Revitalising Heritage Villages in Asia: Multi-Dimensional Approaches to Cultural Landscape Preservation—A Case Study of Qiaonan Village, China

Abstract

This study examines the preservation of cultural landscapes in Asian heritage villages, using the Qiaonan Village in China as a case study. The study proposes an integrated model that combines macro-level planning, meso-level governance and micro-level community participation. Key findings show that only 32% of residents perceive the distribution of tourism benefits as fair, while a GIS analysis revealed a 28% increase in commercial land use within the heritage core between 2019 and 2022, indicating rising commercialisation pressures. The study explores the tensions between heritage conservation and tourism-driven development, with a focus on spatial integrity and local identity. It suggests that co-management and equitable benefit-sharing could strike a balance between economic growth, preservation, and community well-being. Rather than offering validated solutions, the research provides a diagnostic lens and generates hypotheses for other heritage villages. The transferability of these findings depends on local governance capacity, regulatory clarity, and the stage of tourism development, factors that will require systematic assessment in future comparative research.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Motivation

Heritage villages in Asia reflect layered cultural landscapes, where settlement patterns, vernacular architecture and land management systems demonstrate the long-term interaction between humans and the environment. While tourism can boost rural incomes, it can also lead to overcrowding, commercialisation and a loss of authenticity, reducing residents’ access to shared spaces. Studies of tourism gentrification show that neighbourhood transformations can deepen socio-spatial inequality if the risks of displacement are not addressed by governance [1]. Inconsistent regulations in protected heritage areas can also have social and environmental impacts [2]. This study connects macro-level planning, meso-level governance and micro-level participation, emphasising that adaptive capacity relies on multi-level participation, with regional governance shaping policy implementation. Figure 1 illustrates how these layers support heritage conservation, whereas fragmented governance threatens long-term outcomes.

1.2. Research Gaps and Contributions

Although there has been an increase in scholarship on heritage village revitalisation, it remains fragmented across conservation planning, tourism and participation studies. Bibliometric evidence indicates that cultural heritage management is becoming more closely associated with sustainability, policy integration, and community engagement. However, there is a gap in the application of multi-level governance frameworks that integrate heritage protection, community involvement, and tourism development. Many studies focus on either macro policy or micro community attitudes, neglecting critical meso-level coordination mechanisms such as rules and implementation routines [3]. Another gap is the lack of theory surrounding the critique of negative externalities from heritage tourism, such as distributive injustice, elite capture, spatial exclusion, and cultural commodification. Research highlights how state-led ecotourism can reshape property relations and employment but does not necessarily lead to empowerment. Furthermore, village tourism funding often disproportionately benefits local elites, exacerbating inequality. This study proposes a multidimensional, cross-level framework operationalised through GIS, interviews and surveys in Qiaonan Village. The framework is stress-tested against the risks of commodification and exclusion, offering transferable strategies for other Asian heritage villages. Figure 2 illustrates this framework.

1.3. Research Questions

This research explores how heritage villages can develop without compromising the cultural landscape’s integrity, focusing on two key questions. RQ1 asks how heritage conservation can be supported through spatial governance and planning while benefiting the local community. It examines how planning processes beyond formal compliance can yield substantial spatial outcomes through governance that aligns with socio-economic needs [4], emphasising the coordination of various actors and tools for spatial decision-making. RQ2 investigates how community participation and tourism can be organised to prevent over-commercialisation and loss of authenticity while enhancing local well-being. This question addresses how tourism development can shift from beneficial to overcrowded, harming both visitor experience and community identity [5]. It emphasises harmonising the destination’s identity with local stakeholders to ensure equitable benefit-sharing and governance designs that prioritise moderation over uncontrolled growth [6]. RQ2 also stresses the importance of assessing well-being, authenticity, and economic benefits in revitalising heritage villages [7].

1.4. Research Objectives

In order to address the complexity of heritage village revitalisation in Asia, this study outlines two research objectives. The first objective (RO1) is to develop and operationalise a macro–meso–micro framework that specifies institutional, governance and community practices at each level. This framework explicitly links these layers through a chain of mechanisms, moving beyond descriptive narratives by translating each layer into measurable dimensions and indicators. This approach clarifies how planning intentions translate into spatial outcomes under different governance capacities, making multi-level logics workable through clear variables and procedures [8]. RO2 seeks to subject this framework to empirical scrutiny using the Qiaonan case study, proposing a preliminary strategy set that is sensitive to context and addresses risks and trade-offs. The aim is to explore theory and generate hypotheses, not to conduct statistical validation or direct transferability. Any application to other heritage villages would require recalibration based on local governance and tourism conditions. It integrates spatial evidence with governance data, supporting risk-sensitive planning in heritage contexts [9]. RO2 emphasises managing competing priorities (e.g., conservation vs. livelihood) and incorporates trade-off thinking into the strategy design, supported by structured negotiation processes [10,11]. Lastly, RO2 focuses on designing local engagement mechanisms to stabilise coordination and learning, enabling strategy scaling beyond individual cases [12].

2. Literature Review

2.1. Heritage Conservation and Cultural Landscape Governance

In this study, “cultural landscape” refers to a socio-spatial system that has been shaped through long-term human–environment interactions and involves both material (e.g., architecture and settlement patterns) and immaterial practices (e.g., rituals and daily routines). “Preservation” describes the physical and cultural practices that sustain sites and spaces, while “conservation” encompasses the regulatory protection of heritage values. Heritage village landscapes are fluid socio-spatial systems and, as such, are constantly generated by meanings, practices, and place-based knowledge. The challenge of governance, in fact, is that static and timeless notions of authenticity and integrity persist as critical components of traditional conservation criteria even though the landscapes at issue continue to evolve over time. The tension between “fixed” and “dynamic” views reveals the necessity of flexible conservation frameworks that address social, cultural and economic influences within these cultural landscapes. Although regulatory instruments such as protection belts and zoning are important, they can overlook local knowledge and community agency when external agents (like tourism) commodify or even threaten the origins [13,14].

Against this backdrop, planning instruments and governance models play a significant role in determining how conservation is managed in the face of modernisation pressures. Although government-led approaches can mobilise statutory plans, regulatory controls and public investments, they often prioritise growth-oriented objectives or administrative aesthetics. This can lead to conflicts between development intensity and heritage protection. Evidence from spatial planning governance in transitional contexts demonstrates how “territorial governance” frameworks attempt to align institutions and land-use tools with heritage objectives. However, implementation gaps and cross-jurisdictional fragmentation remain significant challenges [15]. Market-driven arrangements, which are often tourism-led, can increase funding for maintenance and infrastructure. However, they may also encourage land and housing developments aimed at generating income. This can result in displacement and the selective preservation of “sellable” culture. In response to these challenges, co-governance and collaborative models emphasise expanding conservation practices beyond expert-driven approaches to encompass community engagement, negotiated meaning-making, and shared stewardship responsibilities. These approaches necessitate a dynamic, inclusive governance model that evolves in tandem with the evolving needs and aspirations of the community [16]. One practical expression of this shift is the growing use of management plans as governance tools that integrate monitoring, coordination and adaptive updating. However, the effectiveness of these plans depends on adequate resources, inter-institutional alignment and enforceable commitments [17]. In the Chinese context, collective land tenure and multi-level administrative hierarchies further complicate governance. Qiaonan’s lineage-based social organisation, which comprises ancestral hall committees alongside village party branches, exemplifies a hybrid model that generic governance frameworks rarely address. This dynamic approach ensures responsiveness to local needs while embracing both the static and evolving aspects of heritage.

2.2. Sustainable Tourism/Over-Tourism and Cultural Authenticity

Debates on sustainable tourism in heritage villages now emphasise limits and trajectories rather than simple growth narratives. From a destination systems perspective, the question of “how much is too much” is framed in terms of carrying capacity (ecological, social and infrastructural) and the tourism area life cycle (TALC). The latter highlights how destinations can move from exploration to stagnation if governance fails to adjust the intensity of visitor activity and the distribution of benefits. Empirical research applying TALC phases alongside indicators of crowding and pressure shows that overtourism results not only from high visitor numbers, but also from weak adaptive management, which delays corrective action until congestion thresholds are reached [18]. This highlights the fact that the missing “management element” is not a lack of technical knowledge, but a lack of institutional willingness to coordinate regulation, monitoring and enforcement across fragmented stakeholders, especially where heritage status and market demand outpace local governance [19].

Overtourism leads to spatial compression, repurposing housing, streets, and public spaces for visitors, as well as causing displacement, rising rents, and bringing about the “touristification” of local routines. The rise in platform-mediated accommodation exacerbates these issues by extending tourism into neighbourhoods, intensifying conflicts over land use and community identity—issues particularly relevant to heritage villages and small towns [20]. In this context, cultural authenticity extends beyond preserving physical structures to maintaining lived practices like foodways, rituals, and daily routines that reinforce identity. Recent archaeological studies show how food residues in ceramics can indicate cultural continuity, emphasising the integration of material evidence into authenticity assessments. In Qiaonan, traditional food practices and ritual routes face pressures from tourism development. Unlike the highly commercialised Chinese water towns (e.g., Zhouzhuang and Wuzhen), where “staged authenticity” dominates, Qiaonan remains at an intermediate tourism stage (with a capacity of 380 people per hour). This offers a critical window for governance intervention before irreversible commodification occurs. This shift illustrates how heritage value is negotiated through everyday practices and market-driven narratives. It highlights the need for sustainable tourism to address capacity limits, spatial justice and authenticity within a unified governance framework.

2.3. Community Participation

Community participation is increasingly seen as a governance requirement in heritage village revitalisation, but its type and depth vary across projects. This study views participation as a spectrum, ranging from informing (one-way communication) to empowering (community control) [21]. However, progress along this spectrum is limited by institutional rules, capacity imbalances, and the distribution of benefits. Adopting a co-evolutionary perspective, it suggests that both “community” and “heritage” are fluid and redefined through planning practices, implying that participation mechanisms must be adaptive rather than rigid [22]. Participation often occurs amidst power imbalances, where vocal groups or local elites dominate and marginalised households face barriers such as limited access to information and a lack of opportunities to participate. This can lead to “elite capture”, which undermines fairness and long-term support. In rural China, for example, formal participation channels, such as village representative assemblies, often fail because external tourism operators negotiate directly with higher-level governments. This leaves villagers “informed but not consulted”, as was evident in Qiaonan: 78% of people were aware of the planning meetings, but only 34% felt that their views had been taken into account. Studies show that enhancing environmental awareness and improving livelihoods can boost participation, but success depends on broad benefit distribution and addressing structural constraints, not just individual motivation [23]. The model in this study highlights key variables like trust, collaborative capacity, and fairness in assessing the participation quality, emphasising that effective participation depends on fairness, respect, and affirming residents’ identities [24].

3. Methodology

3.1. Case Study: Qiaonan Village Context

Qiaonan Village, a prime example of rural heritage preservation, faces growing pressure from modernisation and urbanisation, including infrastructure renewal, land-use changes, and demographic shifts. Urban expansion in Qiaonan is reshaping agricultural spaces and diluting cultural practices. Empirical evidence from rural China shows that urban sprawl concentrates conservation risks, particularly where heritage protection is weak. Revitalisation efforts often reconfigure spatial practices, highlighting how cultural landscape transformation is negotiated through adaptive reuse and market forces. Vulnerability assessments show that heritage landscapes like Qiaonan become more fragile when exposed to tourism and urbanisation, especially when coping capacity and policy enforcement vary. Local records indicate the village population peaked at 2450 in 2008, declined to 1520 by 2018 due to out-migration, and rose to 1890 by 2023 with a tourism-driven recovery. The share of residents in agriculture dropped from 68% in 2010 to 22% in 2023, reflecting a shift to tourism-related employment and services.

Qiaonan Village, located in a low-lying river–lake landscape, has a compact historic core surrounded by waterways, wetlands, farmland, and peri-urban expansion corridors. This ecological sensitivity makes it highly accessible for short-term tourism. The village’s spatial structure consists of dense clusters of traditional dwellings along narrow lanes converging at communal nodes and waterfronts. New buildings and service facilities are concentrated along access roads, where land conversion pressures are the highest. Figure 3a,b depicts the relationship between the village, its heritage core, and the surrounding water-based landscape. Historically, Qiaonan evolved from an agrarian, craft-oriented community to a mixed livelihood settlement shaped by flooding, canal maintenance, and lineage-based organisation. The village’s heritage includes vernacular architecture, street textures, and living cultural practices, with a layered protection regime. Tourism development is transitioning from growth to consolidation, creating conflicts such as storefront homogenisation and spatial crowding. This case study exemplifies tourism-driven transformation in Asian heritage villages and highlights the interplay between hydrological settings, governance, and authenticity pressures. The macro–meso–micro framework shows how these levels influence heritage conservation, providing insights for policy and design while addressing context-specific risks and trade-offs.

3.2. Data Collection

The GIS data used in this study were obtained from the Luoyang District Planning Department and supplemented with high-resolution (0.8 m) Gaofen-2 satellite imagery. Land-use classifications were validated through field checks conducted in July 2022. The spatial layers include: (i) updates from planning maps, cadastral data and imagery to identify infill, edge expansion and functional conversion; (ii) the road and path network to analyse connectivity; (iii) geocoded heritage assets (e.g., listed buildings and ritual spaces) to assess exposure and buffer sensitivities; and (iv) public facilities and commercial points of interest (e.g., toilets, parking and visitor centres) to evaluate service adequacy. Proxy indicators of tourist activity, such as geotagged photo density and mobile heat maps, were employed to estimate visitation pressure. These data were analysed using standard workflows, including land-use change matrices, hotspot detection and accessibility diagnostics. Figure 4 visualises these findings, highlighting potential conflicts and areas requiring management intervention. We cross-validated the commercial land expansion hotspots identified by GIS (Figure 5a–d) with the theme of “occupation of public space” reflected by residents in interviews and found a high degree of consistency, which strengthened our confidence in the explanation of the pressure of tourism commercialisation.

Field observations were conducted according to a structured protocol. Team members walked along key streets, visited heritage sites and commercial areas, and recorded footfall, commercial changes, conflicts in public spaces, and alterations to the townscape. These observations were triangulated with GIS and hotspot maps using time-stamped photos and geolocated data. Semi-structured interviews (n = 25) covered four themes: (1) the heritage value and change, (2) the impact of tourism, (3) the involvement in decision-making, and (4) the distribution of benefits. The responses were transcribed and thematically coded in NVivo using a hybrid inductive–deductive approach. A questionnaire addressed three domains—perceived participation, fairness of tourism benefit distribution, and support for tourism development—using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Stratified purposive sampling ensured representation across four strata: location (core/periphery), occupation (tourism/non-tourism), length of residence (≥10 years/<10 years) and property ownership (commercial licence holder/non-holder). The sample size (n = 100) was based on the adult population of the village (approximately 1200), with a target margin of error of ±9% at 95% confidence. Respondents were randomly selected within strata using household registries. A pilot test (n = 15) was conducted to refine the wording (final Cronbach’s α = 0.81).

Table 1. The composition of the survey and interview participants.

Participant Group	Number of Participants	Themes/Topics Covered
Residents	15	Perceptions of heritage value, experiences with tourism impacts, and views on benefit distribution
Local Business Owners	5	Experiences with tourism impacts, involvement in decision-making, and benefit distribution
Heritage Managers/Experts	5	Perceptions of heritage value, involvement in decision-making, and heritage preservation strategies
Total	25	-

summarises the participant composition.

In addition to the GIS, interview, and questionnaire data described above, three additional source categories were specifically collected to support the historical periodisation presented in Section 4.1. First, two 19th-century genealogies of the Liu lineage were accessed through the Liu Ancestral Hall Committee. Digital copies were cross-referenced with the Nanyang Chinese Root-Seeking Comprehensive Service Platform (which has digitised over 8000 volumes of Quanzhou genealogical documents) and the Shanghai Library Chinese Genealogy Knowledge Service Platform (which provides full-text retrieval for over 8500 digitised genealogies). Second, oral history interviews (n = 25) were conducted with a specific focus on historical narratives; these were distinguished from the semi-structured interviews on the impacts of tourism as seen by their emphasis on life histories, intergenerational transmission of settlement memories, and pre-20th-century events. Each oral history interview was audio-recorded (with informed consent), transcribed verbatim, and coded for historical claims, with triangulation applied across multiple informants. Third, a systematic building-by-building architectural survey (n = 126) was conducted following a standardised protocol adapted from Chinese traditional village architectural survey guidelines. This survey recorded material stratigraphy (e.g., repair layers observable in wall joints, roof ridge replacements, and fenestration modifications), construction materials and techniques, and evidence of incompatible repairs. A subset of 48 buildings was georeferenced in GIS to enable spatial analysis of the building age distribution.

Table 2. Summary of source categories for historical periodisation.

Source Category	Sample Size	Key Information Extracted	Accessibility
Genealogies (19th c.)	2 volumes	Lineage charts, ancestral hall records, and canal alignments	Open access (Nanyang Root-Seeking Platform; Shanghai Library)
Oral histories	25 interviews	Migration narratives, layout changes, and ritual transmission	Anonymised transcripts
Architectural survey	126 buildings	Material stratigraphy, repair layers, and incompatible repairs (37%)	Full dataset

summarises these three source categories, presenting their sample sizes, the key types of information extracted from each, and their accessibility status.

3.3. Data Analysis

This study employs a multi-method approach to analyse both quantitative and qualitative data. The GIS analysis employs a three-step workflow to quantify and analyse changes in land use from 2019 to 2022. First, change detection compares the 2019 baseline and 2022 comparison layers to identify land-use transitions, such as the conversion of residential areas to commercial use and urban expansion. Secondly, spatial diagnostics, such as kernel density estimation and spatial autocorrelation, are used to map the hotspots of commercial points of interest (POIs) and tourism activity. Meanwhile, buffer and overlay analysis assess encroachment risks around the heritage nodes. The final step involves linking the outputs of the GIS to macro variables and triangulating them with geotagged field observations for validation. Qualitative analysis involves the thematic coding of 25 semi-structured interviews to identify relationships among macro, meso and micro themes. These are organised into a “mechanism chain” to demonstrate the influence of governance on heritage preservation and tourism. Quantitative analysis uses survey data (n = 100) to examine the relationship between perceptions of participation and support for tourism and conservation, employing hypothesis testing, group comparisons and regression analysis. The findings are validated by triangulation with GIS diagnostics, as illustrated in Figure 5a–d.

Table 3. Operationalisation Framework: concept–variable–indicator mapping with data sources and analytical methods.

Analytical Level	Conceptual Dimension	Measurable Indicator	Data Source	Analytical Method	Results Section
Macro	Commercialisation pressure	Rate of change in commercial land use (2019–2022)	GIS (Luoyang District Planning Dept + Gaofen-2 0.8 m) + field validation	Change detection, kernel density estimation	Section 4.3
Macro	Spatial congestion	Peak-hour pedestrian density (persons/hour)	Field observation + geotagged photo density + mobile heat map	Descriptive statistics, hotspot detection	Section 4.4
Meso	Governance coordination	Rule clarity (qualitative coding), stakeholder network density	Document analysis + elite interviews (n = 5)	Thematic coding (NVivo, hybrid inductive–deductive)	Section 5.1
Micro	Perceived fairness	% of residents perceiving fair benefit distribution	Household survey (n = 100, Likert 5-point scale)	Descriptive statistics, t-test, regression analysis	Section 4.3
Micro	Participation effectiveness	Ratio of awareness of planning meetings to views taken into account	Household survey (n = 100) + interviews (n = 25)	Cross-tabulation, group comparison	Section 2.3 and Section 4.3
Micro	Building authenticity	% of traditional buildings with incompatible repairs (cement mortar, glazed facades)	Field observation + building-by-building survey (n = 126)	Descriptive statistics	Section 4.2

presents an operationalisation framework linking each analytical level (macro, meso and micro) to specific conceptual dimensions, measurable indicators, data sources, analytical methods and corresponding results sections. The table provides a clear mapping from concepts to variables to indicators, ensuring that the theoretical constructs are translated into empirically observable and replicable measures. For instance, commercialisation pressure at the macro level is measured by the rate of change in commercial land use, as determined by GIS change detection (Section 4.3), whereas perceived fairness at the micro level is captured via responses to a household survey, analysed using descriptive statistics and regression (Section 4.3). This framework will guide the subsequent empirical analysis and support the transparency and reproducibility of the study.

3.4. Comparative Cases

The comparative cases were selected based on the following three criteria: (1) comparable historic fabric and settlement scale, (2) variation in governance arrangements and stages of tourism development, and (3) the availability of documented evidence. These cases serve as heuristic references to identify broad patterns rather than as direct controls, and a more systematic comparative design is recommended for future research. The selection prioritises heritage towns and villages that have similar historic fabric and destination functions, but which differ in terms of governance, regulatory strength and tourism development stage. This allows for “most-similar, different-system” comparisons to be made. As summarised in

Table 4. Related case study conclusions.

Case Study	Location	Heritage Conservation Background	Challenges	Strategies and Measures
Pingyao Ancient Town	Shanxi, China	World Heritage Site since 1977, the Ming and Qing architecture	Balancing preservation with tourism development	Government investment in tourism and activities
Hong and Xidi Villages	Anhui, China	World Heritage Site since 2000, blending traditional architecture with nature	Balancing heritage protection with local economic development	Protecting heritage while promoting local business and tourism
Zhujiajiao	Shanghai, China	An ancient water town with 1700 years of history	Integrating preservation with urban development	Renovating old buildings and preserving historic streets
Sarlat	Dordogne, France	Preserves medieval buildings and enhances cultural landscapes	Maintaining the quality of life while preserving buildings	Preservation of historic structures, enhancing cultural activities
Esslingen	Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany	Rich in heritage with modern infrastructure	Balancing preservation with urban expansion	Blending traditional protection with modern development

, the cases include Chinese heritage destinations (e.g., Pingyao, Hongcun-Xidi and Zhujiajiao) and their European counterparts (e.g., Sarlat and Esslingen), capturing variations in institutional capacity and market exposure. The comparison focuses on four dimensions: governance and regulatory frameworks; tourism pressure stages; participation mechanisms; and tools for benefit-sharing and authenticity. These dimensions help to clarify how heritage integrity and revenue distribution are negotiated.

4. Results

4.1. Historical Evolution and Heritage Values of Qiaonan

Based on three source categories—two 19th-century genealogies of the Liu lineage, oral histories from 25 residents (12 of whom were aged ≥60) and a systematic architectural survey of 126 traditional buildings focusing on material stratigraphy (repair layers, mortar types and roofing materials)—Qiaonan’s historical evolution is tentatively divided into four phases. This is presented as an exploratory hypothesis due to the scarcity of pre-20th-century written records and the absence of systematic archaeological research. As shown in Figure 6, where dashed lines indicate chronological uncertainty and gradient shading represents phase overlap, the evidence for each phase is as follows: Phase 1 (pre-10th century): oral accounts (interviews #03, #11 and #18) and a genealogical preface (Genealogy A).

Phase 2 (10th–17th century): Luoyang Bridge inscriptions (1053–1059), canal alignments recorded in Genealogy B (vol. 2, pp. 23–24), and 12 surveyed buildings with pre-18th-century fabric.

Phase 3 (17th–19th century): a genealogical gap (missing generations 12–14 in Genealogy A) and repair layers in 23 surveyed buildings.

Phase 4 (1980s–present): planning archives (1998–2022), aerial photographs (1985–2022), and field survey data (2022–2023). The proposed chronology remains an exploratory hypothesis, requiring systematic archaeological verification and material dating (e.g., OSL dating of brick, clay, and mortar) in the future.

4.1.1. Source Description, Provenance, and Accessibility

The periodisation draws on three categories of source. Firstly, two 19th-century genealogies of the Liu lineage (Liushi Zupu) contain lineage charts spanning ~20 generations, as well as records of ancestral hall construction and repairs, land holdings, disputes and external events (e.g., bridge repairs). These are privately held by the Liu Ancestral Hall Committee but are digitally accessible via two open platforms: the Nanyang Chinese Root-Seeking Platform (with over 8000 digitised Quanzhou genealogies and full-text search for registered users) and the Shanghai Library Chinese Genealogy Knowledge Service Platform (with over 8500 digitised volumes covering Fujian, which can be browsed publicly). On-site access to the originals is available with prior arrangement. Second, oral history interviews (n = 25; July 2022–April 2023; including 12 respondents aged 60–69, eight aged 70–79, five aged 80+ and 15 long-term residents) covered migration narratives, changes to the layout, major events, transformation of public space, and the transmission of ritual and daily practices. The transcripts (approximately 180 pages) were coded using NVivo, triangulated across multiple informants and cross-referenced with genealogical gaps and physical evidence (e.g., grave steles and building repair layers). Third, a building-by-building architectural survey of 126 traditional buildings (July–August 2022 and April 2023) was conducted in accordance with standardised guidelines. Basic information was documented, as well as materials and techniques, material stratigraphy (repair layers, roof ridge replacements, fenestration modifications and finishes), architectural features (brick bonding, decorative motifs and thresholds), and deterioration and incompatible repairs (e.g., cement mortar, glazed tiles and PVC downpipes). Each building received a unique ID (QB001 to QB126).

4.1.2. Phase-by-Phase Interpretation and Evidentiary Support

The four phases are summarised in

Table 5. Evidence and source mapping for the four-phase periodisation.

Historical Phase	Key Supporting Evidence	Evidence Type
Phase 1 (pre-10th c.)	Oral accounts (elders) and genealogical preface	Oral and genealogical
Phase 2 (10th–17th c.)	Bridge inscriptions; canal records (genealogy); 12 pre-18th-c. buildings	Inscriptions, archival, and architectural
Phase 3 (17th–19th c.)	Genealogical gap (generations 12–14); repair layers in 23 buildings	Archival omission and material stratigraphy
Phase 4 (1980s–present)	Planning archives (1998–2022); aerial photos (1985–2022); field survey	Documentary, remote sensing, and field data

, with each phase’s supporting evidence specified. Figure 6 uses dashed lines and gradient shading to indicate chronological uncertainty and phase overlap, reflecting the fact that the boundaries between phases should be understood as approximate transitions rather than sharp cutoffs. Early phases rely more heavily on oral transmission and genealogical inference and require future archaeological verification.

4.2. Current Historical and Cultural Resources and Key Issues

Qiaonan’s heritage resources are organised into a hierarchy centred on protected sites, such as the provincial-level Caixiang Temple and the city-level Liu’s Ancestral Hall. These sites serve as symbolic hubs for beliefs, lineage and community gatherings (see Figure 7). Field surveys found that 37% of traditional buildings in the heritage core have undergone incompatible repairs involving cement mortar, glazed tiles and PVC downpipes, which compromise their authenticity under the 2015 Quanzhou Guidelines. Disturbances to the heritage scene take three forms. Firstly, there is mismatched signage and glazing: of the 48 commercial premises surveyed, 65% used non-local materials and standardised fonts. Secondly, there has been business displacement: the proportion of tourist-oriented food outlets increased from 18% to 52% between 2019 and 2022, while the number of traditional craft workshops fell from 12 to three.

One resident (interview #09) noted: “The tofu shop closed because the landlord wanted a bubble tea stand.” Thirdly, there is spatial compression, with pedestrian bottlenecks (less than 1.5 m wide) occurring at five locations. Forty per cent of residents report circulation hindrances, and 28 per cent report near-miss conflicts between pushcarts and visitors. Tensions also arise when short-term beautification takes precedence over conservation. For example, in 2021, a project repainted 15 traditional facades with grey acrylic paint without consulting experts, destroying the original lime wash layers in the process. A heritage manager (interview #22) stated: “The tourism committee wants ‘photogenic’ streets; the conservation office wants ‘authentic’ patina. There is no agreed protocol.” These micro-level conflicts illustrate the mismatch between the macro and meso levels discussed in Section 5.1.

Table 6. The hierarchical classification of heritage buildings in Qiaonan heritage core.

Protection Level	Number	Examples	Representative Features	Recent Interventions
Cultural heritage protection units	2	Caixiang Temple (Provincial); Liu’s Ancestral Hall (City)	Song-Qing architecture; commemorative temple for Cai Xiang (1041–1048); stone–wood structure	2023 restoration (Caixiang); restored late Qing and 1997 (Liu’s)
Registered immovable cultural relics	5	Including Liu’s Family Temple, Liu’s Small Ancestral Hall	Ming-Qing vernacular architecture	Partially renovated
Listed historical buildings	8	Including Yuqinglou	Sino-Western eclectic style (1930s)	Acquired + leased model
Traditional style buildings (protected)	21	Various vernacular dwellings	Red brick, stone, mixed construction; Min Nan style	Subject to “repair as old” guidelines
Candidate traditional buildings	40	—	To be surveyed and assessed	Listed in the protection inventory

Source: Adapted from the official heritage registry data. The classification hierarchy follows Quanzhou municipal heritage protection regulations.

shows the Hierarchical classification of heritage buildings in the Qiaonan heritage core (including protection levels, quantities, examples, features and recent interventions, adapted from official heritage registry data following Quanzhou municipal regulations). A mixed-methods approach was employed to collect data, incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods, such as field observations and interviews. Purposive sampling was employed to ensure that key stakeholders, including residents, business owners and heritage managers, were represented in the interviews. The semi-structured nature of the interviews enabled a flexible exploration of participants’ views on heritage preservation and tourism development. Field observations recorded the physical state of heritage sites and everyday activity in the village, noting any possible indicators of heritage degradation. Triangulation was employed to cross-verify the results using data from multiple sources (interviews, surveys, and observations), ensuring the validity and reliability of the data. Bias (e.g., social desirability or selection bias) was minimised by ensuring anonymity and confidentiality throughout the survey process and by creating a diverse sample comprising both long-term residents and newer stakeholders. This conservative strategy engaged directly with groups that are less vocally represented, providing a more balanced perspective.

4.3. Tourism Development Impacts and Income Relationship

Table 7. Regression analysis of tourism-related earnings on household characteristics.

Variable	Coefficient (B)	Std. Error	p-Value	95% CI
Commercial licence (1 = yes)	0.27	0.08	<0.01	[0.11, 0.43]
Housing located in heritage core (1 = yes)	0.18	0.07	<0.05	[0.04, 0.32]
Household size (persons)	0.02	0.03	0.42	[−0.04, 0.08]
Head of household age (years)	−0.01	0.01	0.31	[−0.03, 0.01]
Constant	1.42	0.21	<0.001	[1.01, 1.83]

N = 100, R² = 0.24, Adj. R² = 0.21, F(4,95) = 7.52, p < 0.001. Robust standard errors used. VIF < 2 for all variables, indicating no severe multicollinearity.

presents the OLS regression results for tourism-related household earnings. Holding a commercial licence (B = 0.27, p < 0.01) and residing in the heritage core (B = 0.18, p < 0.05) are significant positive predictors; however, household size and age are not. The model explains 24% of the variance (R² = 0.24, adjusted R² = 0.21) and exhibits no multicollinearity issues (VIF < 2), with robust standard errors.

Although income distribution remains uneven, the tourism boom in Qiaonan is closely linked to rising household incomes. As Figure 8 shows, the villagers’ income has increased in line with the tourism income, establishing tourism as a key economic driver. However, variation exists at comparable income levels. For instance, households with commercial property licences reported tourism-related earnings that were 27% higher than those without, representing a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01). Interviews reveal that long-term residents without capital, connections or suitable housing mostly work as low-wage service workers and are disproportionately affected by disruptions. Those with rental properties, prime locations or business licences earn higher returns. However, this access to tourism opportunities is segmented by each villager’s income bracket, highlighting unequal participation. This divergence demonstrates that long-term residents without resources are more susceptible to economic and social challenges in a tourism-driven economy.

The quantitative data (tourism income, commercial density and pedestrian congestion) were statistically described and correlated with the qualitative interview codes (income inequality, opportunistic access and daily disturbances). Combining the two datasets confirmed the findings and revealed emergent dynamics. Statistical models controlled property and business licence ownership, with robustness checks for outliers. This mixed-methods approach provides a nuanced view of the impact of tourism on income distribution in Qiaonan, highlighting the need for governance mechanisms to redistribute gains and address spatial pressures. Figure 8 shows that households with commercial licences earned 27% higher tourism-related income than those without (p < 0.01; see Table 5 for full regression results).

4.4. Traffic/Mobility Changes Before and After Renovation

Prior to the 2019 renovation, the peak pedestrian density in the core lanes was around 120 people per hour on weekend afternoons. By 2022, this figure had increased to 380 people per hour during the holiday season. Vehicle counts at the main entrance increased from 45 to 210 per day, reflecting increased tour bus activity. These changes are shown in Figure 8 and were documented through field observations and traffic counts. The renovation has redistributed traffic and mobility, shifting from a locally oriented pattern to one focused on tourism. Prior to the renovation, movement pressure was spread across the historic core, with conflict points at the intersections of daily routes and narrow lanes. Following the renovation, however, high-density corridors emerged along the upgraded access routes and the main spine leading to the waterfront. While this reduces internal bottlenecks, it introduces new friction at gateways, viewing platforms and junctions, where tour groups, service vehicles and residents overlap. While the reconfiguration improves accessibility to public facilities and emergency access, it also lengthens everyday routes, increasing exposure to crowding and noise. For visitors, improved wayfinding and concentrated routes not only enhance safety but also intensify congestion during peak hours.

Current GIS analysis (Figure 5) reveals spatial correlations between topographical features and observed pressure patterns but cannot establish causation. Slope direction and degree (Figure 5a,d) align with natural drainage corridors that have historically influenced settlement patterns. Areas of concentrated surface water along key pedestrian routes (Figure 5c) show statistically significant spatial overlap with (i) seasonal overcrowding, (ii) infrastructure wear and tear, and (iii) tourism-related commercial clusters (Figure 7). Polarised mobility patterns (Figure 9) co-occur with these topographically constrained corridors. We interpret these associations as indicative of topographic influence on vulnerability rather than direct causation. Alternative explanations (e.g., wayfinding signage and tour group itineraries) are discussed in Section 5.1.

4.5. Conceptual Framework: Macro–Meso–Micro

A macro–meso–micro conceptual framework is adopted to explain how heritage village revitalisation emerges from coupled structures, governance processes and practices at the level of individual actors. At the macro level, institutions, statutory planning and spatial configurations determine the “rules of the game”, influencing exposure to risk, access to resources, and development pathways. For instance, multi-scale environmental constraints and settlement patterns, as revealed by remote sensing, can be interpreted as structural conditions that determine the feasibility of interventions in mountainous village systems. The meso level captures governance networks, coordination arrangements, and incentive architectures that translate plans into collective action. This includes how the local authority is negotiated and stabilised through resource governance routines over time. The micro level focuses on the motivations, perceptions and behaviours of residents, entrepreneurs and officials. Sense-making, participation choices and compliance ultimately determine whether policy intent becomes lived practice. As governance capacity depends on what can be measured and compared, the framework treats “operationalisation” as a design task, converting concepts into meaningful local-scale indicators [25].

Compared with single-level or linear models, this framework highlights (i) cross-level mechanism chains (e.g., macro-level spatial restructuring leading to meso-level incentive shifts leading to micro-level behavioural changes), (ii) an evidence chain comprising indicators that triangulates geographic information systems (GIS)/remote sensing, interviews, and surveys, and (iii) explicit applicability boundaries and trade-offs. Figure 10 illustrates how these cross-level linkages operate within the context of heritage village revitalisation, demonstrating the interactions between the macro, meso and micro levels. The design of indicators is not neutral; it can favour certain interpretations of “climate” or risk. This reminds researchers to specify what an indicator actually represents in a given context [26]. To strengthen empirical defensibility, we align each level with a small set of observable indicators and data sources: macro (e.g., land-use change, accessibility, and hazard exposure from GIS); meso (e.g., network density, rule clarity, and enforcement capacity from document analysis and elite interviews); and micro (e.g., perceived benefits, fairness, identity attachment, and support from household surveys). Finally, as revitalisation often requires balancing competing objectives, the framework considers trade-offs to be primary outcomes rather than residual “side effects”, drawing on SDG-oriented synergy/trade-off thinking to interpret how tourism-led gains may coincide with social or ecological costs [27] and how spillovers across connected systems can amplify these tensions beyond the village boundary [28].

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Contributions of the Macro–Meso–Micro Framework

The growth of tourism in Qiaonan has created a sharp conflict between heritage conservation and development, with spatial compression displacing locals as a major concern. Commercial pressures are most visible in the encroachment of public spaces, especially on narrow streets and waterfront chokepoints, where tourist and resident flows collide. The introduction of tourist-friendly retail and gentrification has displaced local businesses, pushing residents into cramped spaces. Additionally, the commercialisation of cultural heritage sites has led to the creation of inauthentic, trans-regionally staged façades. These processes undermine community functions and relations, deepening residents’ estrangement. While tourism conflicts are often blamed on higher visitor numbers, studies show they also stem from inadequate congestion management. The multi-level governance framework offers a way to resolve these conflicts. At the macro level, spatial zoning and regulations control development and heritage conservation, though these limitations can blur under commercial and population pressures [29]. Figure 11 illustrates the spatial relationship between protected areas, buffer zones, and development zones. Meso-level governance, such as stakeholder committees and digital reporting, broadens participation but must be carefully monitored to avoid procedural inequalities [30]. At the micro level, compliance and contestation depend on the motivations of local residents and businesses. In Qiaonan, a coordinated, multi-level strategy is essential. Despite provincial prohibitions, the increase in commercial land by 28% between 2019 and 2022 reveals a mismatch between the macro and meso levels: vague regulations (“shall not alter historic appearance”) fail to prevent cumulative small-scale conversions. To close this gap, governance must implement node-specific rules instead of generic zoning.

5.2. Framework-to-Action Strategies (Macro–Meso–Micro)

In order to implement the macro–meso–micro framework, heritage village revitalisation is viewed as a coupled system in which spatial control (macro) influences governance (meso), which ultimately affects the behaviour of residents and visitors (micro). At the macro level, heritage preservation policies must evolve from broad sustainability goals into actionable thresholds such as peak-hour density or facility saturation. For instance, studies of theme parks [31] suggest that multi-indicator thresholds and time-based quotas are more effective than headcounts for managing capacity. Protecting heritage sites requires zoning according to sensitivity and function, with intensity rules regarding use mix, storefront limits and noise/time controls. Macro-level interventions should also address mobility issues by redistributing pedestrian flows and trialling visitor management techniques. At the meso level, co-governance platforms are needed to enforce macro-level rules with transparent licensing, inspections and adaptive enforcement mechanisms to ensure equitable benefit-sharing. This mitigates elite capture and enhances transparency [32]. At the micro level, strategies should focus on building local capability, for example, by training guides, supporting vulnerable households and promoting culturally sensitive narration. Narrative co-creation and place-based stewardship can strengthen local identity and reduce inequity. As of October 2023, the spatial transformation of Qiaonan shows that rural settlement integration is influenced by external forces, underscoring the need for continuous collaboration amid changing demographics [33].

5.3. Trade-Offs and Negative Outcomes

Heritage village revitalisation can mask trade-offs and negative outcomes. Tourism development can result in elite capture, whereby licences and investments are concentrated among a select few, while locals are faced with higher rents, stricter regulations and reduced access to public spaces. Beautification projects often prioritise tourist aesthetics over local livelihoods, fostering cultural commodification and staged traditions. Due to limitations in the sample size (n = 100), Section 4 did not disaggregate perceptions by the age cohort. This study makes no claims about generational differences, and hypotheses on intergenerational tensions require further research. Proposed redistribution channels include tourism levies for repairs, guarantees of public space access, and authenticity clauses in business permits. Independent monitoring and grievance mechanisms can reduce symbolic participation. This approach aims to manage trade-offs for inclusive, sustainable heritage preservation and has the potential to be applied to other tourism-pressured villages.

5.4. Transferability and Comparative Insights

The transferability of the model depends on the conditions of the tourism stage. Qiaonan’s combination of lineage networks, hydrological landscape and intermediate pressure (380 people per hour) is distinctive. However, the diagnostic logic of macro–meso mismatch transfers widely, as demonstrated by the comparative cases in Table 3. In well-established destinations with significant visitor numbers, effective tools include strict zoning, carrying capacity enforcement and business licensing, as the necessary monitoring and legal authority are in place. However, in emerging or informal destinations, these tools may be ineffective or counterproductive if they are perceived as being unevenly applied or controlled by local elites. Co-governance platforms are more effective in cohesive, representative communities, but in fragmented settings, they may reinforce existing power imbalances. Key conditions for transferability include governance capacity (e.g., staffing, enforcement and data systems), regulatory clarity (e.g., heritage protection and land rights), the strength of community organisation, the profile of tourism pressure, local economic dependency on tourism, market structure and dispute resolution infrastructures. The comparative cases in Table 3, drawn from the secondary literature and planning documents, serve as contextual references and should be tested in future multi-case research. The above conditions are hypotheses to be further explored.

5.5. Community Participation Model Implications

As illustrated in Figure 12, the community participation model is a staged process of upgrading, transitioning from one-way “information” and sporadic “consultation” to “collaboration” and “empowerment”. In practice, this requires a shift from project-specific meetings to institutionalised governance routines, such as jointly setting agendas, designing heritage use rules together, and jointly monitoring the impact of tourism. The extent of the upgrade also depends on the capacity support, such as training and facilitation, as well as access to data. This enables residents (including young people returning to the area and vulnerable groups) to participate as competent partners rather than merely for show. Crucially, participation must be coupled with enforceable benefit-sharing and regulatory linkages to prevent capture by elites. Examples include transparent revenue formulas (such as earmarked shares for public space maintenance and cultural programming), clear licensing and entry criteria for businesses, and a grievance and appeals channel with third-party oversight. When these feedback loops connect engagement modes to support mechanisms and measurable outcomes, collaboration becomes self-reinforcing and legitimacy improves.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Key Findings

In Qiaonan, the macro–meso–micro framework has been used to diagnose a mismatch between provincial heritage regulations (the macro level) and village governance routines (the meso level). This mismatch results in an uneven distribution of benefits, with only 34% of residents believing that tourism benefits are allocated fairly. The framework also illustrates how GIS spatial patterns (macro level) interact with governance mechanisms (meso level) to influence resident participation (micro level). O1 demonstrates the heuristic value of this spatiotemporal framework for understanding heritage change. O2 applies the framework in practice, suggesting that co-management, open decision-making, and equitable benefit-sharing systems could mitigate the impacts of over-tourism while promoting sustainable development. These findings are exploratory and case-specific; strong causal claims or generalisation beyond Qiaonan would require replication across multiple heritage villages with controlled comparisons.

6.2. Policy and Planning Recommendations

When planning heritage sites, particularly in rural areas, it is crucial to incorporate advanced governance and participatory mechanisms. Short-term strategies should focus on effectively managing pedestrian flow and tourism regulations, as illustrated in Figure 13. This figure shows how tourism zones can be organised spatially to ensure smooth visitor flow while preserving cultural and natural assets. Long-term strategies should institutionalise conservation efforts through regulatory frameworks, public–private collaborations and active community participation. As suggested by Groves, Munday, and Yakovleva [34], strengthening participatory governance can overcome barriers to local involvement and improve project outcomes. Tools such as Living Labs can promote economic sustainability and facilitate the transition to sustainable heritage tourism [35]. Scaling up ecological restoration efforts using GPS tracking technologies, as emphasised by Dane et al. [36], is crucial for monitoring visitor patterns and optimising resource management. Effective visitor flow and infrastructure management, as demonstrated by Cvelbar, Mayr and Vavpotic [37] and Xie, Lin and Luo [38], will mitigate tourism risks and protect heritage and community development. While these strategies are tailored to the conditions in Qiaonan, they offer transferable principles for other heritage villages with similar governance structures and tourism pressures, as discussed in Section 5.4.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be considered. Firstly, the small sample size (n = 100) limits statistical power and may exclude difficult-to-reach groups (e.g., migrant operators). Secondly, key variables (e.g., tourism pressure and benefit distribution) combine GIS proxies and self-reports, which leads to uneven measurement precision. Secondly, key variables (e.g., tourism pressure and benefit distribution) combine GIS proxies and self-reports, leading to uneven measurement precision. The cross-sectional design restricts causal inference; observed associations may reflect reverse causality or omitted variables [39]. Moreover, participation was captured only through formal channels, potentially underrepresenting informal cultural practices circulating via images and digital platforms. Second, key variables (e.g., tourism pressure and benefit distribution) combine GIS proxies and self-reports, leading to uneven measurement precision. Thirdly, the cross-sectional design restricts causal inference, meaning that observed associations may reflect reverse causality or omitted variables [39]. Moreover, participation was only captured through formal channels, which may have resulted in informal cultural practices circulating via images and digital platforms being underrepresented. Fourth, the historical periodisation (Section 4.1) relies on fragmentary genealogies (two 19th-century volumes), oral testimonies (n = 25, 12 of whom were aged ≥60) and architectural survey data (n = 126) that lack systematic cross-validation with independent archives or archaeological excavations.