Does Tourism Gentrification in Urban Areas Affect Tourists’ Value Co-Creation Behavior?

Abstract

Tourism gentrification refers to the urban transformation process whereby middle-class neighborhoods evolve into affluent enclaves through leisure and tourism development, significantly impacting urban regeneration and spatial planning. This empirical study adopted Hefei’s Lei Street as an exploratory case to construct a hypothetical model involving tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior. A model was designed to examine the impact of urban tourism gentrification on tourists’ value co-creation behaviors, with its validity subsequently verified through SPSS 20.0 and Amos 23.0 software. The findings revealed that tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification positively affected tourist satisfaction and tourists’ value co-creation behavior and tourist satisfaction positively affected tourist participation behavior. From a practical perspective, this study endeavored to provide urban planners and destination managers with actionable insights to enhance visitor experiences while addressing the challenges posed by gentrification. It further sought to facilitate advancements in urban tourism, urban renewal, and land-use planning, thereby contributing to the sustainable development of Hefei. Methodologically, it also advances the application of structural equation modeling in tourism geography studies and provides replicable protocols for similar urban transformation research.

1. Introduction

In the context of accelerated economic and social transformation, global urbanization has experienced substantial advancements and structural changes. Urbanization [1,2], suburban urbanization [3,4], re-urbanization [5,6], and urban renewal [7,8] have continued to emerge as prominent phenomena. During the process of urban development, the process of renovation and displacement of aging neighborhoods is commonly referred to as gentrification [9,10]. The reconstruction of social space induced by gentrification constitutes a significant research topic among scholars in the fields of urban geography, urban planning, sociology, and economics [11]. Based on the study of gentrification, scholars put forward the concept of tourism gentrification [12] and conducted in-depth discussion and research on it. Tourism gentrification serves as a key shaping force for socioeconomic dynamics and contemporary urban landscapes [13], and functions as a “global strategy” to facilitate the recovery of land values in urban centers and heritage neighborhoods [14,15]. Therefore, research on tourism gentrification holds significant practical and theoretical values for urban tourism development, urban renewal, land use, and sustainable development.

Prior studies of tourism gentrification mainly discussed the phenomenon of tourism gentrification [12], the measurement of tourism gentrification [16], tourism gentrification spatial reconstruction [17,18], and the causes and consequences of tourism gentrification with qualitative methods such as field investigation and interview [19,20]. Currently, there is insufficient depth and analytical rigor in research on tourism gentrification. Although studies have addressed its consequences, such discussions remain superficial. Research on “consequences” has focused on explicit impacts at the spatial or social level, while there is a lack of adequate tracking and quantitative assessment of long-term implicit consequences. Furthermore, existing research outcomes on tourism gentrification suffer from a singular methodological approach, predominantly relying on qualitative methods such as field surveys and interviews, with insufficient systematic application of quantitative and mixed methods.

Therefore, in order to enhance research methodologies within the domain of tourism gentrification and systematically examine the implications of tourism gentrification in urban areas for urban planning, urban renewal, land-use patterns, and sustainable development paradigms, this empirical research utilized Hefei’s Lei Street as an exploratory case study to develop a hypothetical model that incorporated tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior. The model was formulated to investigate the influence of urban tourism gentrification on tourists’ value co-creation behaviors, whose validity was subsequently tested using SPSS 20.0 and Amos 23.0 software. From a practical standpoint, this study aimed to furnish urban planners and destination managers with actionable insights for enhancing visitor experiences while mitigating the challenges associated with gentrification. Furthermore, it sought to propel advancements in urban tourism, urban renewal, and land-use planning, ultimately contributing to the sustainable development of Hefei. Methodologically, this study further advances the application of structural equation modeling within tourism geography research and provides replicable protocols for scholarly inquiries into analogous urban transformation processes.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Tourism Gentrification

2.1.1. The Concept of Tourism Gentrification

Gotham, professor of sociology at Tulane University in the United States, operationalized tourism gentrification as an urban transformation process wherein middle-class neighborhoods undergo conversion into affluent enclaves through leisure and tourism-oriented development, thereby exerting substantial influences on urban renewal and spatial planning frameworks [12]. Subsequent scholars have defined tourism gentrification from various perspectives. Some scholars argued that tourism gentrification was a social phenomenon where certain areas in a city were reconstructed due to the development of large-scale tourism and entertainment projects, thereby transforming their surrounding neighborhoods into prosperous and independent regions [21]. Other scholars proposed that tourism gentrification was the process by which the tourism consumption of the middle class changed the supply system of tourist destinations or local community into affluent enclaves from spatial form and social cultural atmosphere [22]. Still other scholars maintained that tourism gentrification described how a neighborhood’s core traits transform amid expanded tourism, often spurred by short-term rental platforms like Airbnb [23]. This process typically drove up property values and rents, which in turn reshaped local socioeconomic dynamics. A critical consequence was the heightened risk of displacing long-term residents, a trend supported by recent research [24,25,26]. Another group of scholars emphasized that tourism gentrification, fueled by a surge in international tourism, often precipitated overcrowding and the wholesale transformation of residential neighborhoods. In turn, this disrupted the neighborhoods’ socioeconomic structures and eroded their cultural fabric, yielding lasting changes to their intrinsic character [20]. Scholars additionally highlighted that tourism gentrification denoted a set of socioeconomic transformations within urban landscapes, catalyzed by a significant uptick in tourism activity. A defining consequence of this process was the displacement of long-term residents alongside gradual, yet profound alterations to the area’s inherent character that often reshaped the neighborhood’s functional and cultural identity [27]. Scholars also noted that tourism gentrification describes a phenomenon wherein the large-scale influx of tourism catalyzes socioeconomic shifts that may displace local residents, disrupt community cohesion, and ultimately reshape the traditional ways of life intrinsic to the area [28].

In short, there is no consensus on the concept of tourism gentrification in academia, but all agree on the following two characteristics of tourism gentrification: spatial reconstruction and population replacement. After that, scholars conduct in-depth discussion on tourism gentrification.

2.1.2. Research on Tourism Gentrification

Prior research on tourism gentrification primarily focused on its phenomenological characteristics, measurement methodologies, its relationship with spatial reconstruction, and its underlying causes and consequent impacts.

In terms of the phenomenological characteristics of tourism gentrification, Gotham put forward the term of tourism gentrification and discussed the causes and consequences of tourism gentrification [12]. On this basis, some scholars redefined the concept of tourism gentrification, putting forward three types according to different supporting objects (tourism gentrification based on historical and cultural relics, tourism gentrification based on landscape types, tourism gentrification based on abandoned site types), divided the development of tourism gentrification into four stages (embryonic stage, development stage, stable stage and transition stage) with tourism destination life cycle theory, and analyzed the role of local governments and real estate developers in tourism gentrification in the global and local interactive environment, as well as the important role of large-scale tourism, leisure, and entertainment projects in reshaping regional tourism and the leisure and entertainment environment [21]. Other scholars have conducted research on the recent advancements in the field of tourism gentrification research [29,30]. What is more, other scholars have examined the phenomenon of tourism gentrification in urban historical and cultural districts. Research has illustrated that that urban historical and cultural districts promoted by tourism development projects were not necessarily areas with gentrification potential, such as the Confucius Temple Historical and Cultural District in Nanjing. The progress of tourism development projects in urban historical and cultural blocks determined whether historical and cultural blocks with potential for gentrification had begun the process of gentrification. Tourism gentrification characteristics in the historical and cultural block of the East Gate were basically consistent with the tourism gentrification characteristics proposed by Gotham [31].

In respect of measurement methodologies of tourism gentrification, some scholars verified that important indicators for measuring tourism gentrification included the degree of agglomeration of tourism service facilities, investment scale of tourism enterprises, land-use scale of tourism facilities, and the increase in property value [32,33,34]. Additionally, scholars have analyzed the causal relationship between tourism gentrification in Tokyo and the growth in demand for tourist accommodation facilities adopting geographic and natural experiments [35]. Furthermore, there have been scholars who have found that the architecture, landscape, and image of a city are important indicators for measuring tourism gentrification [36]. In addition to the material aspect, social and cultural upgrading was also an important aspect of measuring tourism gentrification, e.g., the proportion of the population that are highly educated and the proportion of tourism professionals [37]. The cultural and lifestyle changes brought about by gentrified groups, as well as changes in social perception, were also key aspects for measuring tourism gentrification, such as residential preferences, environmental aesthetics, etc. [30,38,39].

With regard to tourism gentrification and spatial reconstruction, research has verified that in the constantly changing context of China and other emerging countries, tourism gentrification transformed social space from lower to upper levels, and tourism became the main driving force for economic, social, cultural, and lifestyle changes [17]. Some studies also suggested that tourism gentrification led to changes in the supply system of tourist destinations through the tourism consumer behavior of the middle class in spatial form and sociocultural atmosphere [18]. There was also research anticipating the impact of tourism gentrification on the spatial and social transformation in the inner city of Zagreb [40]. It has also been confirmed that tourism gentrification in rural areas has changed the local land distribution, industrial structure, population composition, and cultural atmosphere, alleviated some of the problems of regional hollowing out, and had a profound impact on cultural space, economic space, social space, and material space [41].

When it comes to the causes of tourism gentrification, research has verified the promoting effect of government policies on tourism gentrification [19]. The government’s promotion of tourism gentrification was mainly manifested in planning urban functions, formulating urban development strategies, and implementing development projects [42,43]. Some studies also suggested that the transformation of industrial structure in the district, the mutual induction of residents’ housing preferences and external capital, and the joint promotion of local governments and real estate developers have also promoted the development of tourism gentrification [44]. There were also studies that comprehensively considered the impact of factors such as the number of tourist housing, diversity of tourist service facilities, and other gentrification indicators (such as commercial gentrification) on tourism gentrification with multi-level Bayesian regression models [45]. What is more, the flow of population, the diversification of information and the new technological means provided by the internet were also important reasons for the phenomenon of tourism gentrification. The increasing flow of population was a prerequisite for the development of the tourism industry. The diversification of information and the application of the internet in the tourism field provided more abundant technical means and channels for the marketing of tourism suppliers, indirectly promoting the development of tourism gentrification [29].

Concerning the consequences of tourism gentrification, some studies verified that tourism gentrification had promoted the development of cities, mainly reflected in strengthening the development and construction of tourism infrastructure and tourism projects, promoting the development of the tourism industry, advancing the process of urban renewal, and accelerating the pace of urban development [17,20,26,45]. There were also studies indicating that tourism gentrification had promoted the development of the tourism industry, driven the construction of large-scale entertainment projects, improved the surrounding ecological environment, created new tourism formats, advanced the processing and sales of tourism products in the local and surrounding areas, and improved tourism destination information system, etc. [46]. Scholars also validated that tourism gentrification had changed the population structure and urban customs of urban areas, gradually transforming the local population structure from low-income groups to high-income groups, thereby bringing about changes in residents’ consumption concepts, values, and social customs in various aspects. Likewise, other scholars tested whether tourism gentrification had damaged neighborhood relationships, leading to traffic congestion and rising housing prices [47,48]. In addition, there are studies confirming that tourism gentrification drives up regional rents, forces indigenous people to migrate, and exacerbates social spatial differentiation [49].

2.2. Tourists’ Perception of Tourism Gentrification and Tourist Satisfaction

2.2.1. The Concept of Tourist Satisfaction

Extensive research on tourist satisfaction has been conducted within academia. Some scholars argued that tourist satisfaction referred to the outcome arising from tourists’ comparison between their expectations of a destination during travel and their actual experiences when visiting the destination: tourists feel satisfied if a sense of contentment was generated from comparing experiences with expectations [50]. Some other scholars held the view that tourist satisfaction constituted a “positive” perception or feeling of actual experiences relative to expectations [51]. There were also scholars maintaining that for cross-cultural tourists, the formation of satisfaction was also associated with the value systems between tourists and hosts [52]. Furthermore, scholars also put forward the idea that tourist satisfaction stood as a critical determinant of the success and long-term sustainability of tourism destinations [53], as it reflected the extent to which tourists’ actual experiences align with or surpass their pre-visit expectations [54,55]. Additionally, scholars also asserted that tourist satisfaction served as a pivotal factor in determining the success of a tourist destination, as it exerted a direct influence on tourists’ willingness to revisit the site and recommend it to others [56,57]. Moreover, scholars also asserted tourist satisfaction constituted a critical element for the success and long-term sustainability of tourism destinations [58], as it reflects the overall sense of pleasure and contentment that tourists derive from their visit experiences [59].

In conclusion, scholars’ definitions of the concept of tourist satisfaction are relatively consistent. Based on this, this study explicitly defined tourist satisfaction as the degree to which tourism expectations were met through comparison with actual experience perceptions.

2.2.2. Research on Tourists’ Perception of Tourism Gentrification and Tourist Satisfaction

Within tourism academia, scholars have carried out extensive and in-depth investigations into the intricate relationship between tourist perception and satisfaction. Studies have verified that tourist perception positively affected tourist satisfaction through destination terrain image [60]. Some scholars, with shopping tourism as the background, have discussed the impact of tourists’ shopping tourism perception on tourist satisfaction [61]. In addition, there were also scholars who have taken edu-tourism as their research background, and discovered that the relationship between perceived service quality and edu-tourists’ satisfaction was significant and positive [62]. To sum up, scholars have discussed the relationship between tourists’ perception and satisfaction under the background of different tourism products, but few scholars have discussed the relationship between tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification and tourist satisfaction. Therefore, based on the logical relationship of the above research, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: 

Tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification positively affects tourist satisfaction.

H1a: 

Improved individual quality positively affects tourist satisfaction.

H1b: 

Individual civilization positively affects tourist satisfaction.

H1c: 

Economic growth positively affects tourist satisfaction.

H1d: 

Enhanced living standards positively affects tourist satisfaction.

H1e: 

Improved communication positively affects tourist satisfaction.

H1f: 

Cultural appreciation positively affects tourist satisfaction.

H1g: 

Enhanced environment positively affects tourist satisfaction.

H1h: 

Promotion of social environments positively affects tourist satisfaction.

2.3. Tourists’ Perception of Tourism Gentrification and Tourists’ Value Co-Creation Behavior

2.3.1. The Concept of Value Co-Creation Behavior

Who creates the value? This issue constitutes one of the significant topics within the field of management. The traditional logic of commodity dominance holds that enterprises are the only producers of value and consumers are the only consumers of value [63]. However, with the development of social practice and the deepening of academic research, researchers gradually found that value is not created only by producers, but by producers and consumers [64]. Therefore, scholars put forward the concept of value co-creation. Numerous scholars have defined the concept of value co-creation based on diverse perspectives and understandings. In general, the development process of research related to value co-creation has primarily revolved around two major theoretical perspectives: one is the value co-creation theory proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy from the perspective of customer experience [65,66], and the other is the value co-creation theory put forward by Vargo and Lusch based on service-dominant logic [67]. In terms of the concept of value co-creation behavior from the perspective of service-dominant logic theory, traditional value creation is based on goods-dominant logic. As customers increasingly participate in determining and creating value, the roles of enterprises and customers in value creation have begun to change [68]. Consequently, service-dominant logic has gradually replaced goods-dominant logic [69]. Customers are not merely passive recipients of value provided by enterprises, but rather co-producers of value [70]. Enterprises’ customers can participate in almost every stage of product development, providing enterprises with innovative insights and valuable feedback to express their needs. Moreover, customers can engage in the design of new products or services, the improvement of existing products or services, and even participate in the testing phase of products or services as well as operational simulations, among other activities [71,72,73].

To summarize, although scholars have differences in their understanding of value co-creation, they have reached a certain consensus on its basic connotation: customers and enterprises create value through interaction; direct interaction serves as the foundation for the realization of value co-creation; and the value of value co-creation is determined by customers.

2.3.2. Tourists’ Perception of Tourism Gentrification and Tourists’ Value Co-Creation Behavior

The S–O–R (stimulus–organism–response) model is a core theoretical framework for explaining how the external environment triggers behavioral responses through an individual’s internal cognitive and emotional processes, and is widely applied in fields such as psychology, marketing, and environmental behavior. The core logic is: external stimulus → individual internal state → behavioral response. “Organism” refers to individuals’ psychological and physiological states, such as emotions, cognitive assessment, attitudes, perceptions, etc. “Response” refers to observable behavior (such as purchase, avoidance, participation, etc.) or behavioral intention [74,75]. Based on the S–O–R model, the organism positively impacts the response. Tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification belongs to the organism, while tourists’ value co-creation behavior belongs to the response.

In short, based on the S-O-R model, this study proposes the hypothesis between tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification and tourists’ value co-creation behavior:

H2: 

Tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification positively affects tourists’ value co-creation behavior.

H2a1: 

Improved individual quality positively affects tourist citizenship behavior.

H2a2: 

Improved individual quality positively affects tourist participation behavior.

H2b1: 

Individual civilization positively affects tourist citizenship behavior.

H2b2: 

Individual civilization positively affects tourist participation behavior.

H2c1: 

Economic growth positively affects tourist citizenship behavior.

H2c2: 

Economic growth positively affects tourist participation behavior.

H2d1: 

Enhanced living standards positively affects tourist citizenship behavior.

H2d2: 

Enhanced living standards positively affects tourist participation behavior.

H2e1: 

Improved communication positively affects tourist citizenship behavior.

H2e2: 

Improved communication positively affects tourist participation behavior.

H2f1: 

Cultural appreciation positively affects tourist citizenship behavior.

H2f2: 

Cultural appreciation positively affects tourist participation behavior.

H2g1: 

Enhanced environment positively affects tourist citizenship behavior.

H2g2: 

Enhanced environment positively affects tourist participation behavior.

H2h1: 

Promotion of social environments positively affects tourist citizenship behavior.

H2h2: 

Promoted social environment positively affects tourist participation behavior.

2.4. Tourist Satisfaction and Tourists’ Value Co-Creation Behavior

In 1975, Fishbein and Ajzen incorporated the element of subjective norms into the TMA theory, thereby developing the theory of reasoned action [76]. The theory of reasoned action posits that an individual’s behavioral intention is influenced by subjective norms and behavioral attitude. Behavioral attitude refers to the emotional state exhibited by an individual when performing a target behavior, encompassing positive or negative emotions [77]. Tourist satisfaction falls into the category of behavioral attitude, while tourists’ value co-creation behavior belongs to the scope of individual behavioral intention. Therefore, based on the theory of reasoned action, this study proposes the hypothetical relationship between tourist satisfaction and tourists’ value co-creation behavior:

H3: 

Tourist satisfaction positively affects tourists’ value co-creation behavior.

H3a: 

Tourist satisfaction positively affects tourists’ citizenship behavior.

H3b: 

Tourist satisfaction positively affects tourists’ participation behavior.

Building on the aforementioned hypotheses, this study constructed the following conceptual hypothesis model (see Figure 1). This model extends the contextualized research within tourist behavior theory, boosting the theory’s adaptability. It deepens the “contextual constraint mechanism” in the value co-creation theory, enriching the theoretical connotations, and it constructs a systematic theoretical framework of “perception–attitude–behavior,” enhancing the explanatory power for multi-variable relationships.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Field of Research

Hefei’s Lei Street, situated at the intersection of Ningguo South Road and Shuiyangjiang Road in Hefei City, Anhui Province, was selected as the case study, given its outstanding performance in urban tourism, urban renewal, land use, and sustainable development both theoretically and practically (See Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street and urban tourism share an intimate association. On one hand, the tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street exemplifies the localization process of tourism gentrification theory, providing valuable insights for guiding the tourism-driven transformation of urban social–spatial production. On the other hand, from a practical perspective, Lei Street has emerged as the cultural and tourism consumption hub of Hefei, effectively stimulating the development of catering, accommodation, and cultural and creative industries. This has significantly increased tourism revenue, upgraded the tourism economy, and successfully rebranded Hefei from an “industrial city” to a “cultural and tourism city,” while also transforming the city from a mere transit point to a sought-after tourist destination.

Tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street and urban renewal are closely interconnected. Firstly, tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street has spurred spatial restructuring in Hefei’s Lei Street. What was once a low-density, mixed-use area combining old industrial sites and urban villages has been transformed through gentrification into a high-value space integrating catering, cultural and creative industries, and tourism. Secondly, it has accelerated Hefei’s economic transformation, establishing the cultural and tourism economy as a new growth engine for the city.

Tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street and land use maintain a close bond. Tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street boosted land-use efficiency and functional reconstruction. Originally a low-utilization industrial storage–urban village mix, its land development intensity rose from <0.5 to 1.8–2.5, releasing land value. Land was reclassified from industrial (Class M) to commercial services (Class B) with surging transfer fees. It also inspired land development via government–enterprise cooperation and flexible term systems.

3.2. Research Methods

Questionnaire Survey. To ensure the validity of research data, this study employed a questionnaire survey as its data collection instrument. The questionnaire design was grounded in the specific research context of tourism gentrification, targeting three key variables: tourists’ perceptions of tourism gentrification, their satisfaction levels during travel, and the degree of their value co-creation behaviors. Relevant sample data were systematically collected and collated to provide empirical support for subsequent analyses.

Statistical Analysis Method. To test the conceptual hypothesis model, statistical analysis method was used as the validation tool. This method focuses on the theoretical hypothesis model constructed by tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior, and ensures the scientific validity and reliability of research conclusions through systematic data operation and model suitability testing.

3.3. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was composed of four sections. The first section was used to collect respondents’ demographics, including gender, marital status, age, education, occupation, and monthly income.

The second section was formed from 36 items measuring the 8 constructs of tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification: improved individual quality, individual civilization, economic growth, enhanced living standards, promoted social environment, cultural appreciation, improved communication, and enhanced environment [78]. The dimension of economic growth refers to the transformations induced by tourism gentrification in relation to accommodation provision, residents’ income levels, and overall economic development trajectories. The dimension of improved communication refers to the impacts exerted by tourism gentrification on operators’ integrity and trustworthiness, ethical norms, honest management practices, the implementation of tourists’ suggestions, and interactive engagement with tourists. The dimension of improved individual quality refers to the enhancements in residents’ vision, as well as their overall personal and cultural literacy, driven by relevant contextual factors. The dimension of individual civilization refers to the impacts exerted by tourism gentrification on residents’ communication patterns, civic etiquette, personal hygiene and image, behavioral norms, and attire choices. The dimension of enhanced living standards reflects improvements in residents’ living quality, encompassing aspects such as community atmosphere, living conditions, leisure lifestyles, medical and health-care services, architectural quality, and community governance efficacy. The dimension of promoted social environment measures transformations in local infrastructure development, public health conditions, public service provision, signage systems, and tourism promotion initiatives. The dimension of cultural appreciation refers to changes in tourism activity programming, environmental design practices, product development strategies, and the evolution of cultural commercialization processes. The dimension of enhanced environment describes the impacts of tourism gentrification on the local ecological environment, community settings, living environments, residents’ environmental protection awareness, community sanitation conditions, local water quality, and air quality. This section was used to measure respondents’ perception of tourism gentrification level from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The third section, the measurement scale of tourist satisfaction, contained 3 items measuring respondents’ satisfaction from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) [79,80]. It was adopted to measure the degree to which tourism expectation was satisfied compared with actual experience perception.

The fourth section was composed of 9 items measuring the 2 constructs of tourists’ value co-creation behavior from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree): tourist citizenship behavior and tourist participation behavior. Tourist citizenship behavior can be deconstructed from feedback, advocacy, helping, and tolerance [81,82]. Tourist participation behavior can be deconstructed from information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior, and personal interaction [81].

3.4. Survey

Preliminary survey. The research team went to Hefei’s Lei Street on 10 February 2025 to conduct a preliminary survey. The respondents were tourists in Hefei’s Lei Street. A total of 50 questionnaires were collected. Through the data processing and analysis, items ICL1, PSE1, EE6, ELS4, EG1, EG2, EG3 with factor loading lower than 0.4 or cross-loading higher than 0.4 [83] were deleted to form the final questionnaire.

Formal survey. The research team paid several visits to Hefei’s Lei Street from 20 February 2025 to 10 March 2025. The respondents were tourists in Hefei’s Lei Street. Data were obtained through the method of random sampling. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed, 591 questionnaires were collected, and 5 unfinished questionnaires were excluded. A total of 586 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective rate of 99.2%.

4. Results

4.1. Demographics

Statistical analysis of respondents’ demographic information revealed that the majority were male, accounting for 51.7%; married respondents constituted 55.8%; and those aged 25–34 were the largest age group at 40.3%. Educational levels were relatively high, with 59.2% holding bachelor’s degrees and 15.2% holding master’s degrees or above. Most respondents (46.6%) worked in private enterprises. Monthly incomes were concentrated in the CNY 4001–8000 range, with 21.7% earning CNY 2001–4000 and 34.1% earning CNY 6001–8000. Additionally, 44.2% traveled two to five times annually, and 47.6% obtained tourism information via the internet (

Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents (n = 586).

Variable	Responses	Frequency	Percent	Variable	Responses	Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	303	51.7	Occupation	Self-employed	73	12.5
	Female	283	48.3		Retirement	21	3.6
Marital status	Married	327	55.8		Other	39	6.7
	Unmarried	251	42.8	Monthly income	Less than RMB 2000	137	23.4
	Other	8	1.4		RMB 2001–4000	31	5.3
Age	less than 18	26	4.4		RMB 4001–6000	127	21.7
	18–24	161	27.5		RMB 6001–8000	200	34.1
	25–34	236	40.3		RMB > 8000	91	15.5
	35–44	107	18.3	Travel every year	Once or less	133	22.7
	45–60	42	7.2		2–5 times	258	44.2
	above 60	14	2.4		6–10 times	125	21.3
Education	Junior high school or less	20	3.4		More than 10 times	69	11.8
	High school	60	10.2	Information resources	Television	34	5.8
	Junior college	70	11.9		Newspapers and magazines	19	3.2
	Bachelor	347	59.2		Relatives and friends	149	25.4
	Master or more	89	15.2		Internet	279	47.6
Occupation	Student	135	23		Short video platforms such as TikTok and RedNote	61	10.4
	Government agency or public institution	45	7.7		Message	7	1.2
	Private enterprise	273	46.6		Others	37	6.3

).

4.2. Reliability and Validity Analysis

This study employed SPSS 20.0 software to analyze the reliability and validity of the data. Results indicated that the Cronbach’s α value for tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification was 0.929, 0.726 for tourist satisfaction, and 0.803 for tourists’ value co-creation behavior. The KMO values were 0.917, 0.852, and 0.860, respectively, for the three constructs. Bartlett’s sphericity test yielded significant results, validating that the measurement scales for tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior demonstrated good reliability and validity.

4.3. Intensity Analysis

To comprehensively assess the intensity of tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourist value co-creation behavior, the mean value analysis method was meticulously applied. The findings are presented as follows.

The mean value of tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification was 3.919. In terms of dimensional distribution, the intensity of tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification from high to low was improved individual quality (4.12), enhanced environment (4.07), individual civilization (3.96), promoted social environment (3.94), cultural appreciation (3.84), enhanced living standards (3.76), and improved communication (3.74), which were higher than the average level. From the perspective of measurement indicators, the average of the overall measurement indicators was 3.919, and the first three items with the highest perceived intensity were “IIQ2: improves residents’ ability in communication.” (4.18), “EE6: improves residents’ living environment” (4.17), and “EE1: improves the ecological environment.” (4.15). The three indicators with the lowest perceived intensity were “ELS3: improves health care here.” (3.62), “IC1: honest to tourists.” (3.7), and “IC3: abide strictly by the rules due to tourism” (3.71).

The mean value of tourist satisfaction was 4.05. “TS1: share with others about the pleasant experience of this trip” (4.09) had the highest satisfaction, and “TS3: visit here again” (3.99) had the lowest satisfaction.

The mean value of tourist value co-creation behavior was 3.56. In the dimension distribution, the perceived intensity of tourist citizenship behavior (3.70) was higher than that of tourist participation behavior (3.45). From the perspective of measurement indicators, the average intensity of the overall measurement indicators was 3.56. The item with the strongest perceived intensity was “TCB4: understand the service defects” (3.73), and the item with the lowest perceived intensity was “TPB5: communicate my needs with the staff” (3.3).

4.4. Assessment of Hypothesized Relationships

AMOS23.0 analysis software was adopted to test the relationship among tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior. The normality of the data and the consistency of the internal structure of the scale were analyzed and verified.

The results released that the absolute value of skewness of all items was 0.010–1.180, and the absolute value of kurtosis was 0.125–3.091, which met the requirements of normal distribution of sample data [84].

Goodness-of-fit model quality was analyzed by the combination reliability of latent variables, Cronbach’s α value and mean variance extraction rate. As shown in

Table 2. Measurement scale of tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior (n = 586).

Constructs	Measurement Items	Standardized Factor Loading	CR	Average	Cronbach’s Alpha	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
Tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification (TPTG)
Improved individual quality (IIQ)	IIQ1: has an open mind through tourism.	0.741 ***	0.808	0.585	0.848	0.803
	IIQ2: improves residents’ ability in communication.	0.827 ***
	IIQ3: improves residents’ international education.	0.722 ***
Individual civilization (ICL)	ICL1: well-mannered through tourism.	0.683 ***	0.867	0.622	0.821	0.865
	ICL2: pay attention to image through tourism.	0.798 ***
	ICL3: civilized through tourism.	0.844 ***
	ICL4: show hospitality in tourism development.	0.819 ***
Enhanced living standards (ELS)	ELS1: better lives than other areas.	0.722 ***	0.815	0.525	0.745	0.787
	ELS2: live a comfortable life with tourism.	0.702 ***
	ELS3: improves the healthcare here.	0.758 ***
	ELS4: improves community management.	0.714 ***
Promoted social environment (PSE)	PSE1: improves the public health here.	0.712 ***	0.808	0.513	0.754	0.775
	PSE2: improves the service facilities here.	0.701 ***
	PSE3: improves the public identification signage here.	0.731 ***
	PSE4: improves the publicity here.	0.721 ***
Cultural appreciation (CA)	CA1: traditional culture is embodied.	0.790 ***	0.762	0.517	0.701	0.775
	CA2: plenty of tourism products with traditional here.	0.732 ***
	CA3: traditional culture has been commercialized.	0.691 ***
Improved communication (IC)	IC1: honest to tourists.	0.722 ***	0.835	0.506	0.802	0.841
	IC2: increases residents’ honesty with tourists.	0.781 ***
	IC3: abide strictly by the rules due to tourism.	0.755 ***
	IC4: readily adopts tourists’ opinions.	0.609 ***
	IC5: more willing to interact with tourists than other rural areas.	0.675 ***
Enhanced environment (EE)	EE1: improves the ecological environment.	0.706 ***	0.864	0.514	0.848	0.859
	EE2: improves the natural scenery here.	0.750 ***
	EE3: increases residents’ awareness of ecological protection.	0.730 ***
	EE4: improves residents’ sanitation here.	0.744 ***
	EE5: improves the water quality here.	0.711 ***
	EE6: improves residents’ living environment here.	0.658 ***
Tourist satisfaction (TS)
Tourist satisfaction (TS)	TS1: share with others about the pleasant experience of this trip.	0.845 ***	0.854	0.662	0.726	0.852
	TS2: recommend it to others.	0.832 ***
	TS3: visit here again.	0.761 ***
Tourist value co-creation behavior (TVCB)
Tourist citizenship behavior (TCB)	TCB1: put forward suggestions for the development of the tourism	0.890 ***	0.934	0.781	0.857	0.933
	TCB2: cooperate with the work of tourism practitioners.	0.906 ***
	TCB3: help other tourists to solve problems.	0.929 ***
	TCB4: understand the service defects.	0.805 ***
Tourist participation behavior (TPB)	TPB1: learn the information through the internet, travel agencies and acquaintances.	0.836 ***	0.933	0.736	0.865	0.934
	TPB2: share what I have seen.	0.912 ***
	TPB3: concern about environment.	0.918 ***
	TPB4: pay attention to culture.	0.819 ***
	TPB5: communicate my needs with the staff.	0.798 ***

Note: *** p < 0.001; CR, combination reliability; average refers to mean variance extraction rate.

, the CR values of all potential variable measurement indicators were greater than 0.7, the Cronbach’s alpha values were greater than 0.7, and the average values were greater than 0.5. The standardized factor loading of all items was greater than 0.5, which it was significant at the level of p < 0.001. Therefore, the aggregation validity of the model was good.

As shown in

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Constructs	CA	PSE	IC	ICL	IIQ	ELS	EE	TS	TCB	TPB
Cultural appreciation (CA)	0.719
Promoted social environment (PSE)	0.609 **	0.716
Improved communication (IC)	0.531 **	0.612 **	0.711
Enhanced living standards (ICL)	0.397 **	0.584 **	0.56 **	0.788
Improved individual quality (IIQ)	0.385 **	0.456 **	0.489 **	0.646 **	0.765
Enhanced living standards (ELS)	0.523 **	0.74 **	0.629 **	0.544 **	0.476 **	0.724
Enhanced environment (EE)	0.499 **	0.714 **	0.594 **	0.484 **	0.398 **	0.635 **	0.717
Tourist satisfaction (TS)	0.379 **	0.428 **	0.444 **	0.326 **	0.304 **	0.365 **	0.396 **	0.814
Tourist citizenship behavior (TCB)	0.029 **	−0.032 **	0.02 **	0.029 **	0.055 **	0.09 **	0.02 **	0.017 **	0.884
Tourist participation behavior (TPB)	−0.018 **	0.027 **	−0.019 **	0.006 **	0.042 **	0.006 **	−0.002 **	−0.056 **	−0.036 **	0.858

Note: ** <0.01.

, the square root of all potential variables’ average was greater than the correlation coefficient of other potential variables [85]. Therefore, the model had good convergence. The data structure analysis indicated that the fitted model exhibited good quality.

AMOS 23.0 software was used for data analysis. The maximum likelihood method was adopted for data fitting. The model was modified by adding the path relationship between residuals. The data fitting results of the modified model showed that: χ²/df = 1.316, RMR = 0.020, RMSEA = 0.023, SRMR = 0.030, GFI = 0.931, AGFI = 0.916, NFI = 0.934, RFI = 0.924, IFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.981, CFI = 0.983, PGFI = 0.736, PNFI = 0.804, PCFI = 0.847. On the whole, the hypothetical model had a good fit with the sample data.

4.5. Structural Model

4.5.1. Relationship Between Tourists’ Perception of Tourism Gentrification and Tourist Satisfaction

As shown in

Table 4. Estimation results of model.

Hypothesis	Hypothesis Path Relationship	Standardized Path Coefficient	Critical Ratio	p Value	Result
H1 Tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification → tourist satisfaction
H1a	Improved individual quality → tourist satisfaction	0.175	2.435	0.018	supported
H1b	Individual civilization → tourist satisfaction	0.18	2.978	0.003	supported
H1d	Enhanced living standards → tourist satisfaction	0.24	2.426	0.015	supported
H1e	Improved communication → tourist satisfaction	0.334	3.232	0.001	supported
H1f	Cultural appreciation → tourist satisfaction	0.465	3.417	0.000	supported
H1g	Enhanced environment → tourist satisfaction	0.216	2.222	0.026	supported
H1h	Promoted social environment → tourist satisfaction	0.126	3.164	0.02	supported

, the standardized path coefficients between improved individual quality, individual civilization, enhanced living standards, improved communication, cultural appreciation, enhanced environment, promoted social environment, and tourist satisfaction were 0.175, 0.18, 0.24, 0.334, 0.465, 0.216, 0.126 respectively, and the critical ratios ranged from 2.222 to 3.417, p < 0.05. Therefore, individual quality, individual civilization, enhanced living standards, improved communication, cultural appreciation, enhanced environment, and promoted social environment positively affected tourist satisfaction. H1a,b,d–h were supported.

4.5.2. Relationship Between Tourists’ Perception of Tourism Gentrification and Tourists’ Value Co-Creation Behavior

The standardized path coefficients between improved individual quality, individual civilization, enhanced living standards, promoted social environment, and tourist citizenship behavior were 0.158, 0.147, 0.42, and 0.602, respectively, and the critical ratios ranged from 1.981 to 3.62, with p < 0.05 (See

Table 5. Estimation results of model.

Hypothesis	Hypothesis Path Relationship	Standardized Path Coefficient	Critical Ratio	p Value	Result
H2 Tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification → tourists’ value co-creation behavior
H2a1	Improved individual quality → tourist citizenship behavior	0.158	2.287	0.022	supported
H2a2	Improved individual quality → tourist participation behavior	0.113	1.204	0.229	unsupported
H2b1	Individual civilization → tourist citizenship behavior	0.147	3.62	0.000	supported
H2b2	Individual civilization → tourist participation behavior	−0.044	−0.474	0.635	unsupported
H2d1	Enhanced living standards → tourist citizenship behavior	0.42	2.22	0.026	supported
H2d2	Enhanced living standards → tourist participation behavior	0.303	3.179	0.001	supported
H2e1	Improved communication → tourist citizenship behavior	−0.091	−0.609	0.542	unsupported
H2e2	Improved communication → tourist participation behavior	0.574	1.957	0.048	supported
H2f1	Cultural appreciation → tourist citizenship behavior	0.088	0.649	0.516	unsupported
H2f2	Cultural appreciation → tourist participation behavior	−0.058	−0.556	0.578	unsupported
H2g1	Enhanced environment → tourist citizenship behavior	0.065	0.4	0.689	unsupported
H2g2	Enhanced environment → tourist participation behavior	0.695	2.155	0.031	supported
H2h1	Promoted social environment → tourist citizenship behavior	0.602	1.981	0.048	supported
H2h2	Promoted social environment → tourist participation behavior	0.148	3.824	0.000	supported

). Therefore, improved individual quality, individual civilization, enhanced living standards, promoted social environment, and tourist citizenship behavior positively affected tourist citizenship behavior. H2a1, H2b1, H2d1, and H2h1 were supported.

The standardized path coefficients between improved communication, cultural appreciation, enhanced environment, and tourist citizenship behavior were −0.091, 0.088, and 0.065, respectively, and the critical ratios ranged from 0.4 to 0.649, with p > 0.05. Therefore, there was no significant influence between improved communication, cultural appreciation, enhanced environment, and tourist citizenship behavior. H2e1, H2f1, and H2g1 were not supported.

The standardized path coefficients between enhanced living standards, improved communication, enhanced environment, promoted social environment, and tourist participation behavior were 0.303, 0.574, 0.695, and 0.148, respectively, and the critical ratios ranged from 1.57 to 3.824, p < 0.05. Therefore, enhanced living standards, improved communication, enhanced environment, and promoted social environment positively affected tourist participation behavior. H2d2, H2e2, H2g2, and H2h2 were supported.

The standardized path coefficients between improved individual quality, individual civilization, cultural appreciation, and tourist participation behavior were 0.113, −0.044, and −0.058, respectively, and the critical ratios ranged from 0.474 to 1.204. All p values were greater than 0.5. Therefore, there was no significant influence between improved individual quality, individual civilization, cultural appreciation, and tourist participation behavior. H2a2, H2b2, and H2f2 were not supported.

4.5.3. Relationship Between Tourist Satisfaction and Tourists’ Value Co-Creation Behavior

The standardized path coefficient between tourist satisfaction and tourist citizenship behavior was 0.03, and the critical ratio was 0.313, with p = 0.754 > 0.05 (see

Table 6. Estimation results of model.

Hypothesis	Hypothesis Path Relationship	Standardized Path Coefficient	Critical Ratio	p Value	Result
H3 Tourist satisfaction → tourists’ value co-creation behavior
H3a	Tourist satisfaction → tourist citizenship behavior	0.03	0.313	0.754	unsupported
H3b	Tourist satisfaction → tourist participation behavior	0.136	3.269	0.001	supported

). Therefore, tourist satisfaction had no significant influence on tourist citizenship behavior. H3a was not supported.

The standardized path coefficient between tourist satisfaction and tourist participation behavior was 0.136, and the critical ratio was 3.269, with p = 0.001 < 0.05. Therefore, tourist satisfaction positively affected tourist participation behavior. H3b was supported.

5. Discussion

5.1. Intensity Analysis

Findings revealed that tourists’ perception of the tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lie Street was higher than the average level. Firstly, tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification promote urban tourism development through a clear causal sequence. When tourists perceive positive gentrification outcomes in destinations like Hefei’s Lei Street—such as upgraded tourism brands, improved amenities, or enhanced cultural experiences—these favorable representations shape their behaviors. They tend to increase spending, extend stays, and share positive reviews via social media or word of mouth, attracting more visitors. This boosted demand stimulates further investment in tourism infrastructure and services, reinforcing brand upgrading. The cycle of positive perception, increased participation, and enhanced supply ultimately drives sustained growth in urban tourism development. Secondly, it has changed the land planning of Hefei’s Lei Street through the expansion of commercial land and the demand for mixed functions. Thirdly, the sustainable development of the economy of Hefei’s Lei Street has been promoted by increasing tourism revenue and creating more employment opportunities. Therefore, in order to further promote tourists’ perception of the tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street, the following suggestions can be considered: from the perspective of urban planners. Hefei’s Lei Street can optimize land planning through refined spatial governance. For example, Hefei’s Lei Street has diversified its functions by planning a commercial–residential–cultural complex. By demarcating the “cultural original area,” the incubator of creative industries is introduced to protect and innovate the cultural space. Traffic and public space are optimized by designing tourist–resident diversion and a nighttime economic exclusive zone. From the perspective of destination managers, managers in Hefei’s Lei Street can upgrade destination management and achieve sustainable tourism and community co-governance. For instance, different marketing strategies should be carried out for different consumer groups such as high-end consumers and the general public; innovate the merchant cooperation model; carry out digitalization and experience upgrades. In addition, tourism enterprises could arrange personnel to specifically restrain the behavior of merchants in the scenic area, and once there are tourists who commit fraud, they will be dealt with severely.

Tourists were satisfied with the tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street. Compared with the recommendation and sharing intention of tourists, the revisit rate was lower. The tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street has a profound impact on urban tourism, land planning, and sustainable development by improving tourist satisfaction. First, it promotes the reconstruction of urban tourism in Hefei, which manifests in accelerating the life cycle of Hefei’s Lei Street and promoting the shaping and dissemination of the urban tourism image of Hefei. Second, high tourist satisfaction advances the upgrading of spatial demands and functional reconstruction of Hefei’s Lei Street. The frequent sharing by tourists accelerates the formation of internet-famous landmarks, forcing land use to tilt towards high-yield industries, such as homestays replacing residences and cultural and creative parks replacing factories. Third, it promotes the sustainable development of Hefei’s Lei Street, which manifests in driving the development of related industries and reducing the promotion cost of Hefei’s Lei Street. Therefore, in order to increase tourist satisfaction with the tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street, the following suggestions could be considered. For urban planners, Hefei’s Lei Street could create a high-quality tourism space. For instance, optimize the spatial layout to enhance the comfort of tourists; advance cultural immersion through architectural style control and a “micro-renewal” strategy; set up smart parking lots, create night lighting projects, and improve supporting facilities. As for destination managers, Hefei’s Lei Street can improve tourists’ experience by optimizing space planning through scientific zoning, cultural immersion, and facilities. In terms of scientific zoning, Hefei’s Lei Street could divide its area into distinct functional zones: a “cultural exploration zone” with heritage buildings and folk art workshops, a “dining cluster zone” for local snacks and themed restaurants, and a “leisure square zone” for rest and performances. It can also create differentiated experience with format upgrading, technology empowerment and activity IP, and carry out scientific management and operation. Community symbiosis is achieved by avoiding excessive commercialization to retain the local flavor of life.

The result showed that tourists had many value co-creation behaviors, among which tourist citizenship behavior was more than tourist participation behavior. This positive relationship was mainly reflected in the following respects. First, the high tourist value co-creation behaviors in Hefei’s Leijie have an innovative impact on Hefei’s urban tourism by accelerating the iteration of tourism products and promoting the crowd-creation evolution of urban IP. Second, it has given rise to a mix of businesses in Hefei’s Lei Street, such as day cafés/night entertainment, and makes land-use classification more flexible. Third, it facilitates the precise investment of Hefei’s Lei Street (for instance, Hefei’s Lei Street has introduced craft beer brands based on the popularity of Dianping), enhances its commercial vitality and service capabilities, and promotes the sustainable development of Hefei’s Lei Street. Therefore, it makes sense to build a four-dimensional value co-creation system of “spatial empowerment–interactive mechanism–digital platform–cultural identity” to enhance tourists’ value co-creation behavior. First, the spatial empowerment. The physical space carrier for value co-creation is constructed through the modular design of co-creation space, the implantation of interactive space elements, and the management of fluid space. Second, the interaction mechanism. An operational mechanism for innovative value co-creation is established by setting up a hierarchical co-creation incentive mechanism, designing a cultural production assembly line, and developing a digital–physical integration system. Third, the digital platforms. It is useful to build a smart platform for value co-creation by developing a co-creation behavior tracking system and a value visualization platform. Fourth, the cultural identity. A value co-creation meaning system is constructed through the meaning symbol co-creation project, ritualized co-creation scenarios, intergenerational inheritance plans, etc.

5.2. Tourists’ Perception of Tourism Gentrification and Tourist Satisfaction

Tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification positively affects tourist satisfaction. This positive relationship is mainly manifested in the following respects. First, the high tourist satisfaction with Hefei’s Lei Street promotes the upgrading of Hefei’s tourist attraction, significantly improves Hefei’s cultural and tourism image, and advances Hefei’s transformation from a “transit city” to a “tourist destination.” Second, it promotes the optimization of tourism consumption structure. Tourists with high satisfaction are more inclined to in-depth consumption (such as cultural experience and fine dining), and improve the transformation of business form from low-end retail to high-value-added services. Third, it enhances the resilience of Hefei’s Lei Street infrastructure. The areas with concentrated tourists need to be equipped with smart transportation systems, such as adding three underground parking lots around Hefei’s Lei Street and connecting them to the urban parking APP, etc. Fourth, it promotes the protection and innovation of the cultural space on Hefei’s Lei Street. Hefei’s Lei Street adopts the “skin protection + core renewal” model. The exterior facade retains the Huizhou style, while the interior allows modern decoration. Fifth, it fosters socially and environmentally sustainable innovations in Hefei’s Lei Street through social feedback mechanisms and cultural heritage programs.

Therefore, to enhance tourist satisfaction, tourists should clearly perceive the “high-quality, refined, and culturally immersive” characteristics of Hefei’s Lei Street, while avoiding homogenization caused by excessive commercialization. First, Hefei’s Lei Street should strengthen tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification by optimizing spatial design, including spatial hierarchical planning, architectural style regulation, and smart facility configuration. Second, it should implement refined operations through business optimization, service upgrading, experience design, and precision marketing to deepen tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification. Third, negative impacts of excessive gentrification can be mitigated by formulating balanced strategies such as preserving “civilian vitality,” establishing a community co-governance mechanism, and facilitating tourist-resident interactions.

5.3. Tourists’ Perception of Tourism Gentrification and Tourists’ Value Co-Creation Behavior

Tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification exerts a partial positive impact on their value co-creation behavior. Firstly, this positive relationship transforms urban tourism by shaping an innovative ecosystem for tourism products and reconstructing the urban tourism governance model. Secondly, it enables the flexible spatial organization of land in Hefei’s Lei Street through measures such as upgrading cultural space governance technologies. Thirdly, this relationship establishes a new sustainability paradigm by innovating circular economic models, developing new social integration mechanisms, and enhancing environmental management.

Therefore, several suggestions are proposed to further enhance tourists’ value co-creation behaviors. First, space reconstruction should be conducted through carriers that enrich tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, including gradient spatial layout, explicit design of cultural symbols, and smart infrastructure matrix. Second, mechanism design for value co-creation should be implemented by developing a multi-level participation incentive system, constructing a cultural production pipeline, and establishing a digital empowerment platform, among other measures. Third, tourists’ cultural identity should be strengthened. By building a three-dimensional system of “touchable space, feasible mechanism, and sensible culture,” tourists can naturally transform into co-producers of cultural values while clearly perceiving the tourism gentrification of Hefei’s Lei Street.

5.4. Tourist Satisfaction and Tourists’ Value Co-Creation Behavior

Tourist satisfaction significantly drives tourists’ participation behavior, which in turn affects land planning and sustainable development through changes in tourists’ behavioral patterns. High levels of satisfaction contribute to an increase in tourist arrivals, potentially intensifying the demand for land development in popular areas (e.g., core zones of scenic spots and internet-famous check-in locations).

Accordingly, to further enhance tourists’ participation behavior, this study puts forward the following recommendations. A satisfaction-driven co-creation space system is built via experience-oriented spatial reconstruction, cultural perception enhancement, and intelligent support. For example, Hefei’s Lei Street optimizes layouts into interactive squares for folk performance participation. Its interactive walls let tourists scan quick response codes for cultural stories and share materials. A smart platform enables activity booking and feedback, forming a participation–optimization loop. A co-creation mechanism for satisfaction transformation is built through a satisfaction-driven incentive system, progressive participation channels, and a digital platform. For Hefei’s Lei Street, discounts reward active participants. It offers tiered activities from viewing to creating. A digital platform facilitates idea sharing and feedback, fostering a satisfaction-boosting participation cycle. Building on the aforementioned strategies, tourists will transition from passive consumers to active co-creators, thereby facilitating the achievement of sustainable development within Hefei’s Lei Street cultural tourism ecosystem.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Research Conclusions

As tourism development and urbanization progress, tourism gentrification has emerged as a significant phenomenon, exerting far-reaching impacts on urban tourism growth, urban renewal, land use, and sustainable development. Consequently, this empirical study selected Hefei’s Lei Street as an exploratory case, developed a conceptual model integrating tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior. The research endeavored to explore the impact of the perception of tourism gentrification on tourists’ value co-creation behaviors. The construct of tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification was composed of improved individual quality, individual civilization, enhanced living standards, promoted social environment, cultural appreciation, improved communication, and enhanced environment. The construct of tourist value co-creation behavior contained tourist citizenship behavior and tourist participation behavior. The data applied to this study were collected with questionnaire survey and processed by SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 23.0 software. Then, this study verified the relationship among tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior. The results showed tourism gentrification in urban areas partially affected tourists’ value-co-creation behaviors. The specific results were as follows.

Improved individual quality, individual civilization, enhanced living standards, improved communication, cultural appreciation, enhanced environment, and promoted social environment positively affected tourist satisfaction. Improved individual quality, individual civilization, enhanced living standards, and promoted social environment positively affected tourist citizenship behavior. Improved individual quality, individual civilization, and cultural appreciation had no significant influence on tourist citizenship behavior. Enhanced living standards, improved communication, enhanced environment, and promoted social environment positively affected tourist participation behavior. Improved individual quality, individual civilization, and cultural appreciation had no significant influence on tourist participation behavior. Tourist satisfaction had no significant influence on tourist citizenship behavior. Tourist satisfaction positively affected tourist participation behavior.

6.2. Theoretical and Practical Significance

With regard to theoretical development, this study makes a notable contribution by advancing the application of structural equation modeling within tourism gentrification research. By systematically implementing this statistical approach, it not only enhances the rigor of analyzing complex relationships between variables in such studies but also sets a precedent. Moreover, the study provides standardized and replicable methodological protocols that hold significant reference value for scholarly inquiries in related fields, including analogous urban renewal, urban planning, land use, and sustainable development. These protocols are deliberately designed to be adaptable across comparable research contexts. Their flexibility ensures consistent application, enabling researchers to maintain methodological coherence when examining parallel topics in urban renewal, urban planning, land-use dynamics, and sustainable development, thereby fostering more reliable and comparable findings across different studies.

In terms of practice, this study endeavored to furnish urban planners and destination managers with empirically grounded, actionable insights to optimize visitor experiences while mitigating the multifaceted challenges precipitated by gentrification. These insights were derived from concrete data analysis, offering practical strategies such as refining spatial layouts and adjusting service models to balance tourist satisfaction and community well-being. It further aimed to catalyze advancements in urban tourism development, urban renewal initiatives, and land-use planning frameworks. By integrating theoretical findings with on-the-ground needs, the study provides a valuable reference for decision-making, thereby contributing substantively to the sustainable urban development trajectory of Hefei, fostering harmonious coexistence between tourism growth and urban vitality.

6.3. Shortcomings and Future Studies

The advancement of the tourism and urbanization has given rise to tourism gentrification, which exerts a sustainable influence on urban tourism, urban renewal, land-use, and sustainable development. Therefore, this empirical investigation verified the relationship among tourists’ perception of tourism gentrification, tourist satisfaction, and tourists’ value co-creation behavior to discuss whether tourism gentrification in urban areas affected tourists’ value co-creation behaviors. Although some results were achieved, there were still shortcomings and deficiencies. First, this study discussed tourism gentrification from the perspective of tourists in urban areas. However, it did not talk about tourism gentrification from the perspective of other stakeholders, such as residents, scenic staff, government staff, tourism enterprises, or businessmen. Therefore, future research can explore tourism gentrification from the perspective of other stakeholders. Second, this study took Hefei’s Lei Street as a case to explore tourism gentrification. Future research can explore tourism gentrification in more regions to enhance the universality of the research results.