelihood capital were, in descending order: social capital (0.6193), material capital (0.2386), financial capital (0.0647), human capital (0.0499), and natural capital (0.0275). Regarding the comprehensive evaluation scores for individual indicators, S2 (Skill training opportunities = 4.8471), S4 (Social connections = 4.5069), and P4 (Types of new media communication devices = 3.0563) recorded the highest values. In contrast, indicators including H3 (Health status of household members = 0.4877), N2 (Whether ecological resource utilization changed after tourism development = 0.5180), P1 (Household housing type = 0.5810), and H2 (Educational attainment of labor force = 0.6196) received the lowest scores. This order was mirrored in the mean composite scores for the five capital categories (Figure 2), with social capital (0.1391) scoring the highest, followed by material capital (0.085), financial capital (0.0429), human capital (0.0261), and natural capital (0.0245).

3.1.2. Village Variation Patterns in Household Livelihood Capital

Calculations of livelihood capital levels for the five traditional case villages reveal significant variations (Figure 3). The comprehensive index of household livelihood capital ranges from 0.0381 to 0.9066, with a mean score of 0.3177. This indicates that the overall livelihood capital level remains below the average. Among the cases, households in Dali Village (0.4683) and Baibei Village (0.3454) scored above the mean. In contrast, households in the three other villages—Zaidang Village (0.2383), Danjiang Village (0.2883), and Jiayi Village (0.2155)—scored below the mean, indicating a relative scarcity of livelihood resources.

Field research data further corroborate that household livelihood capital varies significantly across villages in all five capital dimensions (Figure 4). Specifically, in terms of human capital (H), the scores of each village are relatively consistent and at a low level. Among them, Dali Village scored highest (0.0287), while Zaidang Village scored lowest (0.0233). Regarding physical capital (P), Dali Village scored highest (0.1075), while Jiayi Village scored lowest (0.0720). Dali Village boasts relatively developed tourism infrastructure, including homestays, restaurants, roads, and internet connectivity. Its high scores in indicators such as “Types of new media communication devices (P4)” reflect a strong capacity among farmers to proactively access external markets, making it a key beneficiary of visitor flows driven by the “Village Super League.” In contrast, Jiayi Village lags in tourism reception facilities, such as lodging and transportation. Regarding natural capital (N), Zaidang Village scored highest (0.0261). This reflects its lower level of tourism development, where livelihoods rely more heavily on traditional agriculture and ecological resources, thereby preserving a relatively high share of natural capital. In contrast, Dali Village scored lowest (0.0232). As its livelihood focus has shifted toward tourism, the direct productive value of land and forests has been superseded by the value derived from tourism services. In terms of financial capital (F), Danjiang Village scored highest (0.0459), followed by Baibei Village (0.0453), while Zaidang Village had the lowest value (0.0357). Danjiang Village has developed distinctive income streams by leveraging aquatic attractions like its “natural oxygen bar” and promoting them through new media. Baibei Village generates revenue by developing creative products based on its unique intangible cultural heritage. In contrast, Zaidang Village’s low financial capital value results from population outflow and its nascent stage of tourism development, which lacks effective channels for generating cash income. Social capital (S) is a key factor driving developmental disparities among the villages. Dali Village scored highest (0.2651), whereas Jiayi Village scored lowest (0.0497). High social capital indicates mature internal organizations like cooperatives and tourism associations. For instance, the Dali Village Dong Grand Song Troupe has cultivated extensive networks with government agencies, businesses, tourists, and media outlets.

In summary, the five traditional case villages all exhibit certain deficiencies in their household livelihood capital. The primary constraints for households with lower composite scores are a lack of financial capital (F1, F2) and social capital (S1, S2, S3, S4). Under the influence of Guizhou’s “Village Super League,” household livelihoods in these traditional ethnic mountain villages are characterized by a distinct pattern: “driven by external flows, led by social capital, supported by the material foundation, and coordinated with other forms of capital.”.

3.2. Formation Mechanism of Household Livelihoods in Traditional Tourism Villages Under the Influence of Guizhou’s “Village Super League”

Within the DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis Framework, external events can effectively trigger changes in households’ livelihood capital by driving structural and institutional transformations. As both a surge in visitor flows within a vulnerable context and a product of local structural-institutional transformation, Guizhou’s “Village Super League” significantly impacts rural households’ livelihood capital and strategies. Through field research and data analysis, this study examined five traditional villages—Dali, Zaidang, Danjiang, Baibei, and Jiayi—to delineate the pathways of livelihood evolution driven by event-driven supplementation, endogenous subject renewal, and capital integration synergies (

Table 3. Overview of traditional villages in the case study area.

Villages	Honorary Title	Households and Population	Tourism Development Stage and Related Information
Dali village	First batch of China’s Traditional Villages; First batch of Provincial Key Villages for Rural Tourism; Seventh batch of National Key Cultural Heritage Sites; National AAA-Rated Tourist Attraction.	324 households, 1342 residents	Consolidation and Transformation Stage:Tourism development in the area began in 2012. Following the viral success of Guizhou’s “Village Super League” in 2023, the sector experienced rapid growth, receiving nearly 100,000 visitors in 2024, with daily visitor numbers peaking at 8000. The number of homestays surged from 18 in 2022 to 64 registered establishments, providing over 500 beds. Notably, 90% of these homestays are independently owned and operated by local villagers.
Zaidang village	First batch of China’s Traditional Villages; Third batch of Provincial Key Rural Tourism Villages; Ethnic Characteristic Village.	265 households, 1277 residents	Exploratory and Emergent Stage: Tourism development in the village began in 2016. Since 2023, leveraging the popularity of Guizhou’s “Village Super League” to attract visitors, the sector has experienced significant growth. In 2024, tourist numbers increased by over 30 percent compared to the previous year. The village has also established over ten regular Dong Grand Song performance choirs.
Danjiang village	China’s Fourth Batch of Traditional Villages; Second Batch of National Key Rural Tourism Villages; China’s Ethnic Minority Characteristic Village; National Forest Health Resort Base; National AAA-Rated Tourist Attraction.	179 households, 770 residents	Participation and Development Stage: Tourism development in the village began in 2016. It achieved explosive growth in 2022 through new media promotion and welcomed 641,000 visitors in 2024. The village now boasts 25 homestays and 16 farmhouse restaurants, with collective economic income exceeding 600,000 yuan.
Baibei village	First batch of China’s Traditional Villages; Fifth batch of Provincial Key Rural Tourism Villages.	441 households, 2206 residents	Participation and Development Stage: Tourism development in the village started relatively late but gained significant momentum in 2023. Capitalizing on the “Village Super League,” the community developed the “Bai Bei in the Clouds” brand identity, registered a series of trademarks, and launched products such as Miao King Hand-Rubbed Chili Paste and Sour Soup. Since this promotional shift, the village has received over 200,000 visitors, generating more than 400,000 yuan in collective income.
Jiayi village	China’s Fourth Batch of Traditional Villages; Fourth Batch of Provincial Key Rural Tourism Villages; One of Qiandongnan Prefecture’s Top-Ten “Most Beautiful Red Army Villages”.	379 households, 1698 residents	Exploratory and Emergent Stage: The village began developing tourism in 2019. It possesses significant resources, including revolutionary heritage sites such as the former headquarters of the Red Seventh Army, as well as terraced field ecosystems. In 2023, by capitalizing on the “Village Super League” trend, the village expanded its homestay capacity to 19 units, generating annual dividends of 610,000 yuan.

). The dynamic mechanisms of livelihood evolution across event, agent, and capital dimensions in traditional village tourism households are crucial for understanding how emerging sports tourism events like the “Village Super League” enable traditional villages to adapt to modern societal challenges. This research also provides valuable insights for informing rural revitalization and sustainable livelihood development.

3.2.1. Event-Driven and Supplementary: External Triggers and Innovation Empowering Household Livelihoods

The narrative of Guizhou’s “Village Super League” triggers the realization of collective cultural significance by constructing shared event-memory identifiers [43,44], thereby innovatively empowering household livelihood systems. Zaidang Village and Jiayi Village are in the exploratory and nascent stages of tourism development, characterized by relatively weak infrastructure and household livelihoods that remain heavily reliant on traditional agriculture and migrant labor. Centering its brand building around football, the “Village Super League” has cultivated a shared collective mission while systematically planning roles such as athletes, cheerleaders, and logistical support staff [45]. This has provided concrete pathways for individuals to achieve personal goals, stimulated initial awareness of livelihood transformation among rural households, and created historic opportunities for activating livelihood capital.

“We currently leverage the village collective economy to mobilize participation in the ‘Village Super League’ because we recognize that having our own football team will bring numerous benefits—creating jobs and establishing a powerful platform for promoting our village.” (Director Meng, Jiayi Village)

Moreover, the massive popularity of Guizhou’s “Village Super League” has prompted traditional villages to transform from static cultural preservation sites into dynamic experiential living spaces. This shift has turned the overall village atmosphere itself into a key tourist attraction. Daily activities—such as drum tower singing contests, gatherings under wind-and-rain bridges, family dyeing workshops, and festive communal feasts—have been revalued through this external attention, achieving an innovative transformation from everyday living scenarios into marketable tourism products. For instance, Zaidang Village leverages Dong Grand Songs as its core cultural medium, with villagers spontaneously forming regular performance troupes. In 2024, the village’s tourist numbers increased by over 30 percent compared to the previous year. This growth signifies that cultural practices once deeply embedded in daily life are now being formally recognized and converted into financial capital, primarily through tourism revenue.

“We have Dong Grand Song choirs in almost every village—including senior, middle-aged, youth, male, and female groups. In fact, each village typically maintains four or five choirs. Our approach to tourism is guided by the principle that ‘song nourishes the soul, and meals nourish the body.’ Accordingly, we charge for performances based on group size, primarily to preserve our spiritual culture, allowing visitors to come and experience it.” (Secretary Liu, Zaidang Village)

Although traditional villages in the early stages of tourism development possess limited tangible capital, Guizhou’s “Village Super League” has successfully strengthened community cultural identity and collective pride by creating shared memories of the event. This has promoted the integration of culture, tourism, and sports as a vital supplement to traditional livelihoods. Furthermore, it lays crucial groundwork for future development, enabling these villages to seize external opportunities and achieve capital synergy in livelihood transformation.

3.2.2. Endogenous Agency and Renewal: Internal Responses and Active Empowerment of Household Livelihoods

Guizhou’s “Village Super League” utilizes its extensive media exposure and open platform to activate the endogenous motivation of farming communities through technological empowerment, leading to a shift in their core perceptions. In villages like Danjiang and Baibei, which are currently in the tourism engagement and development phase, farmers have proactively integrated internal and external resources, influenced by the league, to adapt their livelihood strategies. This transformation has turned them from passive observers into active participants, enabling them to establish market-competitive livelihood models. For instance, in Danjiang Village, spurred by returning youth, residents keenly recognized the potential of new media. They leveraged ecological assets such as their “natural oxygen bar” and used material capital, including new media equipment, to promote distinctive water-based activities. This initiative successfully created a specialized revenue stream, significantly increasing financial capital. Furthermore, farmers applied new media skills to redefine the value of cultural resources, such as local intangible cultural heritage techniques, demonstrating remarkable innovative capacity and proactive adaptability.

“Talent is the cornerstone of development, and the preservation of our culture depends on it. Therefore, we encourage skilled villagers to apply for official recognition as intangible cultural heritage inheritors, which helps us build a structured talent development framework. Furthermore, inheritors at the prefectural level and above qualify for annual government subsidies.” (Secretary Luo, Baibei Village)

Baibei Village has effectively leveraged the “Village Super League” as a platform to achieve its transformation, implementing new media promotion and talent development initiatives. Through organized skill training and the establishment of batik and embroidery workshops, individual skills have been integrated into community-based industries. Furthermore, the influence of new media platforms has facilitated the fusion of traditional intangible cultural heritage techniques with modern innovation, creating new cultural products and value-added capital that cater to tourist demand. By prioritizing talent and providing institutional support, the village has activated the initiative of its farmers, building a stable and sustainable talent pool. This approach facilitates the conversion of human capital and cultural resources into economic value.

Farmers are not passive recipients of external events. Instead, by building upon their inherent livelihood capital, they actively internalize external opportunities, transforming them into new drivers for their own development through proactive responses and continuous self-renewal. This process ultimately optimizes their livelihood strategies and fundamentally enhances their capabilities. During the livelihood formation process in tourism development, the “Village Super League” breaks open previously closed livelihood systems by establishing platforms and providing initial opportunities. However, rural households’ own ability to identify resources, apply new technologies, and respond to market demand is the key to building sustainable livelihood models.

3.2.3. Capital Integration and Synergy: Internal-External Linkages and Resilience Empowering Household Livelihoods

Serving as a gateway for visitor flows and a platform for resource integration, Guizhou’s “Village Super League” has amplified its brand influence with strategic government guidance. This has attracted an influx of external social capital—primarily from enterprises and social organizations—into rural areas [46], establishing a multi-stakeholder resource mobilization system that involves government, business, platform, and villagers. As village development enters a phase of consolidation and transformation, this system effectively channels top-down social and service resources. This process shifts farmer livelihoods toward a model of deep integration and symbiotic collaboration across multiple forms of capital.

Dali Village, designated as one of the first “Traditional Chinese Villages,” boasts a wealth of well-preserved cultural heritage, including Dong ethnic architecture, Dong Grand Songs, and traditional dyeing and weaving techniques. The village benefits from mature social organizations, such as tourism cooperatives and Dong Grand Song ensembles. These groups, together with the strong ties Dali Village has forged with government agencies, businesses, and media outlets, constitute a robust capacity for collective action and an efficient resource mobilization network.

“In recent years, numerous film crews have proactively reached out to use our village as a location for short videos. Members of our singing troupe are occasionally invited to participate as performers. Moreover, young and middle-aged villagers who have saved capital while working as migrants are now returning to start businesses. This allows everyone to earn an income locally, without having to leave home.” (Yang, Deputy Secretary of Dali Village)

High-level social capital effectively catalyzes and integrates other forms of capital. For instance, it attracts corporate investment to revitalize physical assets, such as by converting traditional wooden stilt houses into high-end homestays. It also draws migrant workers back to the village, which creates demand for new skills and promotes targeted training through community-government-enterprise collaborations, thereby enhancing the quality of human capital. Simultaneously, it strengthens the acquisition and growth of financial capital through mechanisms like collective financing and profit reinvestment. Consequently, these various forms of capital are no longer isolated indicators but function as an integrated, mutually reinforcing system. Through its supra-local practices, Guizhou’s “Village Super League” has thus reconstructed a social capital structure centered on organizational participation, skill sharing, collective decision-making, and social networking. This reconstruction catalyzes the interaction and synergistic evolution of internal and external capital, gradually forming resilient livelihood systems capable of absorbing and responding to the “Village Super League” phenomenon. Ultimately, this process effectively transforms external, transient visitor flows into internal, sustainable livelihood development (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

This study reveals that the significant inter-village disparities in livelihood capital stem from variations in their capacity to translate the “Village Super League” momentum into sustainable asset building. The analysis indicates that while human capital universally remains a challenge, villages like Dali benefited from return migration, which infused new skills and knowledge. Conversely, infrastructure deficits in villages like Jiayi led to the marginalization of potential tourism gains. Crucially, social capital emerged as the core driver of development, with mature networks in Dali facilitating effective collective action and resource synergy, thereby enhancing tourism quality and reputation. This finding aligns with existing research underscoring the critical role of social networks in rural development [47,48]. Unlike government-led approaches, the “Village Super League” highlights how endogenous cultural confidence, collective action, and innovative vitality are pivotal to rural transformation, embodying a bottom-up, inside-out logic of empowerment. Consequently, future rural policies should prioritize identifying and nurturing such socio-cultural potential within communities.

The role of community-led sports events in fostering local development is not unique to China. For instance, community-based rugby initiatives in the Pacific Islands have been shown to strengthen social cohesion and generate informal economic opportunities [49]. Similarly, community sports events in Kenya also drive regional development by mobilizing social capital and strengthening local identity, which in turn stimulates tourism and fosters broader socio-economic growth [50]. However, the “Village Super League” exhibits distinct characteristics that define its unique impact. Its explosive scale and reach were propelled by a synergy of state-media amplification and digital platform virality—a phenomenon facilitated by China’s unique media ecosystem and advanced digital infrastructure. Moreover, its deep integration with the intangible cultural heritage of the Miao and Dong minorities charts a developmental pathway distinct from the more commercially driven or secular community events commonly observed in Western contexts. The influence of “Village Super League” is already extending beyond China, inspiring initiatives in African countries such as Benin, which are actively adapting its model [51].

Notwithstanding these contributions, this study is subject to several limitations that warrant critical reflection. First, the cross-sectional nature of our research design captures only the short to medium-term effects of the event. The long-term sustainability of observed livelihood changes—including the durability of newly built physical assets and the persistence of activated social capital networks beyond the initial event euphoria—remains uncertain and requires longitudinal verification. Second, the cultural specificities of the investigated region, characterized by the strong collectivist traditions and rich intangible cultural heritage of the Miao and Dong communities, may have been a prerequisite for the rapid, bottom-up mobilization observed. This cultural embeddedness suggests that the efficacy of the “event–actor–capital” model may be contingent upon specific socio-cultural preconditions, potentially limiting its direct transferability to contexts with different social structures. Finally, the generalizability of our findings is constrained by the focus on five villages within a single county, suggesting the need for broader geographical sampling in future research.

These limitations, however, point toward fruitful directions for further inquiry. Future research should build on this foundation to advance the broader theoretical understanding of household livelihood systems under external shocks. Specifically, studies should further examine the alignment of micro-level behavioral logic with macro-level institutional reforms. Through longitudinal tracking, research can compare the dynamic processes of household livelihood resilience and adaptive cycles before and after such events. Furthermore, comparative studies across different cultural and institutional settings are needed to disentangle the universal mechanisms from context-specific factors in event-driven livelihood transformation. This will help explore pathways for effectively transforming the community self-organization capacity, stimulated by events like the “Village Super League,” into sustained institutional agency.

Ultimately, this study contends that the sustainability of event-driven rural development hinges not on replicating the event itself, but on understanding and fostering the underlying mechanisms of endogenous motivation it can trigger. This critical reflection on the event’s potentials and limitations provides a nuanced theoretical foundation for achieving sustainable livelihood improvements and enhancing regional development resilience.

5. Conclusions

To leverage the tourism flows from Guizhou’s “Village Super League” for promoting sustainable household livelihoods, this study applied the SLA framework through a multidimensional “event–actor–capital” lens. The findings reveal a medium–low level of overall livelihood capital (mean score = 0.3177) with a distinct hierarchy: social capital > physical capital > financial capital > human capital > natural capital. Significant developmental disparities were identified among villages, shaped by a livelihood formation mechanism characterized by event-driven supplementation, endogenous agency renewal, and capital synergy.

The primary theoretical contribution of this study lies in its systematic incorporation of “event” as a critical structuring variable into the conventional SLA framework. We advance the concept of “structural and institutional transformation” by proposing the “event–actor–capital” interaction model. This model elucidates how a sudden, grassroots sports–cultural event acts as an external trigger, setting in motion a dynamic process whereby actors (households/communities) reconfigure their capital portfolios. This refines the SLA by providing a more granular, process-oriented understanding of how livelihoods transform under specific external shocks, moving beyond static capital inventories.

The findings of this study offer concrete guidance for policymakers, local communities, and development facilitators seeking to leverage event-driven development for sustainable rural revitalization. For policymakers, it is imperative to transcend short-term event management by strategically integrating transient tourism revenues into long-term capacity building. This entails investing event-generated resources into enduring public goods such as digital infrastructure, vocational training centers focused on tourism services and business management, and accessible micro-finance schemes. Such investments are crucial for constructing a resilient economic foundation that persists beyond the event’s lifecycle. Concurrently, to address the observed developmental inequalities between villages, targeted and differentiated revitalization policies are essential. Less developed villages, such as Zaidang and Jiayi, require prioritized investment in basic infrastructure and human capital development initiatives. In contrast, more advanced villages like Dali can be supported through policies that facilitate industrial upgrading and regional brand development. Furthermore, policymakers should actively foster cooperative networks between villages to catalyze knowledge spillover and resource sharing, thereby mitigating regional disparities.

For local communities and facilitators, the institutionalization of social capital emerges as a critical long-term strategy. To prevent the erosion of the social networks activated by the event, informal community ties must be formalized through the establishment of legally registered entities such as tourism cooperatives, handicraft associations, and intangible cultural heritage organizations. These formal institutions serve as stable platforms for collective bargaining, resource pooling, and sustained skill training, thereby transforming transient social capital into durable institutional assets. Complementing this, a concerted effort must be made to identify and cultivate endogenous carriers of vitality, including local leaders, returning migrants, and heritage inheritors. By providing these “change agents” with targeted training and resources, they can be empowered to continuously drive innovation and mobilize the community from within, ensuring that the momentum for development becomes self-sustaining.

In summary, our findings advocate for a paradigm in rural revitalization that looks beyond the transient boom of popular events. The enduring strategy must be to channel the initial momentum into building robust, self-sustaining systems by nurturing endogenous motivation, strategically leveraging external inputs, and formally embedding social capital into community institutions. Through such integrated efforts, the vibrant legacy of events like the “Village Super League” can be transformed into a more resilient and equitable future for traditional villages in ethnic mountainous areas.