Next Article in Journal
Sustaining Urban Green Growth: Evaluating Ecological Efficiency and Resource-Use Drivers in Beijing’s Plains Afforestation Initiative
Previous Article in Journal
Hydration Products and Properties of Nanocellulose Fibre-Reinforced Mortar
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainability, the Balanced Scorecard, and Event Tourism: The SBSC-ET Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/su17062721
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Lost View: Villager-Centered Scale Development and Validation Due to Rural Tourism for Traditional Villages in China

by
Yanan Li
1,2,
Muhammad Azzam Ismail
3,*,
Asrul Aminuddin
4,
Rui Wang
4,
Kaiyun Jiang
4 and
Haowei Yu
4
1
Department of Fine Arts and Art Design, Yuncheng Advanced Normal College, Yuncheng 044000, China
2
Department of Art and Craft Design, Yuncheng University, Yuncheng 044000, China
3
Healthy and Sustainable Built Environment Research Center (HSBERC), College of Architecture, Art and Design, Ajman University, Ajman P.O. Box 346, United Arab Emirates
4
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2721; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062721
Submission received: 18 February 2025 / Revised: 16 March 2025 / Accepted: 17 March 2025 / Published: 19 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Leisure for Sustainable Future: Exploring Sustainable Environmental Leisure Activities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Traditional villages are the convergence points for rural tourism and cultural heritage, with their uniqueness deriving from their enduring cultural genes. Villagers serve as the continuators of traditional villages, the transmitters of cultural heritage, and active participants in rural tourism, all predisposing villagers to adopt key positions in these areas. However, villager-centered research has not been systematically explored. This gap may be due to the marginalization of villagers in developing rural tourism and cultural heritage, the challenges associated with measuring villager-centered impacts, and the lack of appropriate measurement tools. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a scale to assess the impact of rural tourism on villagers. Using Shangzhuang Village and Guoyu Village in China as case studies, a total of 305 samples were collected. Through construct dimensions, potential item generation, scale purification, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and reliability and validity testing, a villager-centered tourism impact scale was established, encompassing 13 items across three dimensions: economic, social, and cultural. The findings provide a new tool for village leaders, tourism developers, and policymakers to effectively incorporate villagers’ perspectives into rural tourism and heritage preservation efforts, contributing to the sustainable development of traditional villages and their associated tourism.

1. Introduction

The uniqueness of rural tourism in traditional villages lies in their enduring cultural gene, which has long been regarded as a form of cultural heritage by experts in architecture, archaeology, and the arts [1,2]. This has resulted in traditional villages, rural tourism, and cultural heritage preservation becoming an interconnected and inseparable whole [3]. Additionally, rural tourism, with its significant economic advantages, has become an almost indispensable option for the development of traditional villages under China’s national strategies for rural revitalization and poverty alleviation [4,5,6]. By adopting a multidimensional approach to the utilization of cultural heritage, culturally oriented tourism development in traditional villages can be made more sustainable, which in turn generates positive impacts on the overall development of the village [1]. However, in most cases, this remains an idealistic aspiration. Both in practice and in academic research, the focus has predominantly been on the sustainability of rural tourism and the preservation and reuse of cultural heritage [7], while traditional village communities and villagers, as a vulnerable group, have often been neglected or marginalized [7,8]. This has led to the gentrification of traditional villages [9], outmigration of villagers [10,11], the homogenization of spatial environments [12] and, ultimately, the erosion of the traditional social fabric [13].
The revision of the 2022 International Charter for Cultural Heritage Tourism [14] also highlighted this problem, which was prompted by the pressing issues of the disintegration of traditional villages and the erosion of cultural heritage resulting from tourism development. Compared to the 1999 version [15], this revision advocated a shift in focus from catering to tourists’ needs and the benefits of tourism to prioritizing the rights of local communities.
The vulnerability of villagers does not mean that their role is vulnerable. In the context of tourism development, numerous studies have demonstrated that the most distinctive advantage of traditional villages lies in their authenticity [16,17]. From the tourists’ perspective, the perception of authenticity—rooted in the genuine daily lives of villagers and their embodiment of local spirit and culture—is a unique quality felt as tourists immerse themselves in the environment. Tourists are perceptive enough to distinguish between what is genuine and what is staged, and this perception significantly influences their loyalty, which is crucial for the sustainable development of tourism [17]. In addition, more and more studies focus on the negative impacts of tourism on traditional villages based on the destruction of the village’s social structure and the neglect of endogenous forces [3].
In the field of traditional cultural heritage, current research and practice primarily focus on the protection, renewal, and reuse of heritage scattered across traditional villages [18,19,20]. However, the key to achieving the sustainable development of cultural heritage lies in the continuation of its cultural genes, which is fundamentally based on the continuity of traditional communities [7]. Traditional villages are characterized by their natural environment, agricultural livelihood, settlement patterns, and traditional lifestyles [12]. As the builders and inhabitants of these villages, indigenous people should be regarded as the continuators of the cultural genes of traditional villages [7]. However, with the development of rural tourism in China, the commercialization [4] and reclamation of traditional dwellings, the gentrification of villages [9], and the museumization of villages [21], to some extent, inhibit the continuation of the cultural genes of traditional villages, posing challenges to the sustainable development of cultural heritage.
Therefore, a villager-centered development strategy for traditional villages should be regarded as the optimal approach for sustainable rural tourism and cultural heritage preservation, or at the very least, be considered as a viable option. However, existing research, while encompassing a variety of stakeholders, often tends to marginalize villagers. Yanan, Ismail, and Aminuddin [7] conducted a review of 92 articles published between 2000 and 2023 in the WOS and SCOPUS databases on the impact of rural tourism on traditional villages, revealing that only 67% of the studies used villagers as the primary data source. Among these, 76% employed qualitative research methods, while quantitative methods accounted for only 24%, and most of these quantitative studies were limited to basic data collection on villagers. The reasons behind this phenomenon are complex. First, China’s top–down development model inherently lacks attention to the opinions of grassroots villagers. Most rural tourism development projects are primarily led by the government and external funding sources, with developers and local governments focusing more on economic benefits rather than villagers’ needs [6]. Second, even when villagers have the opportunity to express their opinions, many are limited by their educational background, resulting in fragmented and unclear feedback, making data collection challenging [3]. Third, there is a lack of appropriate scale development. Most studies on villagers rely on interviews and observations, focusing on understanding their subjective experiences, while quantitative research lacks an effective measurement tool, making it difficult to capture the unique experiences across different destinations and to provide clear direction for village development [3,7]. Scale development is a rigorous quantitative procedure used to explore subjective and abstract constructs, which is conducive to an in-depth understanding of the connotation and structure of these constructs [22]. To address this gap, a useful conceptual framework and a measurement scale for assessing the impact of tourism on villagers need to be constructed in the growing traditional village tourism market. This framework would help to understand how rural tourism changes villagers’ activities and attitudes, thereby guiding the direction of rural tourism development and the continuity of heritage. Therefore, the research objectives are twofold:
  • To identify the dimensions of how rural tourism changes villagers.
  • To develop and validate a scale for measuring the impact of tourism on villagers.
This paper is structured into four sections. Section 1 is the introduction. Section 2 is the literature review, including villager-centered theories and scale development and dimensions of tourism’s impact on villagers. Section 3 covers methodology and results, systematically establishing and validating the scale through identifying potential items, scale refinement, EFA, CFA, and criterion validity. Section 4 discusses the application of the scale, future research directions, and provides a comprehensive conclusion.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Villager-Centered Theories and Scale Development

In the process of tourism development in traditional villages, villagers are easily marginalized, and their lack of voice leads to a growing disconnect between tourism development and their needs and interests, which has become a common phenomenon. Although some scholars have noticed and raised this issue, few have proposed solutions, and a systematic framework has yet to be established. This paper summarized the current villager-centered research and measurement scales.
The term “traditional village” refers to communities that have accumulated extensive historical information, cultural landscapes, and national memories through the long-term development of farming civilization. These villages have developed unique ecological and humanistic landscapes over time, which genuinely record and inherit the farming civilization of the Chinese nation [23]. Unlike general rural settlements, traditional villages possess multidimensional values: they serve as material carriers of farming civilization, grassroots units of vernacular society, civilization imprints of historical processes, living heritage of national and traditional culture, memory ties of national identity, and tourism resources from a contemporary economic perspective. Traditional villages are fundamentally villages, which are one of the basic categories of settlements. Therefore, community attributes are their essential characteristics, while other attributes are attached to and derived from these core attributes [24]. Wang [25] argued that traditional villages possess both community and heritage attributes, while Sun and Wang [26] suggested that under the influence of rural tourism, traditional villages also acquire tourism attributes in addition to the aforementioned two attributes, and they further developed 44 community indicators for evaluating traditional villages.
Meanwhile, community-based tourism (CBT) emphasizes the importance of active participation and capacity building among community residents [4]. The core of CBT lies in empowering community members to ensure that tourism development generates economic benefits and promotes social and cultural sustainability [27]. In regions such as Japan and Taiwan, the fundamental principles of the “villager-led” movement have been successfully integrated into the transformation of traditional village communities [28]. This bottom–up development model effectively highlights the crucial role of the endogenous strength of the community in driving these traditional villages’ sustainable development [6]. Some scholars have analyzed community involvement, exploring how to enhance residents’ participation in tourism development through comparative policies [29] and tourism management models [30].
Ethnographic parks are specialized tourist sites aimed at preserving and showcasing traditional culture, folk customs, and historical heritage [31]. By maintaining or restoring traditional villages, they enable local residents to participate in reconstructed living spaces and scenes, allowing visitors to directly experience historical settings and folk culture [32]. Undoubtedly, this approach serves as an effective means of cultural promotion for traditional villages. However, there is a legitimate concern that it may lead to the “museumification” and “performative transformation” of culture, causing real village life to lose its vitality [17].
A few studies have recently begun to explore villagers’ satisfaction with tourism development. Naifei, Yue, and Zhang [3] focused on the issue of neglecting the endogenous strength of traditional villages in tourism development, investigating villagers’ satisfaction from economic, social, and cultural perspectives, and attempting to bridge the gap between non-professional villagers and professional tourism developers. However, while satisfaction surveys can capture villagers’ attitudes toward rural tourism, they are often limited to surface-level responses and do not provide a deep understanding of the various changes villagers experience during the development of rural tourism [1,33].
At the governmental level, China’s evaluation methods for rural construction have gradually become more detailed and refined [34,35]. Feedback and impact assessments through these indicators play a crucial role in reducing decision-making errors during project implementation [36]. However, the existing evaluation indicators for rural development often overlook the importance of considering residents’ opinions on sustainable rural development [7].

2.2. Dimensions of Tourism’s Impact on Villagers

The impact of tourism on traditional villages is a widely researched topic, primarily encompassing four aspects: economic, social, cultural, and ecological [7]. Research has shifted from focusing on the advantages of tourism, such as diversifying industry [5,6], increasing income [5], preventing rural depopulation [6], and preserving local cultural heritage and customs, to examining its negative impacts on traditional villages, including the marginalization of villagers [9,37], cultural commodification [38], and the erosion of traditional social structures [33,39,40]. For villagers, the primary impacts are categorized into economic, social, and cultural dimensions. For instance, An and Alarcón [41] categorized the impacts of rural tourism on communities into economic, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions. However, when analyzing the impact of rural tourism on villagers, Yanan, Ismail, and Aminuddin [7] excluded the environmental dimension due to the belief that ecological issues are a shared responsibility of humanity and do not directly affect the core interests of villagers in the short term. Accordingly, this study constructs a conceptual framework of rural tourism’s impact on villagers (Figure 1).
The first dimension is the economic dimension, which refers to the impact of rural tourism on livelihood transformation [37,42], villagers’ income [3,43], land use patterns [11,44], and traditional industries [13,37]. The primary advantage of tourism lies in its significant contribution to economic growth, but it is also crucial to recognize the complex interconnections between the economy, culture, and society [7]. The continuation of traditional livelihoods is widely regarded as an important catalyst for tourism development, yet insufficient integration of traditional agriculture with tourism or over-reliance on a single tourism model can affect the community’s resilience [45,46]. Additionally, excessive government intervention can weaken the endogenous strength of villages, leading to the marginalization of villagers’ economic interests and traditional economic activities, with the lack of villagers’ participation becoming a common theme in many studies [6,29]. Profit-oriented tourism enterprises often result in the commercialization of cultural heritage, and third-party tourism planning companies may control the commercialization process and benefit from the village’s cultural heritage, thereby stripping local villagers of control over their cultural products [38,47].
The second dimension is the social dimension, which refers to the impact of rural tourism on villagers’ quality of life [43,48], daily activity [48,49], social relationships [43,48], and community engagement [6,27]. The development of rural tourism has subtly influenced villagers’ social lives, gradually leading to changes in the social structure of traditional villages [50]. These changes have brought about a range of social challenges, including the destruction of the internal living environment of traditional villages due to gentrification and the isolation of villages from surrounding communities caused by the “Isolated Island” effect [9,51]. Additionally, profit-oriented rural tourism often exacerbates competition and unequal distribution of benefits, which can intensify conflicts among villagers [40]. Excessive intervention by either the government or tourism enterprises undermines the traditional social structure based on kinship, traditional beliefs, and township regulations [33,39].
The third dimension is the cultural and spiritual dimension, which encompasses the impact of rural tourism on traditional culture and emotions on their village, including sense of identity [47,52], attachment [16,17], and the authenticity and continuity of traditional culture [17,53]. Traditional village cultural landscapes result from long-term interaction between local villagers and their natural environment. However, the strong intervention of tourism has disrupted this relationship. The commercialization of traditional culture does not mean to benefit its continuation [16]. The emergence of a new place-based identity driven by tourism may erode the previously existing village identity based on kinship [50]. Furthermore, prioritizing tourist demands over villagers’ needs during tourism expansion can lead to a loss of cultural identity and sense of belonging among villagers, diminishing their control over their own culture [54]. This, in turn, undermines the authenticity of village culture and impedes villagers’ rights to present and develop their historical and cultural identity in their own way [38,47].
Overall, this study aimed to develop a measurement scale based on the villager-centered three-dimensional conceptual framework to assess the impact of tourism on villagers. This scale can provide valuable insights into how rural tourism influences villagers’ activities and attitudes, thereby guiding the development of rural tourism and promoting the continuity of traditional culture.

3. Method and Results

The development and validation of the Villager-Centered Tourism Impact Scale combined both quantitative and qualitative methods. In addition to the defining of conceptual dimensions, it includes 5 steps: identifying potential items, scale refinement, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and assessing reliability and validity [22,55,56,57]. The conceptual dimensions were defined based on the impact of rural tourism on traditional village residents, incorporating previous research. Identifying potential items involves generating an initial set of items covering all dimensions, reflecting the actual situations and perceptions of traditional villagers within the context of rural tourism [55,56]. Refining the scale involves analyzing content and face validity to remove or combine redundant, vague, or similar items and improving item clarity and operability. EFA determines the underlying factor structure, reduces the number of items, and verifies item relationships with each dimension. CFA validates the factor structure derived from EFA, assesses model fit, and ensures consistency across different samples. Reliability is assessed for internal consistency, stability, and reliability of each dimension, including internal consistency and composite reliability. Validity testing evaluates whether the scale accurately measures the intended constructs and ensures appropriate discrimination between dimensions, including content validity, construct validity, discriminant validity, and criterion validity [22,55,57].

3.1. Selection of Sample Villages

The term “traditional village” refers to communities established in earlier periods that are rich in traditional resources. These villages possess significant historical, cultural, scientific, artistic, social, and economic value, which necessitates their protection [6,7]. The concept of a “traditional village” is often similar to terms like “ancient village”, “rural settlement”, or “characteristic village” [58]. However, as noted by Yanan, Ismail, and Aminuddin [7], the uniqueness of a “traditional village” lies in it being a historical village that is still inhabited by indigenous villagers, rather than serving as a tourist attraction or an ancient relic. The protection and development of traditional villages occur simultaneously. Based on the characteristics of traditional villages and the research aim, this study established strict selection criteria when choosing sample traditional villages (Table 1).
Based on the above selection criteria, it is important to clarify that this study did not select well-known traditional villages such as Zhouzhuang or Hongcun. In these villages, the level of tourism development has led many villagers to abandon their traditional livelihoods or relocate to cities, classifying them as ancient villages rather than traditional ones. Consequently, Shangzhuang Village was chosen for the first round of sampling, and Guoyu Village for the second round. Table 2 provides detailed information about the two villages.
Shangzhuang Village, located at the foot of Kele Mountain in northeast Yangcheng County, Jincheng City, Shanxi Province, is home to 378 households with 978 residents and cultivates 500 acres of land. It is recognized as a “Chinese Historical and Cultural Famous Village” and a “Chinese Traditional Village” by the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development and the National Cultural Heritage Administration. Additionally, it has earned titles such as “Chinese Landscape Village”, “Beautiful Leisure Village of China”, and “Outstanding Ancient Village and Town of China”. The village boasts two provincial intangible cultural heritage projects and is a key cultural heritage protection site in Shanxi Province. It is also part of the “Jincheng Ancient Fortress” World Heritage nomination, with the Tianguan Wangfu scenic area designated as a national AAAA tourist attraction. As a typical traditional village in China, it preserves traditional production methods, and 54% of the traditional residences are still inhabited by villagers.
Guoyu Village, celebrated as a “Chinese Historical and Cultural Famous Village”, is a fortress-like settlement located at the foothills of the Taihang Mountains. Renowned for its distinctive Ming and Qing dynasty architectural ensemble, it is designated as a key national cultural heritage site and praised by the eminent scholar Luo Zhewen as “the jewel of Chinese residential architecture”. Known as “China’s Premier Rural City”, the village spans 180,000 square meters, featuring ancient city walls, towers, residences, temples, shops, gardens, gate towers, wells, and historical sites. As a unique architectural complex in the Qin River basin and a cluster of ancient fortresses, it serves as a convergence point of Chinese ancient architecture. The traditional courtyards maintain their original layout, materials, and craftsmanship, representing the authentic regional architectural and cultural traditions shaped by local artisans. Notably, 63% of the traditional residences are still occupied by villagers.
These two villages aligned with the research objectives in terms of historical background, architectural characteristics, community continuity, traditional livelihoods, and tourism development, making them suitable as research samples.

3.2. Identifying Potential Items

Identifying potential items was primarily achieved through the literature review and in-depth interviews. First, findings from the existing literature on the impact of rural tourism on traditional village villagers provided the main framework and dimension division for the scale. Specifically, studies focusing on traditional village community attributes [25,26,48,59,60,61] examined the essential attribute of traditional villages as fundamental community units that have existed throughout human social and historical development. These studies emphasized that, regardless of how traditional villages evolve, they must remain villager-centered. Heritage attributes [2,25,26,49,62] emphasize the cultural, historical, and architectural values that are created and perpetuated by villagers, demonstrating how tourism interventions may affect the preservation and transmission of these heritage elements. Additionally, research on traditional village values [2,48,63,64,65] identifies the social, cultural, economic, and aesthetic values that constitute the core identity of traditional villages, guiding the development of measurement items. Finally, relevant policy documents and guidelines from China and international sources [34,35,66,67,68,69,70] provide practical insights and normative frameworks. Although many of these documents take a macro-development perspective or a limited villager perspective, they still offer valuable references for the contextualization and adaptation of the scale. As mentioned in Section 2.1 (and as shown in Figure 2), these diverse sources collectively offer references for this villager-centered scale. By establishing the criteria as in Table 3, the final filtering resulted in 23 items. It is important to note that although certain items, such as transport accessibility and infrastructure, undeniably influence the quality of life of villagers [71], the scale proposed in this study specifically measures the impact of rural tourism from the villagers’ perspective. In other words, it focuses on changes in economic, social, and cultural dimensions that are subjectively perceived and shaped by villagers themselves. Indicators like transport accessibility are considered beyond the scope of villagers’ individual decision-making, as they are predominantly determined by government planning and policy. Therefore, such indicators were deliberately excluded from the scale.
Subsequently, in-depth interviews were conducted to extract and refine research items, ensuring data saturation [22]. Four types of respondents were selected: (1) 4 village leaders, (2) 4 villagers maintaining traditional production modes, such as those engaged in agriculture, (3) 4 self-employed villagers involved in tourism-related activities, and (4) 4 villagers with typical traditional residences. Snowball sampling was employed to achieve information saturation and thoroughly understand the impact of tourism on villagers. Each interview lasted between 20 and 40 min [22,55,56,57,72]. Respondents were initially briefed on the definitions of the research dimensions and then asked open-ended questions as listed below to capture their specific views and experiences regarding the impact of tourism development.
  • Do you feel that tourism has a significant impact on you?
  • What are the specific manifestations of tourism’s impact on your economy, culture, and social life?
  • Beyond the points mentioned above, do you have any other opinions or views on tourism development that you would like to share?
Through the literature review and in-depth interviews, a total of 25 items related to the social, economic, and cultural dimensions of villagers were identified (Table 4).

3.3. Scale Refinement

3.3.1. Content Validity

After developing the potential scale items, an expert panel was recruited to evaluate the content validity of the scale. The panel comprised two professors, three associate professors, and five researchers, all with expertise in traditional village preservation or rural tourism development. The beginning of the expert evaluation form provided a brief overview of the dimensions of tourism’s impact on traditional village villagers. The expert panel reviewed each item in detail and assessed its importance and applicability within the relevant constructs using a scale from 1 (not important/applicable at all) to 5 (completely important/applicable). After data collection, the mean score (M), first quartile (Q1), third quartile (Q3), standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (CV) for the expert ratings were calculated (Table 5). Items with low importance (M < 3.5, Q1 < 3, Q3 < 4) were removed, leading to the exclusion of 7 items: Household Debt, Industry Friendliness, Agricultural Income, Public Facilities, Resident Happiness, Deprivation, and Dwelling Richness. Additionally, 3 items with low applicability (M < 3.5, Q1 < 3, Q3 < 4), Local Employment, Capital Disparity, and Management Fairness, were also eliminated. As a result, a final set of 15 items was retained across the three dimensions.

3.3.2. Pre-Survey

To ensure the quality of the questionnaire, a small-scale pilot survey was conducted in Gucheng Village, a renowned traditional village in China. This pre-survey aimed to assess the initial questionnaire’s quality and optimize and adjust the items in preparation for the formal survey. We distributed 102 questionnaires through convenience sampling face-to-face and collected 100 valid responses. During the pilot survey, we further evaluated and revised the readability of the questionnaire. Subsequently, we calculated Cronbach’s α coefficient and item-to-total correlation to assess the overall reliability of the scale and the reliability of individual items [22,55,72]. Due to low item correlations (below 0.3) [73], 2 items were discarded, ultimately retaining 13 items.

3.4. Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA)

After completing the above steps, the 13 initially generated items were incorporated into the formal survey questionnaire, as shown in Table 6. Each item was rated using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (no change) to 5 (significant change). The first round of data collection was conducted in Guoyu Village, a well-known traditional village in China, using face-to-face convenience sampling. A total of 107 questionnaires were collected, with 100 deemed valid, resulting in an effective rate of 93.34%. The respondent-to-item ratio was 7.69:1, exceeding the recommended 5:1 standard by Gorsuch [74]. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are detailed in Table 7. Descriptive statistics showed that skewness and kurtosis of the items ranged from −1.98 to +1.98, indicating no extreme deviation from normal distribution [75,76].
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to explore and reveal the patterns and structures among the latent variables. Using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, the underlying structure of the items was found to be consistent with the theoretical framework constructed by the authors. The results indicated a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value of 0.808 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity of 595.213 (df = 78, p < 0.001), suggesting that the sample data were highly suitable for factor analysis. Item loading was higher than 0.50 and communalities for each item were greater than 0.4, indicating that each item was well explained by its respective factor [74]. The final three-factor structure, which accounted for 65.533% of the total variance, included all 13 remaining items, as shown in Table 8. The Cronbach’s α scores for the 3 extracted factors ranged from 0.792 to 0.869, demonstrating acceptable reliability [56]. The factor structure was consistent with the theoretical analysis discussed in Section 2.1, indicating that the results have appropriate theoretical justification. The three factors are the economic dimension (4 items), social dimension (5 items), and cultural dimension (4 items).

3.5. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA)

Given Smart PLS’s strength in handling small sample sizes, it was utilized for CFA analysis in this study to further validate the latent structures identified by the EFA, particularly considering the typically low number of registered households in traditional Chinese villages [77]. Through convenience sampling, 213 questionnaires were collected face-to-face, with 205 deemed usable, resulting in an effective rate of 95.8%. The respondent-to-item ratio was 8.85:1, exceeding the 5:1 threshold recommended by Gorsuch [74]. The specific demographic characteristics of the respondents are detailed in Table 7. Descriptive statistics showed that, according to Field [76] and Ghasemi and Zahediasl [75], the skewness and kurtosis of the items ranged from −1.98 to +1.98, indicating no extreme deviation from normal distribution.
According to the results of CFA, the SRMR = 0.079, d_ULS = 0.959, and d_G = 0.253 (SRMR < 0.08, d_ULS > 0.05, d_G > 0.05), indicating a good overall fit of the three-factor model to the sample [77]. The Q2 value = 0.497 also demonstrated good predictive ability. Table 9 presents additional results from the CFA. First, item outer loading values ≥ 0.7 indicate strong explanatory power for each item. However, according to Hair [78], loading values between 0.4 and 0.7 are also acceptable. Given the exploratory nature of this scale development, Items A4 and B4, with outer loading values of 0.574 and 0.673, respectively, are retained to maintain inclusivity. The Composite Reliability values range from 0.873 to 0.882, all exceeding the critical threshold of 0.70, indicating strong construct reliability. Second, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values range from 0.566 to 0.688, with all three factors exceeding the 0.50 threshold, demonstrating good convergent validity. Third, CFA demonstrated the discriminant validity of this scale using three different methods. The CFA shows the HTMT values of the 3 factors are ≤0.90; the correlations among the economic, social, and cultural factors ranged from 0.116 to 0.532, all below the critical value of 0.85 and less than the square root of the AVE for the corresponding factors; the result satisfied the cross-loading criterion. These three results indicate that the differences among these dimensions were significant, confirming the acceptable discriminant validity of the scale. Overall, the evaluation of the measurement model substantiates the reliability and validity of the latent constructs.

3.6. Criterion Validity

Criterion validity assesses whether a scale can effectively predict or reflect an external standard or outcome related to it. It is a crucial indicator for ensuring the scale’s effectiveness in practical applications [56]. Based on the aforementioned studies, tourism has induced a series of changes in the economic, social, and cultural aspects of indigenous villagers’ lives. According to Lefebvre’s theory [79] of social production, these economic, social, and cultural changes among villagers inevitably influence the function and characteristics of traditional built space. Consequently, the impact of tourism on villagers’ economic, social, and cultural activities is closely related to changes in the spatial environment of traditional villages [40,80,81], indicating a high potential correlation between the two. Therefore, this study draws on Rypkema and Cheong [49], Mingxuan, Yan, Ying and Zhou [48], and Liu’s survey [2] on spatial changes in traditional villages to examine whether the impact of tourism on villagers’ economic, social, and cultural aspects leads to alterations in the traditional village spatial environment. In both the first and second rounds of the survey, additional items were included to assess changes in the spatial environment of traditional dwellings. The results (Table 10) show both commonalities and differences between the two villages. The commonalities indicate that economic and social factors significantly impact spatial environment changes, with economic influences being more pronounced [82]. Meanwhile, tourism’s impact on villagers’ cultural aspects enhances their awareness of traditional culture and architecture, which negatively correlates with spatial environment changes, thus promoting the preservation of traditional dwellings [42]. However, the villages exhibit differences in the economic, social, and cultural dimensions, especially in certain indicators. These variations are mainly attributed to differences in tourism management models, levels of villager participation, and degrees of gentrification. Such differences provide valuable insights into targeted strategies to enhance the sustainable development of traditional villages. These findings align with existing theoretical judgments and empirical understanding, supporting the criterion-related validity of the scale.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Villagers are the carriers of the cultural genes of traditional villages, and any development in traditional villages, including rural tourism, cannot be separated from the villagers. However, existing research on rural tourism and traditional villages often lacks a villager-centered approach. The absence of such research does not imply its unimportance. Villagers play a crucial role, not only in preserving and continuing the heritage of traditional villages, but also in ensuring rural tourism sustainable development by maintaining authenticity. Therefore, this paper first reviewed the literature on villager-centered theories and scale development, then established a conceptual model for a villager-centered tourism impact scale and identifies three dimensions of tourism’s impact on villagers: economic, social, and cultural dimensions.
Subsequently, this study developed and validated a villager-centered tourism impact scale. Following a rigorous process, 23 items were initially obtained from the literature review, which was then expanded to 25 items through in-depth interviews with villagers. The number of items was reduced to 13 after content validity checks by an expert panel and a pilot survey. The first round of questionnaire surveys and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified three factors in the scale, which were validated to align with the dimensional framework presented in Section 2.2: economic, social, and cultural factors. The factor structure was further confirmed through a second round of questionnaire surveys and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), showing satisfactory reliability and validity. Ultimately, the study resulted in a scale comprising 13 items and 3 factors. The development of the villager-centered tourism impact scale has significance for the development of traditional villages, rural tourism, and cultural heritage.

4.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

In theoretical research on the interactions among traditional villages, rural tourism, and cultural heritage, many studies have noticed that a villager-centered approach is the optimal solution for sustainable rural tourism and cultural heritage preservation [16,17,37]. However, due to the challenges associated with collecting data from villagers, there has been a lack of method development from a villager’s perspective [3]. This study attempted to fill this research gap through a rigorous scale development process, which is the study’s primary theoretical contribution. According to the results of criterion validity, the economic and social impacts of tourism on villagers significantly contribute to the heterogenization of traditional built environments, while its cultural impact promotes the continuity of spatial environments. Therefore, understanding the effects of tourism development on villagers is fundamentally significant for exploring the continuity of traditional village culture and adjusting the development path of rural tourism.
This study was also a reply to the concerns of the ICOMOS [14] International Charter for Cultural Heritage Tourism. Compared to the ICOMOS [15] vision, the revision of the Charter was driven by urgent issues arising from tourism in traditional villages. This revision marked a shift in focus from prioritizing tourists’ needs and the benefits of tourism to emphasizing the rights of local communities in cultural heritage tourism. The updated Charter called for addressing the deterioration of cultural heritage caused by tourism and reassessing the impact of tourism on traditional village communities. The villager-centered tourism impact scale developed in this study aimed to fill the method gap identified by the Charter and provide insights into these pressing issues.
Regarding practical contributions, the results of this study provide valuable guidance for village leaders, tourism developers, and policymakers. For village leaders, the scale can help them understand villagers’ opinions and guide how to maintain the integrity of traditional community structures from economic, social, and cultural perspectives, thereby reducing village gentrification and hollowing out. It ensures that tourism development does not disrupt the village’s traditional layout and social relations but instead serves as a driving force for economic and social sustainability. For tourism developers, this study offers a new direction for rural tourism development, emphasizing harmonious coexistence with traditional communities. It provides concrete data on how to preserve the authenticity of traditional villages, thereby enhancing tourist loyalty and promoting the sustainable development of rural tourism. For policymakers, the scale offers a villager-centered policy guidance framework that accurately addresses changes in villagers’ economic, social, and cultural needs, ensuring that policies balance economic interests with the continuity of traditional communities.

4.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although both surveyed villages showed strong scale testing results, the vast geographical expanse and significant social and cultural differences among traditional villages in China suggest that more similar studies across various types of traditional villages are needed to strengthen these findings. Moreover, these differences may lead to variations in scale results across different regions. For example, during scale validation, the item related to land use did not demonstrate highly significant results but was still considered acceptable and retained due to the exploratory scale’s inclusiveness. Additionally, the scale considers the cultural acceptance of villagers and employs detailed item descriptions and face-to-face data collection methods, so future research could simplify data collection methods. In short, there is substantial room for future research in cross-regional and cross-cultural validation of the scale, the simplification of the scale, and the empirical measurement and evaluation of tourism’s impact on villagers, including the application of specific examples of the scale.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L. and M.A.I.; methodology, Y.L. and A.A.; software, R.W. and K.J.; validation, Y.L., M.A.I. and A.A.; formal analysis, Y.L. and H.Y.; investigation, R.W.; resources, H.Y.; data curation, H.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, M.A.I.; visualization, K.J.; supervision, M.A.I.; funding acquisition, Y.L. and M.A.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Yanan Li and Muhammad Azzam Ismail. This research was supported by the Sichuan Center for Rural Development Research (Grant Number: CR2403), Subject Title: The Study on the Protection and Revitalization of Rural Cultural Heritage in Sichuan Based on the HUL Approach.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Research Ethics Approval from the Universiti Malaya Research Ethics Committee (protocol code UM.TNC2/UMREC-2091 and 5 October 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wang, M.; Jiang, J.; Xu, S.; Guo, Y. Community Participation and Residents’ Support for Tourism Development in Ancient Villages: The Mediating Role of Perceptions of Conflicts in the Tourism Community. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liu, Z. Study on the Evaluation of World Cultural Heritage Value of Traditional Villages in China. J. Southwest Minzu Univ. 2021, 42, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
  3. Liu, N.; Yue, K.; Zhang, X. Ignored Opinions: Villager-Satisfaction-Based Evaluation Method of Tourism Village Development—A Case Study of Two Villages in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yunikawati, N.A.; Istiqomah, N.; Priambodo, M.P.; Sidi, F. Can Community Based Tourism (Cbt) Support Sustainable Tourism in the Osing Traditional Village? In Proceedings of the IConARD, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 13–14 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Su, L.; Huang, S.; Huang, J. Effects of Destination Social Responsibility and Tourism Impacts on Residents’ Support for Tourism and Perceived Quality of Life. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 42, 1039–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gao, J.; Wu, B. Revitalizing Traditional Villages through Rural Tourism: A Case Study of Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China. Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, Y.; Ismail, M.A.; Aminuddin, A. How Has Rural Tourism Influenced the Sustainable Development of Traditional Villages? A Systematic Literature Review. Heliyon 2024, 10, e25627. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wang, D.; Zhu, Y.; Zhao, M.; Lv, Q. Multi-Dimensional Hollowing Characteristics of Traditional Villages and Its Influence Mechanism Based on the Micro-Scale: A Case Study of Dongcun Village in Suzhou, China. Land Use Policy 2021, 101, 105146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gocer, O.; Shrestha, P.; Boyacioglu, D.; Gocer, K.; Karahan, E. Rural Gentrification of the Ancient City of Assos (Behramkale) in Turkey. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 87, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xi, J.; Zhao, M.; Ge, Q.; Kong, Q. Changes in Land Use of a Village Driven by over 25 Years of Tourism: The Case of Gougezhuang Village, China. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, Y.; Zhan, C.; Wang, H.; Gao, Y. Evolution and Reconstruction of Settlement Space in Tourist Islands: A Case Study of Dachangshan Island, Changhai County. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 9777–9808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Keran, C.; Liu, Y.; Cao, Y.; Wang, J.; Tian, Y. Construction and Characteristic Analysis of Landscape Gene Maps of Traditional Villages Along Ancient Qin-Shu Roads, Western China. Herit. Sci. 2024, 12, 37. [Google Scholar]
  13. Su, M.; Sun, Y.; Min, Q.; Jiao, W. A Community Livelihood Approach to Agricultural Heritage System Conservation and Tourism Development: Xuanhua Grape Garden Urban Agricultural Heritage Site, Hebei Province of China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. ICOMOS. International Charter for Cultural Heritage Tourism. In The 2022 ICOMOS Annual General Assembly; ICOMOS: Bangkok, Thailand, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  15. ICOMOS. International Cultural Tourism Charter: Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance. In Proceedings of the 12th General Assembly, Mexico City, Mexico, 17–23 October 1999. [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, X.Y.; Wang, C. Understanding the Relationship between Tourists’ Perceptions of the Authenticity of Traditional Village Cultural Landscapes and Behavioural Intentions, Mediated by Memorable Tourism Experiences and Place Attachment. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2023, 28, 254–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhao, Z.F.; Li, Z.W. Destination Authenticity, Place Attachment and Loyalty: Evaluating Tourist Experiences at Traditional Villages. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 26, 3887–3902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Huang, Q.Y.; Xi, X.S. Vernacular Landscape Leading the Way: The Holistic Protection and Revival of Hani’s Ancient Village under the Background of Yuanyang Terraced Fields’ Register on the World Heritage. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 1030–1032, 2468–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ferwati, M.S.; El-Menshawy, S.; Mohamed, M.E.A.; Ferwati, S.; Al Nuami, F. Revitalising Abandoned Heritage Villages: The Case of Tinbak, Qatar. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bilgin, E.A.; Arslan, T.V.; Durak, S. Physical Changes in World Heritage Sites under the Pressure of Tourism: The Case of Cumalikizik Village in Bursa. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 8, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, M. The Estonian Open-Air Museum and the Mode and Experience of the Protection of Its Vernacular Architecture. J. Guangxi Norm. Univ. 2015, 51, 88–95. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sun, J.; Zhang, J.-H.; Zhang, H.; Wang, C.; Duan, X.; Chen, M. Development and Validation of a Tourism Fatigue Scale. Tour. Manag. 2020, 81, 104121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cao, W.; Hu, Y.; Cao, C. The Urbanization Process Should Promote the Conservation and Development of Traditional Villages. Urban Dev. Stud. 2013, 21, 34–36. [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, L. The Stripping and Integrating Study of Heritage Community–Historical and Cultural Villages: Culture Tourism Sustainable Development; Northwest University: Kirkland, WA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wang, S. Construction and Empirical Research on the Evaluation System of Sustainable Development of Chinese Traditional Villages. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2021, 76, 921–938. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sun, J.; Wang, S. Construction on Evaluation System of Sustainable Development Forrural Tourism Destinations Based on Rural Revitalization Strategy. Geogr. Res. 2022, 41, 289–306. [Google Scholar]
  27. Xu, K.S.; Zhang, J.; Tian, F.J. Community Leadership in Rural Tourism Development: A Tale of Two Ancient Chinese Villages. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, G.; Yang, K.; Mao, Z.Q. Community Building Showing the Potential Value of Country: Japan’s Charming Country Construction Experience. Urban Dev. Stud 2016, 1, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wanner, A.; Pröbstl-Haider, U. Barriers to Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Rural Tourism Development—Experiences from Southeast Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Boonwanno, S.; Laeheem, K.; Hunt, B. Takua Pa Old Town: Potential for Resource Development of Community-Based Cultural Tourism Management. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2022, 43, 88–93. [Google Scholar]
  31. Handler, R.; Saxton, W. Dyssimulation: Reflexivity, Narrative, and the Quest for Authenticity in “Living History”. Cult. Anthropol. 1988, 3, 242–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Safaryan, A. Proposals on Nomenclature, Functional Orientation and Territorial Zoning of the Armenian People’s Ethnographic Parks. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 913, 032030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Song, H.M.; Zhu, C.S.; Fong, L.H.N. Exploring Residents’ Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Sustainable Tourism Development in Traditional Villages: The Lens of Stakeholder Theory. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ministry of Housing Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (MHURDC). The Evaluation and Identification Index System of Traditional Villages (Trial); Ministry of Culture Tourism of the People’s Republic of China, National Cultural Heritage Administration, Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China, Eds.; Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2012.
  35. MHURDC. Evaluation Index System of China’s Famous Historical and Cultural Towns (Villages) (Trial); Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2005.
  36. Ma, J.; Shu, B. 30 Years of Rural Tourism in China: Policy Orientation, Reflection and Optimization. Mod. Econ. Res. 2020, 27, 116–122. [Google Scholar]
  37. Su, M.M.; Wall, G.; Xu, K. Tourism-Induced Livelihood Changes at Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 1024–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bruckermann, C. Trading on Tradition: Tourism, Ritual, and Capitalism in a Chinese Village. Mod. China 2016, 42, 188–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, X.Q. A Phenomenological Explication of Guanxi in Rural Tourism Management: A Case Study of a Village in China. Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bi, G.; Yang, Q. The Spatial Production of Rural Settlements as Rural Homestays in the Context of Rural Revitalization: Evidence from a Rural Tourism Experiment in a Chinese Village. Land Use Policy 2023, 128, 106600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. An, W.; Alarcón, S. How Can Rural Tourism Be Sustainable? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ma, X.L.; Wang, R.; Dai, M.L.; Ou, Y.H. The Influence of Culture on the Sustainable Livelihoods of Households in Rural Tourism Destinations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1235–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gu, S.; Li, J.; Wang, M.; Ma, H. Post-Renewal Evaluation of an Urbanized Village with Cultural Resources Based on Multi Public Satisfaction: A Case Study of Nantou Ancient City in Shenzhen. Land 2023, 12, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Randelli, F.; Martellozzo, F. Is Rural Rural Tourism-Induced Built-up Growth a Threat for the Sustainability of Rural Areas? The Case Study of Tuscany. Land Use Policy 2019, 86, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, B.; Feldman, M.W.; Li, S. The Status of Perceived Community Resilience in Transitional Rural Society: An Empirical Study from Central China. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 80, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, X.X.; Li, B.H. Rethinking Cultural Creativity and Tourism Resilience in the Post-Pandemic Era in Chinese Traditional Villages. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Joo, J.T. Tourism and Identity Transformation in the Oeam Folk Village in Asan, Korea. Korea J. 2012, 52, 136–159. [Google Scholar]
  48. Li, M.; Yan, Y.; Ying, Z.; Zhou, L. Measuring Villagers’ Perceptions of Changes in the Landscape Values of Traditional Villages. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rypkema, D.; Cheong, C. Measurements and Indicators of Heritage as Development. In Proceedings of the ICOMOS 17th General Assembly, Paris, France, 27 November–2 December 2011. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhuang, X.P.; Yao, Y.; Li, J. Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism on Residents of World Cultural Heritage Sites in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, H.G.; Huang, X.Y.; Zhang, Q.F. Tourism Development and Local Borders in Ancient Villages in China. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Korani, Z.; Shafiei, Z. In Search of Traces of ‘the Tourist Gaze’ on Locals: An Ethnographic Study in Garmeh Village, Iran. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2021, 19, 549–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jeong, J.H. Involution of Tradition and Existential Authenticity of the Resident Group in Nyuh-Kuning Village. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2022, 20, 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Kozak, R.; Jin, M.; Innes, J.L. How Do Conservation and the Tourism Industry Affect Local Livelihoods? A Comparative Study of Two Nature Reserves in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Carpenter, S. Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers. Commun. Methods Meas. 2018, 12, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. DeVellis, R.F.; Thorpe, C.T. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wong, I.A.; Wan, Y.K.P. A Systematic Approach to Scale Development in Tourist Shopping Satisfaction: Linking Destination Attributes and Shopping Experience. J. Travel Res. 2013, 52, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, J.; Hou, S. Review on the Research of the Ancient Village Protection and Development. In Proceedings of the 2015 2nd International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Intercultural Communication, Kaifeng, China, 7–8 November 2015. [Google Scholar]
  59. Meng, Q.; Wang, C.; Xu, T.; Pi, H.; Wei, Y. Evaluation of the Sustainable Development of Traditional Ethnic Village Tourist Destinations: A Case Study of Jiaju Tibetan Village in Danba County, China. Land 2022, 11, 1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Weng, G.M.; Zhang, J.Y.; Cui, J. Evaluation of Rural Community Based Agro-Tourism for Sustainable Agriculture and Tourism in China. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 60, 425–433. [Google Scholar]
  61. Chang, K.-F.; Chou, P.-C. Integrating Intelligent Living, Production and Disaster Prevention into a Sustainable Community Assessment System for the Rural Village Regeneration in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Multimedia Technology, Hangzhou, China, 26–28 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gullino, P.; Beccaro, G.L.; Larcher, F. Assessing and Monitoring the Sustainability in Rural World Heritage Sites. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14186–14210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. ICOMOS. The Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human Values. In Proceedings of the 18th General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, Florence, Italy, 9–14 November 2014. [Google Scholar]
  64. Luo, K. Research on the Basic Attributes and Contemporary Values of Chinese Traditional Villages. J. Ethn. Cult. 2017, 9, 76–81. [Google Scholar]
  65. Shao, Y.; Fu, J. The Meaning and Method of Evaluating the Value of Historical and Cultural Villages and Towns. J. Xi’an Univ. Archit. Technol. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2012, 44, 644–650+656. [Google Scholar]
  66. GB/T 37072-2018; Evaluation for the Construction of Beautiful Villages. China National Institute of Standardisation: Beijing, China, 2018.
  67. China State Council. China’s National Plan on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. China State Council. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2016-10/13/content_5118514.htm (accessed on 1 February 2025).
  68. Central Committee and State Council (Ed.) Rural Revitalization of Strategic Planning (2018–2022); People’s Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 2018.
  69. UNESCO. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. In UNESCO World Heritage Centre; UNESCO: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  70. United Nations. Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  71. Żukowska, S.; Chmiel, B.; Połom, M. The Smart Village Concept and Transport Exclusion of Rural Areas—A Case Study of a Village in Northern Poland. Land 2023, 12, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Churchill, G.A., Jr. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cohen, R.J.; Swerdlik, M.E.; Phillips, S.M. Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement; Mayfield Publishing Co.: Houston, TX, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  74. Gorsuch, R.L. Factor Analysis: Classic Edition; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ghasemi, A.; Zahediasl, S. Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-Statisticians. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 10, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  77. Chua, Y.P. A Step-by-Step Guide Pls-Sem Data Analysis Using Smartpls 4; Researchtree Education: Buxton, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hair, J. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  79. Lefebvre, H. The Production of Space; Blackwell: Malden, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  80. Small, M.L.; Adler, L. The Role of Space in the Formation of Social Ties. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2019, 45, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fuchs, C. Henri Lefebvre’s Theory of the Production of Space and the Critical Theory of Communication. Commun. Theory 2018, 29, 129–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, Y.J.; Yu, H.; Chen, T.; Hu, J.; Cui, H.Y. Livelihood Changes and Evolution of Upland Ethnic Communities Driven by Tourism: A Case Study in Guizhou Province, Southwest China. J. Mt. Sci. 2016, 13, 1313–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02721 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for this study. Source: Authors.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for this study. Source: Authors.
Sustainability 17 02721 g001
Sustainability 17 02721 g002
Figure 2. The source of potential items.
Figure 2. The source of potential items.
Sustainability 17 02721 g002
Table 1. Criteria for selecting sample villages. Source: Authors.
Table 1. Criteria for selecting sample villages. Source: Authors.
Criteria for Selecting Villages
  • Belonging to traditional villages (refer to the traditional village list from the Chinese government).
  • Maintaining traditional livelihoods.
  • The whole ancient village is still alive and has not been moved to the new village.
  • Folk dwellings are still used continuously by villagers.
  • Villages must have been developing rural tourism for at least three years.
Table 2. The two samples of traditional villages.
Table 2. The two samples of traditional villages.
Shangzhuang Village (Village 1)Guoyu Village (Village 2)
Household Number360420
Tourism Development StageMature stage (>10 Years)Mature stage (>10 Years)
Dwelling StyleGrey brick courtyardFortress defensive Village
Formation PeriodYuan DynastyMing Dynasty
Tourism Development PatternGovernment + Tourism EnterprisesTourism Enterprises-driven
Table 3. Criteria for the selection of items. Source: Authors.
Table 3. Criteria for the selection of items. Source: Authors.
StepCriteria for the Selection of Items
Step 1Items should reflect the economic, social, and cultural aspects of villagers.
Step 2Items should be villagers-centered, with any macro-scale indicator to be excluded.
Step 3Considering the education level and comprehension of villagers, similar items are merged, and one item is used as much as possible to measure the same area, such as deprivation versus attachment, and specialty versus industrial diversification.
Table 4. Table of potential items.
Table 4. Table of potential items.
DimensionItemsSource
Economic DimensionLocal EmploymentLiterature/Interview
Household IncomeLiterature/Interview
Household DebtLiterature
Capital DisparityLiterature/Interview
Traditional LivelihoodLiterature/Interview
Industrial DiversityLiterature/Interview
Industry FriendlinessLiterature
Agricultural IncomeLiterature
Land UseInterview
Social DimensionSocial RelationsLiterature/Interview
Management FairnessLiterature/Interview
Villager EngagementLiterature
Daily ActivityLiterature/Interview
Public FacilitiesLiterature/Interview
Government SupportLiterature/Interview
Living QualityLiterature/Interview
Culture DimensionCulture AuthenticityLiterature
Resident HappinessLiterature
Sense of RelativeLiterature/Interview
DeprivationLiterature
Village IdentityLiterature/Interview
Village AttachmentLiterature/Interview
Cultural PromotionLiterature/Interview
Dwelling RichnessLiterature
KnowledgeInterview
Table 5. Result of content validity.
Table 5. Result of content validity.
No.ItemsImportance/
Applicability		MeanFirst QuartileThird QuartileStandard DeviationCoefficient Variation
1Local EmploymentImportance3.5341.270.36
Applicability2.6230.840.32
2Household IncomeImportance4.13.2550.880.21
Applicability43.254.750.810.20
3Household DebtImportance2.8230.790.28
Applicability2.3230.940.41
4Capital DisparityImportance3.6340.700.19
Applicability2.5230.850.34
5Traditional LivelihoodImportance4.3450.820.19
Applicability43.254.750.820.20
6Industrial DiversityImportance3.93.2540.740.19
Applicability3.8340.790.21
7Industry FriendlinessImportance21.2520.940.47
Applicability1.8120.790.44
8Agricultural
Income		Importance3.3340.950.29
Applicability3.5340.850.24
9Land UseImportance3.5340.530.15
Applicability3.6340.840.23
10Social RelationsImportance3.8340.790.21
Applicability3.5340.850.24
11Management
Fairness		Importance3.5340.970.28
Applicability3.3340.670.20
12Villager EngagementImportance3.6340.840.23
Applicability3.93.2540.740.19
13Daily
Activity		Importance4.144.750.740.18
Applicability3.5340.850.24
14Public
Facilities		Importance3.4340.970.28
Applicability3.5340.850.24
15Government
Support		Importance3.6340.700.19
Applicability3.5340.970.28
16Living QualityImportance4.13.2550.880.21
Applicability3.6340.970.27
17Culture AuthenticityImportance3.7340.670.18
Applicability3.5340.710.20
18Resident HappinessImportance3.2341.140.35
Applicability3.233.750.920.29
19Sense of RelativeImportance3.7340.950.25
Applicability3.5340.840.24
20DeprivationImportance3.233.60.630.20
Applicability2.322.751.060.46
21Village IdentityImportance4.144.550.740.18
Applicability3.6340.700.19
22Village AttachmentImportance3.93.2540.740.19
Applicability3.4340.520.15
23Cultural PromotionImportance3.7340.670.18
Applicability3.7340.670.18
24Dwelling RichnessImportance2.7230.670.25
Applicability3.12.253.750.990.32
25KnowledgeImportance3.73.2540.820.22
Applicability3.6340.700.19
Table 6. Survey of tourism impact on villagers.
Table 6. Survey of tourism impact on villagers.
ItemNo Change–High Change
A1Has there been an increase in your family’s source or means of income after the development of tourism?12345
A2To what extent has tourism development affected your household income?12345
A3How has the share of traditional occupations changed since the development of tourism?12345
A4What is the extent of change in household arable land that is not used for traditional cultivation and is instead invested in tourism development?12345
B5To what extent has your family’s quality of life improved after developing tourism?12345
B6To what extent are the rhythms of daily life affected by tourism?12345
B7Do you think the development of tourism has impacted the relationship with other villagers?12345
B8What is the level of government support for your family after the development of rural tourism?12345
B9How involved are you in tourism development?12345
C10To what extent does the cultural promotion of tourism influence you?12345
C11To what extent do you recognize your village as unique?12345
C12Has tourism development made you want to live in the village more?12345
C13Has the development of tourism made you more interested in learning about the culture of your village?12345
Table 7. Demographics of the respondents (Village 1 and 2).
Table 7. Demographics of the respondents (Village 1 and 2).
Demographic CharacteristicFrequency (n)Percentage (100%)
Village 1Village 2Village 1Village 2
Gender
Female4310143%49%
Male5710457%51%
Age
18–29131%1.5%
30–39102410%11.7%
40–49236523%31.7%
50–59406940%33.7%
Over 60264426%21.5%
Native or not
Native8716187%78.5%
Migrate134413%21.5%
Occupation
Famer or traditional occupation194119%20%
Village Leader6196%9.3%
Farm family resort415541%26.8%
Tourism Agritainment234823%23.4%
Other114211%20.5%
Table 8. The Result of EFA.
Table 8. The Result of EFA.
Factor/ItemMeanFactor LoadingEigen ValuesVariance ExplainedCumulative Variance ExplainedCronbach’s α
Economic Factor
A13.010.8204.74923.67723.6770.825
A22.920.825
A33.130.816
A43.410.663
Social Factor
B12.90.8122.27320.92944.6060.792
B22.980.818
B32.660.787
B43.010.530
B52.790.584
Culture Factor
C12.970.8481.49820.92765.5330.869
C23.070.792
C33.190.808
C42.680.860
Table 9. The result of CFA.
Table 9. The result of CFA.
Factor/ItemMeanOut LoadingComposite ReliabilityAVE
Economic Factor
A12.850.9130.8730.678
A22.810.885
A32.920.875
A42.730.574
Social Factor
B13.000.8760.8220.566
B22.840.710
B32.970.756
B42.920.643
B52.530.755
Culture Factor
C12.890.8860.8570.688
C22.990.814
C32.910.740
C42.730.871
Table 10. Criterion validity analysis.
Table 10. Criterion validity analysis.
VillageTourism ImpactSpatial Environmentp Value
HolisticEconomic Factor0.4270.000
Social Factor0.3260.000
Culture Factor−0.3760.000
Shangzhuang VillageEconomic Factor0.4610.000
Social Factor0.3700.000
Culture Factor−0.3570.000
Guoyu VillageEconomic Factor0.3250.000
Social Factor0.3140.000
Culture Factor−0.3870.000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Y.; Ismail, M.A.; Aminuddin, A.; Wang, R.; Jiang, K.; Yu, H. The Lost View: Villager-Centered Scale Development and Validation Due to Rural Tourism for Traditional Villages in China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2721. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062721

AMA Style

Li Y, Ismail MA, Aminuddin A, Wang R, Jiang K, Yu H. The Lost View: Villager-Centered Scale Development and Validation Due to Rural Tourism for Traditional Villages in China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2721. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062721

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Yanan, Muhammad Azzam Ismail, Asrul Aminuddin, Rui Wang, Kaiyun Jiang, and Haowei Yu. 2025. "The Lost View: Villager-Centered Scale Development and Validation Due to Rural Tourism for Traditional Villages in China" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2721. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062721

APA Style

Li, Y., Ismail, M. A., Aminuddin, A., Wang, R., Jiang, K., & Yu, H. (2025). The Lost View: Villager-Centered Scale Development and Validation Due to Rural Tourism for Traditional Villages in China. Sustainability, 17(6), 2721. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062721

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop