Measuring the Degree of Residents’ Integration in Heritage Site Conservation and Utilization—A Case Study of Han Chang’an City Heritage Area

Abstract

A persistent conflict exists between heritage site conservation and local residents’ livelihood development, often described as “site conservation restricting regional development, and regional development damaging site conservation”. As key stakeholders, residents often have insufficient participation and limited benefits. This issue weakens their connection with the heritage site and also hinders the realization of its social value. In response to the lack of quantitative analysis in this field, this study introduces the concept of “degree of residents’ integration” and constructs an evaluation model based on participation and benefit. The model was applied to four villages within the Han Chang’an City Site in Xi’an, China. Through literature analysis and field investigations, characteristic elements of residents’ integration were identified and classified into five dimensions, comprising 17 indicators. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method and the Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) method, a quantitative index system is constructed and applied to survey data to assess the residents’ integration degree. Results show an overall integration score of 64.31, indicating a moderate level. Dimensions related to industry and economy, and culture and leisure scored higher, while social welfare and subjective consciousness scored lower, reflecting weaker benefit perception and engagement. Its main contribution is proposing and operationalizing the “degree of residents’ integration” concept, providing a quantitative, replicable framework.

1. Introduction

Material cultural heritage encompasses monuments, groups of buildings, and sites of historical, artistic, or scientific value [1]. As an important component of tangible cultural heritage, cultural sites refer to human works, or combined works of nature and humans, that possess outstanding universal value from historical, aesthetic, ethnological, or anthropological perspectives. These sites are typically characterized by incomplete remnants and distinct spatial boundaries.

Heritage conservation was born in Europe. From the start, it treated authenticity, integrity and sustainability as non-negotiables [2]. Over time, the object of care moved beyond stones and mortar; the goal became a living link between the site, its setting, and the people who inhabit it. The 1964 Venice Charter framed this shift in clear terms. It declared that a monument’s setting is part of its identity, and that the fabric must stay anchored in the history and landscape it once witnessed. That single sentence travelled far [3]. In China, it helped redirect policy from rescuing single relics to safeguarding entire cultural landscapes. Twenty-three years later, the Washington Charter pushed the idea further. It stated that no plan can succeed without the resident community, and that conservation has to be written into every layer of economic, social and land-use policy [4]. Chinese practice absorbed the lesson. Projects now begin with the premise that holistic conservation, adaptive reuse and local participation are three sides of the same task.

In 1961, the State Council listed 26 ancient sites as the first batch of key national cultural relics protection units [5]. The 1983 conference on the protection of the ancient city site in Qufu further explored the protection models for heritage sites of this type [6]. However, the rapid urbanization in the 1990s posed a serious threat to large-scale ancient sites—from engineering construction, agricultural production, to natural erosion. This situation made it particularly urgent to formulate a systematic protection strategy [7]. The term “large-scale ancient cultural sites” first appeared in a 1997 State Council notice. And later, the 2006 “Overall Plan for the Protection of Large Sites” further clarified that such sites cover large areas, hold major value, have wide influence, and come in many types and settings. Many of these large sites lie in rural or suburban zones, where heritage spaces often mix right in with places people live [8]. The daily activities of the residents directly affect the preservation of the site, while the protection requirements have restricted local development. The integration of residents is now key to the sustainable conservation and utilization of large heritage sites. Residents serve as direct stakeholders whose participation enhances conservation sustainability [9], while their perceived benefits reflect the effectiveness of conservation outcomes. However, most of the existing studies on residents’ integration are qualitative descriptions, lacking quantitative assessment, and thus unable to clarify how residents’ participation and benefits affect the effectiveness of protection.

Therefore, this study constructs a quantitative evaluation model to measure the degree of residents’ integration into the protection and utilization of heritage. It examines the protection models of large-scale urban-rural heritage sites, as well as the conflicts between these sites and the residents’ production and livelihoods. It also analyzes how various factors influence the integration of residents into the protection and utilization of heritage.

Previous quantitative studies on resident participation have primarily focused on empirical data and multivariate analysis, emphasizing the connection between residents’ subjective perceptions and objective behaviors. Most of these studies relied on questionnaires as the primary method of data collection. For instance, Haibo Ruan et al., in their study on rural residents’ participation in environmental governance in China, effectively collected 2343 questionnaires and used a binary logistic regression model to analyze the impact of social networks and sense of responsibility on participation behavior [10]. Jiaqi Wu et al., in their research on the renewal of old residential areas, collected 865 valid questionnaires through online and on-site surveys. They then employed a structural equation model (SEM) to analyze factors such as participation attitudes and neighborhood relationships [11]. Franziska Lengerer et al., in their study on the participation of elderly individuals in rural Germany, adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining questionnaires and thematic coding to analyze reasons for participation and non-participation, emphasizing the influence of life history and community context [12]. Therefore, the use of a questionnaire survey in this study is scientifically sound.

Meanwhile, many studies are also based on well-established theoretical frameworks. Pengfei Fan et al. combined the SOR and MOA frameworks to construct a mechanism for resident participation pathways [13]. Songyi Kim et al. applied social exchange theory (SET) to explain residents’ attitudes toward tourism development [14]. However, they seldom address the systematic construction of indicator hierarchies or the optimization of weights.

This study comprehensively uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) method to quantitatively evaluate the degree of residents’ integration in the archaeological site. Existing research methods excel in empirical validation and dynamic analysis, making them suitable for micro-level behavioral studies. In contrast, the integration evaluation models are better for developing systematic indicators and handling uncertainty. They are thus more appropriate for macro-level policy assessment.

To achieve these objectives, the study employs the case study of the Han Chang’an City Site in Xi’an, China, to clarify two research questions: (1) How can the degree of residents’ integration into heritage conservation and utilization be quantitatively evaluated? (2) How can the evaluation results be transformed into optimal strategies for protection, utilization and rural development? The “degree of residents’ integration” essentially reflects how closely residents interact with heritage stewardship practices and can be assessed through the two interconnected dimensions of participatory engagement and benefit acquisition. The results can provide a scientific basis for improving the mechanism of residents’ integration and formulating policies for rural revitalization in China. They can also serve as a reference model for the protection of similar historical sites.

2. Literature Review

2.1. International Research on Resident Integration

Global theory anchors resident involvement in two linked ideas: “living heritage” and community empowerment [15]. A site qualifies as living when everyday use continues and its social purposes stay intact; cultural meaning is preserved rather than frozen [16]. Local residents perform this continuity. Their routines supply the daily evidence that secures authenticity, renews vitality and lengthens sustainability [17].

There has been growing interest in the international academic community in research on resident integration into heritage conservation and utilization [18]. Robinson C et al. (2022) show how Kakadu National Park lets Aboriginal custodians blend cultural protocol, AI and field data into adaptive decisions that steer both care and use [19]. Aida A H (2024) tests 3-D scans, VR and AR for Mediterranean smart-city heritage, and stresses that each tool must pass community-ethics filters before deployment [20]. In Chiapas, Mexico, the Hach Winik of Metzabok run archaeological tourism projects that convert site visits into local income, yet still guard the ruins and answer present-day needs [21].

Simultaneously, research has pointed out the negative impacts of heritage conservation and utilization on residents’ production and life [22]. For example, Gill G (2024)’s critical study of historic cities in the UK such as Bath, Edinburgh, and York reveals how heritage-oriented entrepreneurial urbanism leads to conservative culture, economic inequality, and social exclusion, significantly affecting residents, including out-migration due to high housing prices, the exacerbation of social inequalities, and the restrictions imposed by cultural conservatism on residents’ lives [23]. International scholarship has moved through two clear phases. Early research praised resident integration as the surest way to keep heritage alive. Later studies sound a warning: narrow rules for participation can exclude rather than invite. The literature now tells two stories at once—heritage can thrive while certain groups remain shut out, and the second story deserves equal scrutiny.

Across the world, inviting residents into heritage care is now standard practice. In Stratford, locals weave Shakespeare’s legacy into two strands at once: it pays the rent and tells them who they are. Because culture and cash reinforce each other, they readily block projects that clash with the historic mood [24]. Meanwhile, in Tunisia’s Al Hafsia district, a restoration scheme let residents share profits; the economic stake quickly reversed their attitude toward conservation. By turning traditional crafts into tourism resources, residents directly showcase and sell their handicrafts to tourists in grassroots workshops, thereby recognizing the value of conservation while gaining economic benefits [25]. The conservation of the M’zab Valley in Algeria relies on the cultural transmission mission embedded in community authority mechanisms. Representatives of the conservative community hold approval power over commercial and construction activities, and residents view the maintenance of socio-physical structures as their own mission [26]. In contrast, the integration of Chinese residents into heritage protection is still in its infancy. The development paths of different regions vary, and the current status of integration is unclear. Therefore, the construction of a quantitative integration evaluation model in this study is of great significance.

2.2. Research on Resident Participation in China

In China, the idea of linking heritage conservation with improving local livelihoods has become a springboard for studying how residents take part. What makes it unusual is that policy keeps the spotlight firmly on “putting people first” [27]. The 13th Five-Year Plan (2015) explicitly mandated that cultural heritage protection must “improve the people’s welfare”, positioning the enhancement of livelihoods as a prerequisite for conservation efforts. Moreover, many Chinese archaeological sites are situated in rural or urban-rural fringe areas, exhibiting a high degree of overlap with contemporary communities [28]. Research on integrating residents into the conservation and utilization of heritage sites is vital for improving the welfare of the people living in these heritage locales [29].

Early studies primarily focused on two pathways: industry and economy-driven approaches and social welfare compensation. However, practice has revealed significant limitations in both: the economic dividend model (e.g., the case of the Dangjia ancient village) led to a decline in residents’ enthusiasm for participation [30], while subsidy-based participation (e.g., the Jiuquan homestay project) marginalized residents in decision-making due to neglect of community capacity building [31]. The lack of resident involvement in the environmental and landscape dimensions further triggered spatial rights conflicts and cultural alienation, such as the controversy over the replica ancient theater in Dangjia Village [30]. In contrast, Quanzhou has revitalized resident agency through the reconstruction of spatial governance, emphasizing that residents should act as core actors in heritage sustainability and participate in multidimensional decision-making [32].

In recent years, research has progressively evolved into a dual-track model that equally emphasizes the reconstruction of cultural values and the activation of resident agency [33]. This shift is first reflected in the innovation of participation paradigms guided by cultural leisure, where studies highlight the transformation of residents’ daily practices into carriers of living heritage [34]. The case of micro-renovation in Shanghai’s community gardens demonstrates how joint construction and shared use of public spaces by residents reconfigure traditional gardening activities into cultural leisure resources, forming a closed loop of “living heritage-leisure space-community identity” and turning the renovated gardens into venues for folk activities [35]. Similarly, the historic Nanhuaxi Street district in Guangzhou extracts informal spatial patterns spontaneously formed by residents—such as “arcade tea houses” and “mobile markets”—and integrates them into the renewal design system, converting leisure behaviors like tea drinking and market trading into windows for cultural showcasing [36].

Simultaneously, research focuses on the institutional activation of resident agency. The study of Chang’an City in the Han Dynasty criticized the local relocation policy and advocated viewing residents as guardians of living heritage [37]. In Xijiang Miao Village, Guizhou, a three-dimensional empowerment framework of “institutional-informational-educational” dimensions has been established: land operation rights are leveraged for equity participation to secure residents’ dividend rights; village affairs hearing platforms are created to disclose tourism revenue data, increasing the perceived level of economic empowerment by 23%; training programs for intangible cultural heritage inheritors facilitate the transition of residents from “cultural performers” to “cultural interpreters,” as exemplified by the Miao embroidery workshop initiative [38]. Furthermore, studies on Tianjin’s historic districts further reveal residents’ dual demands for “residential rights” and “cultural rights,” driving a shift in compensation mechanisms from economic subsidies to a model of “co governance of on-site residential and cultural spaces” to avoid the pitfalls of gentrification [39].

The theoretical underpinnings of integrating residents into heritage conservation differ by context. Globally, they derive from the concepts of “living heritage” and community empowerment. In China, they are based on the practical innovation of synergizing “livelihoods and conservation”. The international academic community has placed great emphasis on research concerning the integration of residents into heritage conservation and utilization. Early research in China mainly focused on compensation for industry, economy, and social welfare, as well as environmental landscape restoration, but the effectiveness was limited due to insufficient stimulation of residents’ subjective initiative. In recent years, it has shifted more towards cultural leisure and resident agency to improve this issue.

Existing studies on resident integration remain largely qualitative, lacking quantitative evaluations. Therefore, this study innovatively proposes the concept of “integration degree,” and by constructing an integration degree evaluation model, it achieves for the first time a quantitative assessment of residents’ integration level. This provides a more reliable data source and a more scientific basis for decision-making in heritage conservation and utilization.

3. Integration of Residents into Heritage Conservation and Utilization

3.1. Integration Degree

The integration degree of heritage site residents in conservation and utilization efforts essentially reflects the intensity of interactive relationships between residents and heritage stewardship activities, which can be assessed through two interrelated dimensions: participatory engagement and benefit acquisition. Participatory engagement refers to residents’ practical actions in heritage affairs. They join management decisions and take part in economic operations. Their work also keeps local culture alive. Benefit acquisition covers the returns from conservation. Residents receive cash aid, share social services, and build a sense of identity. The two dimensions lock together and push the loop forward. Support for protection grows, residents step up as site stewards, pride and well-being climb, and full integration into heritage conservation and utilization is achieved.

Residents act as co-producers at every point of the heritage cycle. When visitor numbers rise, they launch small-scale projects that lighten the ecological load. They also turn assets into income without delay: an empty bedroom becomes a guest room, an old craft becomes a design item sold in the lane. Community councils and volunteer teams keep the institutional door ajar, so local concerns reach the official table. Meanwhile, everyday routines—telling a tale, staging a festival, sweeping a temple step—move heritage values from one day to the next.

Heritage protection never pays once and stops. It triggers a chain that circles back on itself. The moment the boundary is drawn, plants rebound, air thins out, water clears, and everyday comfort edges up. Money then slips in through two gates: a land-compensation lump lands first, tourism dividends follow. When the value chain lengthens, those dividends crystallise into monthly wages that keep drifting through family budgets. Public services ride the same wave; roads, water lines and clinics arrive as a kit, pulling the safety net tighter. Beneath the surface, an invisible credit builds: steady participation mints a common cultural identity, and residents hand that sense of belonging to their children as lasting agency.

3.2. Evaluation Framework

Most studies still treat resident participation as a chapter in ordinary community development. This paper leaves that path. It checks whether residents are woven into every link of the conservation-and-use sequence, so that heritage values remain alive. To find out, we rebuilt the five-stage resident-integration frame. Each stage now holds tweaks that speak the idiom of heritage work, not the jargon of general planning.

First, the team begins the diagnostic step by placing the Xi’an Declaration in the spotlight. Because that document assigns communities an active conservation role, every problem identified is immediately screened against its wording. Any mismatch is rewritten until the charter and the field situation speak the same language.

Second, the indicator set is built around three non-negotiables: authenticity, integrity, and sustainability. General development targets are set aside. In their place, the matrix lists only those variables that can signal whether the heritage asset keeps its fabric, meaning and life-cycle capacity intact.

Third, each indicator (

Table A1. Explanation of each indicator.

Indicator Layer (C)	Indicator Definition
Satisfaction with Residential and Landscape Environment (C1)	Residents’ satisfaction with improvements in living conditions and landscape environment resulting from site conservation and utilization efforts
Resident Environmental Participation Rate (C2)	Proportion of residents participating in environmental protection activities at the site (e.g., tree planting, waste cleanup) relative to the total resident population at the site
Employment Rate in Industries Related to Site Preservation and Utilization (C3)	Percentage of residents employed in industries related to site conservation and utilization out of the total labor force in the site
Revenue Share from Heritage Preservation and Utilization Industries (C4)	Proportion of household income derived from industries related to heritage site conservation and utilization
Beneficiary rate of residents from newly added educational resources due to site preservation and utilization (C5)	Percentage of residents (households) benefiting from educational resources created by site preservation and utilization relative to the total number of residents in the site
Satisfaction with Medical Facility Improvements from Site Preservation and Utilization (C6)	Residents’ satisfaction level with the improvement of medical facilities resulting from the preservation and utilization of the site
Heritage site cultural transmission penetration rate (C7)	Percentage of households in the heritage site participating in cultural heritage activities
Frequency of Resident Participation in Site-Related Cultural Activities (C8)	The number of times residents participate annually in cultural events such as festivals and folk performances held at the site
Level of Importance Attached to Site Preservation (C9)	The residents’ level of importance placed on site preservation
Strength of Willingness to Participate in Preservation (C10)	Residents’ Willingness to Participate in Site Preservation and Utilization Efforts
Residents’ Self-Management Capabilities (C11)	Percentage of residents consciously protecting the site
Proportion of residents aware of effective feedback channels (C12)	Percentage of residents who know and can clearly name at least one effective feedback channel for matters related to site preservation and utilization, relative to the total resident population of the site
Frequency of feedback channel usage (C13)	Average number of times residents used various feedback channels within a year to provide feedback (including opinions, suggestions, questions, etc.) on matters related to site preservation and utilization
Feedback Response Satisfaction (C14)	Residents’ satisfaction with the response to their feedback (including timeliness and effectiveness of responses)
Resident Representative Participation in Decision-Making Meetings (C15)	Whether resident representatives participate in decision-making meetings related to site preservation and utilization (e.g., meetings on site development planning, formulation of preservation measures, etc.)
Residents’ effective decision-making proposals (C16)	Whether suggestions made by residents during participation in decision-making related to site preservation and utilization were adopted or seriously considered (as determined by the decision-making department)
Residents’ awareness rate of decision outcomes (C17)	Percentage of residents in the site who are aware of decisions related to site preservation and utilization (e.g., final plan content, preservation measures, implementation details) relative to the total resident population

) receives its weight through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Pair-wise comparisons are run, consistency ratios are cleared, and the final eigen-vector is locked in before the model moves to the scoring stage. The invited experts are required to have backgrounds in heritage conservation or site management, ensuring that the weight allocation reflects the priorities of heritage conservation.

Fourthly, during the questionnaire survey phase, the reliability and validity of heritage-specific variables, such as “residents’ awareness of the site’s value” and “recognition of conservation responsibility,” are specifically tested in a pre-survey of 30 questionnaires.

Finally, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method is applied to determine the level of resident integration at the Han Chang’an City site. The results provide comparable benchmark data for community participation in the conservation of large heritage sites. This approach is an innovation in resident behavior analysis. It shifts the focus from general social participation to a systematic tool for evaluating heritage conservation sustainability (Figure 1).

The indicator system was screened under the comprehensive constraints of environment and landscape, industry and economy, social welfare conditions, cultural and leisure activities, and residents’ subjective consciousness. This study employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to construct an integration degree evaluation model with participation as the action foundation and benefits as the psychological support. Using the literature retrieval method to extract elements of resident integration, with Target Level A being the overall level of resident integration into the conservation and utilization of the Han Chang’an City site in the context of rural revitalization, its comprehensive weight is calculated through the two-level weights of Criterion Level B and Indicator Level C, systematically evaluating 17 elements

Table 1. Evaluation System for Integrating Residents into Heritage Site Conservation and Utilization.

Objective Layer (A)	Criteria Layer (B)	Indicator Layer (C)	Data Source
Overall Level of Resident Integration into Heritage Conservation and Utilization at Han Chang’an City Heritage area in the Context of Rural Revitalization (A)	Environment and Landscape (B1)	Satisfaction with Residential and Landscape Environment (C1)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Resident Environmental Participation Rate (C2)	Provided by local subdistrict offices
	Industry and Economy (B2)	Employment Rate in Industries Related to Site Preservation and Utilization (C3)	Provided by local subdistrict offices
		Revenue Share from Heritage Preservation and Utilization Industries (C4)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
	Social welfare (B3)	Beneficiary rate of residents from newly added educational resources due to site preservation and utilization (C5)	Provided by local subdistrict offices
		Satisfaction with Medical Facility Improvements from Site Preservation and Utilization (C6)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
	Culture and Leisure (B4)	Heritage site cultural transmission penetration rate (C7)	Provided by local subdistrict offices
		Frequency of Resident Participation in Site-Related Cultural Activities (C8)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
	Residents’ sense of ownership (B5)	Level of Importance Attached to Site Preservation (C9)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Strength of Willingness to Participate in Preservation (C10)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Residents’ Self-Management Capabilities (C11)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Residents’ Self-Management Capabilities (C11)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Proportion of residents aware of effective feedback channels (C12)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Frequency of feedback channel usage (C13)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Feedback Response Satisfaction (C14)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Resident Representative Participation in Decision-Making Meetings (C15)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Residents’ effective decision-making proposals (C16)	Resident Questionnaire Survey
		Residents’ awareness rate of decision outcomes (C17)	Resident Questionnaire Survey

.

Environment and Landscape (B1). Site conservation and utilization efforts impact residential conditions at the site. While comprehensive preservation may enhance living environments, conservation requirements constrain infrastructure development, such as water supply, electricity, and heating systems. Remedial work carried out for the sake of the site does more than protect relics; it resets the local natural setting. Streets, green pockets, waterfront edges, squares, buildings and landmarks are treated as connected layers, so the ecosystem and landscape character gain a visible lift. These physical changes feed directly into residents’ perceptions and daily behaviour. A clear landscape and a legible heritage story lift pride [40]. Field studies show that neat green edges and familiar heritage cues tighten place attachment. We mirror this subjective move with two resident-focused metrics. A five-item scale registers satisfaction with the living and visual setting (C1). Event logs count the percentage of locals who join green-up or clean-up actions (C2). Together, the pair sketches how residents respond to fresh landscape signals and altered daily surroundings.

Industry and Economy (B2). Heritage preservation and utilization have industrial and economic implications. They can support the sustainable development of heritage sites and safeguard residents’ economic interests. If industrial and economic development at heritage sites is constrained, residents’ quality of life may decline. This could lead to resistance toward heritage preservation and a negative attitude toward its utilization [41]. This indicator is assessed through two criteria: the employment rate in industries related to site conservation and utilization (C3), and the income share from industries related to site conservation and utilization (C4). It examines whether heritage conservation and utilization provide employment opportunities for residents and contribute to raising their income levels.

Social Welfare (B3). Solid welfare gives residents a safety net. If site development channels part of its gains into that net—cleaner estates, better clinics—support for conservation rises. When the flow skews, pushback appears. People who link heritage use to new chances join the process willingly [42]. The indicator tracks this link. It counts the share of locals who gain access to extra educational resources (C5) and records their satisfaction with upgraded medical facilities (C6).

Culture and Leisure (B4). Archaeological sites carry rich historical and cultural significance, serving as witnesses to local historical development. These sites hold educational value for residents, particularly youth [43]. Integrating local cultural heritage with education enhances residents’ cultural awareness and promotes cultural transmission and development. Cultural tourism and rural heritage site conservation share synergistic relationships. Resident participation is a critical factor in developing rural leisure industries, as site-related leisure cultural ventures—such as farm stays and rural homestays—require community involvement. This indicator examines residents’ engagement in preserving site culture and participating in community cultural activities through two metrics: the rate of cultural heritage dissemination [44] (C7)and the frequency of resident participation in site-related cultural events(C8) [45].

Resident Agency (B5). Heritage preservation cannot proceed in isolation from the public, with residents constituting a vital segment of this public. Establishing participation platforms and feedback channels is essential to ensure resident involvement. This indicator examines whether opportunities for resident participation are provided during heritage conservation and utilization, whether residents demonstrate initiative and self-management capabilities, and focuses on resident feedback regarding participation channels. It is measured through the following metrics: Level of Importance Attached to Site Preservation (C9), Strength of Willingness to Participate in Preservation (C10), Residents’ Self-Management Capabilities (C11), Proportion of Residents Aware of Effective Feedback Channels (C12), Frequency of Feedback Channel Usage (C13), Satisfaction with Feedback Responses (C14), Resident Representative Participation in Decision-Making Meetings (C15), Residents’ Submission of Effective Decision Recommendations (C16), and Residents’ Awareness of Decision Outcomes (C17).

The indicator system regards the protection and utilization of the heritage site as a complex social-ecological system. The five dimensions—environment and landscape (B1), industry and economy (B2), social welfare (B3), culture and leisure (B4), and residents’ sense of being the masters (B5)—are dynamically interconnected. Residents’ participation and benefits are the core link. B1 improves the natural and living conditions, providing a venue for B4 activities and also influencing residents’ perception of satisfaction; B2 offers employment and income, directly bringing economic benefits and also providing a financial basis for the improvement of B3’s education, medical care, etc. benefits; B3 enhances basic guarantees and development expectations, further strengthening B5’s willingness to participate, self-management ability and decision feedback; B5 enhances and in turn stimulates residents’ active guardianship in all fields of environment, economy and culture, forming a recursive feedback loop and activating the entire system. Therefore, the five dimensions are integrated as a whole. Any single intervention is insufficient. Only through overall governance and coordinated collaboration can the sustainable integration of heritage protection and community development be achieved.

This research adopted the 1–9 ratio scaling method for indicator weighting, assigning points in ascending order of importance: 1 indicates equal importance, and 9 indicates extremely important. Twelve scholars were convened. Each specialises in cultural-heritage conservation, urban–rural planning or vernacular-settlement preservation. They carried out pairwise comparisons of every indicator that sat on the same level. Matrices passed the consistency test, means were taken, and final weights were settled across the hierarchy. This sequence gave the evaluation system its scientific edge and authoritative standing.

The study employs an evaluation descriptor set to categorize and grade standardized questionnaire data. The comprehensive integration score for site residents’ integration is calculated by summing the products of indicator weights and scores. Integration assessment grades are derived from these scores, with both evaluation descriptors and integration levels categorized into four tiers: Excellent, Good, Average, and Poor.

Table 2. Grading standards for integration level and individual indicators.

Indicators Type	Excellent	Good	Average	Poor
Satisfaction-related indicators (points)	80–100	60–79	40–59	0–39
Awareness rate indicators (%)	60–100	40–59	20–39	0–19
Frequency indicators (times)	≥3	2	1	0
Corresponding integration level (points)	85–100	70–84	55–69	0–54

shows the grading standards for integration level and individual indicators.

3.3. Case Selection: Han Chang’an City Heritage Area

The Han Chang’an City site is located in the northwestern suburbs of Xi’an, covering an area of approximately 36 km². It is the largest and most complete unified dynasty capital site in China, administratively belonging to Weiyang District, encompassing 33 villages and 7 communities, with a permanent population of about 78,000, of which 62% are agricultural registered residents. Within the area, remnants such as city walls, Changle Palace, Weiyang Palace, Guigong Palace, Beigong Palace, and the East and West Markets are intertwined with existing settlements, forming a typical spatial pattern of “city-garden-market-neighborhood” with ancient and modern layers overlapping. Currently, apart from the Weiyang Palace site—which has been fully relocated of residents, designated as a National Archaeological Site Park, and opened to the public under centralized protection—other remains, including the city walls, gate site remains, and above-ground rammed-earth platforms, are preserved in varying conditions.

Due to the protection regulations for large heritage sites implementing “zero new construction land” control in the core area, traditional farmhouse renovations, municipal pipeline upgrades, and industrial supporting facilities have all trapped stagnation; meanwhile, peripheral urban expansion continues to siphon land and capital, leading the heritage site into a dual dilemma of “conservation means freezing, development means destruction”. Residents’ daily activities (such as building houses and farming) are strictly restricted, living spaces are increasingly cramped, yet they still bear the negative externalities of cultural relic protection. The cultural relics themselves continue to be damaged by garbage dumping and unauthorized construction. This situation makes the Han Chang’an City site a representative case for observing the interaction between large heritage site protection and community development, possessing significant typicality among similar large heritage sites nationwide (Figure 2).

Surveys in the Han Chang’an City Heritage Area return the same split response year after year. Residents praise the site’s outstanding universal value, yet they resent rules that stop them from extending a house, planting a crop or laying a sewer. Culture is respected, but cash is thin, voices in meetings are few, and the conservation circle feels closed to them [41]. These attitudinal patterns highlight the persistent gap between top-down site conservation management and the expectations of local communities, underscoring the need for more inclusive and responsive governance if the site is to achieve a sustainable future.

The conservation and utilization model of the Han Chang’an City site is still in the exploratory stage. The long-term coexistence of rural settlements and the site faces practical problems such as spatial conflicts between conservation and development, an imbalance in funding and policy support, cultural identity fragmentation, and a lack of participation. Existing research points out that funding channels for site conservation are limited and insufficient, and current policies emphasize more on the protection of cultural relics themselves, while lacking supporting measures for rural infrastructure, industrial cultivation, and social welfare, resulting in limited effectiveness of policy implementation [46]. Therefore, research on Han Chang’an City settlements currently remains at the level of “problem-appeal” discourse, with few clear discussions on the relationship between residents and the heritage site.

The study uses the degree of association between villages and site conservation and development, the depth of impact by site conservation policies, and the ability to reflect the integration characteristics of residents in different regions as core criteria. This ensures that all selected villages are located within the site conservation area and are closely connected to site conservation and development, thereby providing a sample basis for assessing residents’ integration degree that combines typicality and diversity. Based on this, four representative villages were selected Figure 3.

These villages are all located in the core or surrounding areas within the site protection zone and are closely related to the conservation and development of the site. They are all directly or indirectly affected by the site conservation policies, and the residents’ daily lives, economic activities, and social activities are closely linked to the conservation and development of the site. Therefore, they possess strong representativeness and can provide typical samples for studying the degree of residents’ integration in the Han Chang’an City site (

Table 3. Representative Villages in the Han Chang’an City Site.

Village Name	Location	Affiliated Subdistrict
Xichazhai Village	Within the core area of the site, north of Changle Palace, with overlapping layers of Changle Palace walls	Hanchengy
Dongyangshan Village	Surrounding the site, east of Mingguang Palace, overlapping with the section of the city wall from Xuanping Gate to Qingming Gate	Hanchengy
Beixuzhai Village	Site Core Area, North Gate Enclosure, Between Gui Palace and North Palace	Liucunbao
Xiangjiaxiang Village	Site periphery, north of the Western Market, overlapping with the section of the city wall from Yongmen to Hengmen	Liucunbao

).

This study collected 160 valid questionnaires from four representative villages at Han Chang’an City site, encompassing 12 evaluation indicators. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Hancheng Street Service Station and Liucunbao Street Community Service Center to obtain five objective indicators from neighborhood-level statistics (including environmental participation rate, employment rate, and education benefit rate, etc.), thereby compensating for subjective biases in questionnaire responses. The triangulation between survey and interview data created mutually reinforcing evidence, providing highly reliable and quantifiable foundational data for the subsequent AHP-FCE model. The questionnaire was designed based directly on our 17-item resident integration index system, with all items corresponding precisely to indicators C1-C17 to ensure content validity. Prior to full deployment, the research team conducted two pilot tests (n = 30) that yielded a Cronbach’s $\alpha$ of 0.87. Experts flagged two vague items, so we dropped them and sharpened the remaining five. Cronbach’s alpha then moved into the acceptable zone. Two weeks later, we re-ran the key statements on 25 respondents; Pearson’s r hit 0.82. This repeat score confirms that the instrument stays stable and holds its construct validity within the heritage site. The cleaned set now feeds the AHP-FCE model with data that are both reliable and numeric.

3.4. Data Processing

To check the reliability of the AHP weights, we used SPSS 13.0 to test the consistency of the expert questionnaires. Of the 18 returned forms, 12 passed the test and were kept. The largest eigenvalue (λmax) of each judgment matrix lay between 7.102 and 7.189, and the consistency index (CI) ranged from 0.017 to 0.031. With the average random consistency index (RI = 1.32 for n = 7), the consistency ratio (CR) was 0.013–0.024, all below the 0.10 cut-off. These results demonstrate strong internal consistency in the 12 validated questionnaires, indicating logically coherent matrices and reliable weight vectors suitable for subsequent comprehensive evaluation.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Integration Calculation

Based on the field survey results, the membership matrix R was calculated (Table 3). Multiplying the weight vector by the membership matrix, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation vector C is equal to [0.2080, 0.2947, 0.2484, 0.2586], and the score vector P is expressed as P = [92.5, 77, 62, 27]. Overall, according to the formula calculation, the evaluation score for the integration of residents in the Han Chang’an City site into the conservation and utilization of the site is 64.31 points (

Table 4. The score of each indicator layer.

Target (A)	Weight	Score	Indicator Layer (B)	Weight	Score	Indicator Layer (C)	Weight	Score
A1	1	64.31	B1	0.2130	69.77	C1	0.6584	73.80
						C2	0.3416	62.00
			B2	0.2614	72.54	C3	0.5373	77.00
						C4	0.4627	67.36
			B3	0.2039	46.46	C5	0.5359	27.00
						C6	0.4641	68.94
			B4	0.1479	77.72	C7	0.4163	62.00
						C8	0.5837	88.94
			B5	0.1738	54.78	C9	0.1680	50.24
						C10	0.1655	55.52
						C11	0.0973	77.00
						C12	0.0942	48.39
						C13	0.1004	72.06
						C14	0.0908	50.23
						C15	0.1027	47.96
						C16	0.0872	47.31
						C17	0.0939	45.28

), which belongs to the moderate level, indicating that the degree of residents’ integration into the conservation and utilization of the site is average.

The degree of residents’ integration in the Han Chang’an City site varies significantly across different dimensions. The industry and economy dimension B2 and the culture and leisure dimension B4 score relatively high, at 72.54 and 77.72, respectively. The environment and landscape dimension B1 scores moderately, at 69.77, while the social welfare dimension B3 and residents’ subjective consciousness dimension B5 score is lower, at 46.46 and 54.78.

4.2. Problem Analysis

Among the analyses of resident integration across various dimensions, the culture and leisure dimension B4 scored the highest at 77.72 points, classified as good. Within this dimension, the indicator for frequency of resident participation in cultural activities C8 had a high score of 88.93, indicating that residents at the heritage site participate in cultural activities relatively frequently. However, the score of the rate of heritage cultural transmission C7 is lower, at 62.00, suggesting that villages in the Han Chang’an City site have limited dissemination of the site’s culture.

The industry and economy dimension B2 ranked second with a score of 72.54 points, also classified as good. The score of the employment rate in industries related to heritage site conservation and utilization C3 is higher at 77.00, and the proportion of revenue from industries related to heritage site conservation and utilization C4 is lower at 67.36. Research results show that most villagers make a living from agriculture and industrial-related occupations, with few engaged in activities related to heritage conservation and utilization.

The environment and landscape dimension B1 scored 69.77 points, classified as moderate. The score of satisfaction with residential and landscape environment C1 is higher at 73.80, and the rate of residents’ participation in environmental protection C2 is lower at 62.00. According to field research, the water environment and living conditions in villages are suboptimal, with serious garbage issues and weak environmental awareness among villagers.

The resident subjective consciousness dimension B5 scored 54.78 points, classified as poor, with uneven distribution of scores across its indicators. Self-management capacity (C11) reached 77.00, whereas awareness of decision outcomes (C17) fell to only 45.28. “We have no idea know what they talked about; nobody tells us the result,” said one homeowner. Another villager added, “Sometimes we hear a meeting happened, but what was decided and whether it matters to us remains a mystery.” Because minutes and resolutions are seldom released, residents cannot trace how their opinions travel through the governance process. The research result also pointed out the lack of feedback channels for residents at the heritage site and minimal participation of village representatives in actual decision-making meetings.

The social welfare dimension B3 scored 46.46 points, classified as poor. Among these, the score of resident yield rate from new educational resources added due to site preservation and utilization C5 is the lowest at only 27.00. In recent years, no new public educational facilities, such as libraries or schools, have been introduced in the vicinity of the heritage site. Although medical facilities can meet basic daily healthcare needs, they have not seen significant updates or improvements in recent years. Residents expressed frustration in interviews: “There is still no new school or library. If kids want to read, they have to travel far,” one parent said. One villager said, “The clinic’s equipment is old and the wait is long. For any serious problem, we have to go to the city.” These replies show that the social benefits of heritage preservation have not yet improved residents’ quality of life. There is a clear implementation gap: investment in social infrastructure is being overlooked, and this may weaken public support for conservation.

5. Discussion

5.1. Findings

Han Chang’an City scored 64.31 on resident integration, landing in the moderate band. Residents are neither locked out nor fully woven into conservation; their role is partial and can still expand. The main barriers repeat across domains: economic growth collides with heritage rules, household incomes stay low, cultural messages flow one-way from the top, institutions overlook grassroots needs, and policies arrive in fragments. These linked gaps shape the following sustainability measures.

• Environment and Landscape dimension

The management authority should increase environmental improvements in the heritage area, such as upgrading water quality and enhancing overall landscape quality. The competent department should also carry out continuous publicity and education on environmental protection to raise residents’ awareness and participation.

• Industry and Economy dimension

Authorities need to issue detailed industrial guidelines for the heritage area immediately. These documents should clearly list permitted sectors, such as cultural tourism and creative industries. Once the list is public, communities can guide residents into these fields and organize the training required for the transition.

• Social Welfare dimension

It is essential to further monitor and regulate the renovation of residential housing by local residents within heritage areas, while providing appropriate social subsidies to ensure that no unauthorized alterations occur to dwellings located in the core protection zones of heritage sites. Close attention should also be paid to the living conditions of residents in these heritage-designated areas.

• Culture and Leisure dimension

The research and exploration of cultural heritage should be further strengthened. Cultural lectures and exhibitions should be held to popularize the knowledge of cultural heritage among the residents. By innovating forms and content, the quality and appeal of cultural activities should be enhanced, and cultural brand activities with characteristics of cultural heritage should be created to strengthen the cultural influence of the heritage areas.

• Resident subjective consciousness dimension

Carry out extensive publicity and educational activities to enhance residents’ awareness and capabilities regarding the importance of heritage protection. Establish a mechanism for residents to participate in heritage protection and management, actively improve the feedback channels for residents, attach importance to the disclosure of information during the decision-making process and results, for example, by establishing a residents’ committee so that residents can participate in the decision-making process of heritage protection.

5.2. Comparison with Other Research

To move beyond single-site description, we compared Han Chang’an City (HCAC) with the other representative cases along the same five-dimensional framework. We choose the case of Stratford Upon Avon in England, the restoration of Al Hafsia District in Tunis and the preservation of the M’zab Valley in Algeria. The comparison is shown in

Table 5. Comparison of different cases in five dimensions.

Dimension	Han Chang’an City	Stratford Upon Avon	Al-Hafsia District	M’zab Valley
Environment and Landscape (B1)	Average	Well-developed	General-developed	Well-developed
Industry and Economy (B2)	Average	Well-developed	General-developed	Backward-developed
Social Welfare (B3)	Poor	General-developed	Poor	Backward-developed
Culture and Leisure (B4)	Good	Well-developed	Well-developed	General-developed
Resident Agency (B5)	Poor	General-developed	General-developed	Well-developed

under five dimensions, including Environment and Landscape (B1), Industry and Economy (B2), Social Welfare (B3), Culture and Leisure (B4), and Resident Agency (B5). HCAC is a peri-urban agricultural plain where rigid “zero-new-build” zoning suppresses industry start-ups, leaving welfare but intangible cultural capital still alive. Stratford is a market town that commodified Shakespeare into a mono-brand economy with mature visitor services [24], yet faces a housing price squeeze and seasonal congestion that downgrades resident welfare. Al-Hafsia is an inner-city medina quarter whose restoration converted ground floors into tourist-oriented craft workshops [25] while upgrading the public realm, but municipal schools/clinics did not keep pace. Conservation measures include clearing rubble, improving the climate, and adding infrastructure to reduce pollution discharge. However, due to the limited tourist flow, the local economy is highly dependent on domestic demand and has a low resilience to shocks. M’Zab, which was classified by UNESCO as a world heritage site in 1982, is a conservative Saharan ksar system. Numerous restoration, consolidation, and adaptive-reuse projects have been carried out to safeguard the valley’s monuments and historic sites; yet these very interventions have also sapped the city’s vitality and economic dynamism, negatively affecting civil society and environmental comfort [47].

To conclude their common characteristics, in terms of consciousness, high consciousness at both the heritage-elite (site managers) and heritage-dependent (tourism workers) ends, but a low-awareness “middle belt” of ordinary residents. In terms of social welfare, educational or medical gains lag behind economic or cultural dividends in all four sites, dragging down overall integration.

By analysing the above cases, we can take scenario measures to broaden the appeal of urban tourism, which can improve the degree of residents’ integration in the Han Chang’an city heritage area. Managers may project a high commitment scenario like M’Zab Valley, which means allowing visitors to enter with community-led storytelling circuits, and profits used to improve the welfare facilities. A creative market scenario like Al-Hafsia and Stratford hybrid can also be used. Pop-up workshops can be set up in heritage buildings, and AR applications can be co-designed with residents to transform cultural communication into an entertaining and educational experience for tourists.

5.3. Limitations

This study has the following limitations in terms of samples and methods: First, the sample space is limited to four villages. Even though we chose the most representative samples that met the demographic characteristics test and the regional settlement type sampling criteria, the scalability was limited, making it difficult to comprehensively reflect the overall characteristics of the residents in the area. Secondly, the questionnaire survey data may have issues of information omission and high subjectivity. Although we verified the reliability of the questionnaire through a pre-test (n = 30, Cronbach’s $\alpha$ = 0.87), respondents may still have emotional and cognitive biases, which can lead to inaccurate data. And some variables, such as environmental participation rate and employment rate, rely on street office statistics, which have limited timeliness. Third, the determination of indicator weights is primarily based on expert scoring and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. Although consistency tests were passed, it is still difficult to completely avoid subjective weighting biases arising from differences in expert backgrounds.

6. Conclusions

This study constructs a quantitative evaluation model that couples a “participation–benefit” framework with a 5-dimension/17-indicator system, applies Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE), and delivers an integration scorecard for heritage-site residents. The resulting data set is offered as an empirical springboard for future policies that seek to align conservation imperatives with resident development. Through field surveys, indicator data were obtained and assigned values based on scoring criteria. Comprehensive calculation based on weights yielded an overall evaluation score of 64.31 points for resident integration into the conservation and utilization of the Han Chang’an City site, which falls into the moderate level.

By constructing an integration degree evaluation model, the study achieved a quantitative assessment of resident integration. The results provide a scientific basis for alleviating the conflict between heritage conservation and residents’ production and life, filling the gap in quantitative evaluation of resident integration in the field of heritage conservation and utilization, and offering theoretical support for government decision-making, heritage conservation planning, and sustainable development of rural communities at heritage sites. The proposed strategies for resident integration into heritage conservation and utilization are conducive to promoting functional expansion and value enhancement of heritage sites, advancing the concrete implementation of rural revitalization at heritage sites, and achieving a win-win situation of improving residents’ quality of life and enhancing the quality and efficiency of heritage conservation and utilization. The study responds to Smith & Waterton’s view that “Heritage values are not intrinsic, but are negotiated through the lived practices of local communities” [46] with a quantitative model, aligns with UNESCO’s contemporary heritage agenda of “community-led, people-centered” through a data-driven approach, and provides a verifiable and replicable analytical framework for the global hot topic of “community-led and resident integration” in international heritage conservation.

In future research, in terms of the scope of the study, it is necessary to expand the research sample, expanding the sample from four villages to all villages and communities in the Han Chang’an City site. The hierarchical weights of each village can be set based on factors such as population density and distance from the core area. Alternatively, residents from other areas may be incorporated for cross-validation to assess the accuracy of the model. In terms of research methods, participatory observation, case studies, and other methods can be adopted to deeply analyze the actual behaviors and psychological mechanisms of residents in the area regarding heritage conservation and utilization.