Differences in Perspectives Between Experts and Residents on Living Heritage: A Study of Traditional Chinese Villages in the Luzhong Region

Abstract

The differences in the heritage perspectives of key stakeholders form an indispensable basis for formulating appropriate conservation strategies for living heritage. However, in existing practices, the differences in heritage perspectives between experts and local residents, who are both key stakeholders, often arise from expert experiences rather than being accurately measured. This study regarded traditional Chinese villages in the Luzhong region as a living heritage case for investigation and quantified such differences. Initially, this study provided a comprehensive description of living heritage using four dimensions: heritage value, heritage attributes, heritage composition, and heritage characteristics. Subsequently, a questionnaire tailored to traditional Chinese villages was developed, and a survey was conducted in the sample villages, resulting in 394 valid responses. According to the Pearson chi-square tests, the findings suggest that expert and local resident respondents showed slight disagreement regarding heritage attributes (x² = 5.619); however, they presented varying degrees of differences concerning heritage value (x² = 36.066) and heritage composition (x² = 36.525), accompanied by distinct preferences. Furthermore, significant discrepancies were evident regarding heritage characteristics. Regarding the four aspects of heritage characteristics, there was a slight difference in the symbiosis of heritage elements (x² = 3.877) but significant differences in the local resident as a heritage element (x² = 36.525); there was a minor difference in vitality and continuity (x² = 3.709) but a rare contradiction for integrity (x² = 47.649). This study can furnish case data support for surmounting the drawbacks of blindly relying on expert experiences, particularly by integrating local perspectives to safeguard living heritage globally.

1. Introduction

In the context of contemporary ideology, cultural heritage encompasses places, artifacts, and practices that embody diverse meanings for various stakeholders [1]. Different stakeholders hold distinct perspectives and attribute varying values to the myriad heritage elements or representations [2,3,4,5]. Those numerous heritage elements or representations that convey diverse meanings for different stakeholders cannot—and should not—be treated or managed uniformly [6]. Hence, the process of conservation involves reflecting and maintaining the heritage perspectives of those stakeholders who possess authority regarding heritage discourse [7]. For heritage characterized by complex compositions within ambiguous natures, such as living heritage, conservation has evolved into a process marked by negotiation, contention, and even confrontation among key stakeholders [8]. The differences and the extent of their heritage perspectives serve as the key focuses of this game-like process.

The conservation of cultural heritage is driven by the collaborative efforts of diverse stakeholders [9]. The conservation of a living heritage legacy, viewed through the lens of system dynamics, constitutes a dynamic and complex process of human intervention [10]. The dynamic, developmental, and evolutionary manifestations of safeguarded living heritage arise from the interplay between endogenous and exogenous driving forces, along with the associated feedback mechanisms and effects [11]. The internal and external stakeholder parties serve as sources for these endogenous and exogenous driving forces [12]. For living heritage, the stakeholder parties were categorized into three types according to their relationships and connections with the heritage sites: core communities, peripheral communities, and conservation professionals [13]. Among them, the core communities are cultural groups that either directly reside in the heritage space (or not) and have a direct and sustained connection with the heritage and to whom the heritage holds particular significance. Conservation professionals refer to those experts who have various relevant knowledge of heritage conservation and participate in the conservation of living heritage. Peripheral communities typically refer to other stakeholders apart from the core communities and conservation professionals whose connection with the heritage is indirect, discontinuous, and relatively weak, for instance, enterprises dedicated to rural tourism development. Based on their origins and their connection to a living heritage legacy, the two key stakeholder groups identified—core communities and professionals—play a critical role in shaping heritage conservation efforts, corresponding to the endogenous and exogenous driving forces.

The differences in heritage perspectives among key stakeholders, who play as the endogenous and exogenous driving forces, serve as the foundation for developing effective strategies to safeguard living heritage. The formulation and integration of conservation objectives and measures aimed at safeguarding living heritage are informed by the existing differences in stakeholder perspectives. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the content, degrees, and characteristics of the differences in heritage perspectives to achieve effective conservation outcomes. This study seeks to conduct a comprehensive exploration and comparative analysis of the heritage perspectives held by the endogenous and exogenous driving forces to derive broader insights.

The expert perspective was once regarded as the ultimate benchmark for conservation practices. However, the exclusive authority of professionals in the field of conservation is now being re-evaluated, necessitating that heritage practices acknowledge and respect the perspectives of all stakeholders [14,15]. In the conservation of living heritage, the mainstream value-based paradigm has faced criticism for its inherent reliance on expert-driven ideology and material-based practices [16]; however, community-driven methods are increasingly recognized as just and appropriate [17,18]. Nevertheless, while concerns raised by experts regarding community-driven practices have persisted, there are also frequent reports of conflicts and failures in conservation efforts [4,13]. A significant factor contributing to this issue is that existing conservation practices for living heritage have consistently relied on professionals’ experience, with even community-driven conservation initiatives being dictated by professional input. There is a lack of clear understanding and application of the differences in heritage perspectives between professionals and core communities within conservation practices. Furthermore, the heritage perspectives of these two key stakeholder groups have rarely been meticulously assessed and subjected to differential comparative analysis [7].

Based on the existing research sampled in

Table 1. Summary of research status.

Performance	Examples	Issues	Applied Methods
Frequently focused on specific content, goal, or perspective	Focus on heritage classifications or attributes [19,20,21] Focus on one or more heritage values [22,23,24,25,26,27] Focus on heritage knowledge or awareness [28] Focus on heritage elements [29]	Lack of a comprehensive description of living heritage Difficult to fully capture and respond to heritage information	Case study Purposive sampling [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29] Site survey, mapping [22,29] Questionnaire [23,28] Topic Modelling Grounded Theory [25] Interviews [26,27] Ethnography [27]
Conducted surveys or discussions with specific groups	On residents’ viewpoints [22,25,28] On experts’ viewpoints [27,29] On tourists’ viewpoints [20,23,26] On legacy holders’ viewpoints [27]	One-dimensional perspective, lacking comparative awareness among multiple groups Research design overly reliant on expert experience

, first, studies tend to focus on a specific aspect of heritage perspectives, lacking a comprehensive description for measurement. This deficiency complicates the formulation of conservation strategies, making it challenging to fully capture and respond to heritage information. Second, studies frequently target a specific group of stakeholders. Research often involves independent quantitative surveys of tourists or local residents or purely qualitative arguments from expert perspectives. However, when studies are typically grounded in the perspective of a single group and lack comparative analysis, their practical utility diminishes.

There is a research gap: Comprehensive surveys and comparisons of the perspectives of key stakeholders (especially experts and residents) on living heritage are lacking.

To bridge this research gap, this paper proposes two research questions:

RQ 1.

What is the comprehensive description applicable to living heritage?

RQ 2.

To what extent do key stakeholders (especially experts and residents) differ in their perspectives on living heritage?

This study intends to put forward a comprehensive description of living heritage and organize a survey to obtain the differences in heritage perspectives between the endogenous and exogenous driving forces (experts and residents) for living heritage. The outcomes of this study can, groundbreakingly, offer tool support and data experience for the perspective differences on living heritage from the key stakeholders on a global scale.

2. Disentangling Heritage Perspectives: The Description of Living Heritage

Theorizing in the field of cultural heritage continues to be ongoing [30]. It has been subject to diverse interpretations from various perspectives throughout different periods. In the context of the international modern heritage movement that has developed over the last century, the conceptual exploration and renewal of cultural heritage is described as a process of semantic expansion and connotative transfer [31]. To date, cultural heritage is defined as having ‘heritage significance’, which encompasses a wide range of identified values [4]. The most important characteristic of heritage values is that they are always attributed rather than being inherent [14]. According to Lipe [32], value in heritage is learned or discovered by humans and depends on their specific cultural, intellectual, historical, and psychological frames of reference. As stated by Spennemann [33], individuals project value onto an object, place, or resource based on their own needs and desires influenced by their current social, cultural, and economic circumstances. This also implies that different artifacts hold different meanings for various communities and groups; stakeholders attribute diverse values to a heritage site for varying reasons [14,34,35]. Cultural heritage is no longer a static object with a fixed meaning; it encompasses any place or artifact that holds various meanings for different segments of society [2,3]. While heritage does possess inherent characteristics such as material, age, color, or scale, these natural values are also recognized through people’s cognitive experiences of places. It is the understanding and interpretation of these places by those interested in them that gives them their heritage value [4,5,6,36,37,38].

In summary, when defining a cultural heritage legacy, there exists a causal logic underlying the process of its definition. A cultural heritage legacy is rooted in the heritage values ascribed to it, and its composition is constituted by the heritage objects that are projected through the values perceived by stakeholders. These ascribed heritage values also determine their attributes. The heritage attributes encompass interpretations of its essence and classification. Furthermore, these attributes imply that beyond composition, cultural heritage may possess additional characteristics. Typically, these characteristics serve as supplementary elements that enhance a comprehensive description of cultural heritage. Herein, these characteristics are referred to as the characteristics of heritage. It contains four dimensions for describing cultural heritage: heritage values, attributes, characteristics, and composition (Figure 1). Hence, these four dimensions provide an all-encompassing perspective on any given cultural heritage legacy. This framework serves as the theoretical foundation for assessing stakeholders’ heritage perspectives and perceptions in this study.

The aforementioned four dimensions are utilized to elucidate the notion of living heritage, which is a prototypical category that pertains to a framework encompassing locations, traditions, or customs that have been shaped by diverse contributors over time and are still actively observed. This notion also encompasses the core communities residing within (or not) these heritage sites [13,39]. The nature of such heritage legacies is not merely the sum of static objects or intangible cultural products with fixed meanings, although these often serve as the focal points of heritage practices; rather, it is understood to be the cultural processes of cultural systems embodied represented by those objects or products [10].

Since cultural systems or cultural processes are not concrete and difficult to measure directly, living heritage is represented through heritage value, attributes, characteristics, and composition. Firstly, its heritage value should encompass all the values regarded as valuable by all stakeholders. According to the concept of living heritage and the statements of authoritative experts such as Poulios [40] and Feng [41], heritage attributes are divided into heritage essence and heritage type, among which the heritage essence stems from the tangible, intangible, and human-related elements of heritage. This also becomes the basis for the division of heritage composition.

It is crucial to emphasize that the characteristics of living heritage are indispensable; without them, providing a comprehensive description of living heritage becomes significantly challenging. Living heritage stands in contrast to material cultural heritage, which is typically characterized by its heritage value, composition, and attributes. For example, architectural heritage is generally presented through its architectural composition and construction principles to convey its heritage value. Its tangible elements are clear and sufficient to reflect its value and attributes. However, the description of living heritage does not adhere to these characteristics in the same way. According to the definition of living heritage, the nature of living heritage lies in the process of the cultural system; thus, it always appears as dynamic, changing, and evolving [13]. However, the combined composition of the tangible, intangible, and human-related elements of living heritage does not fully capture these traits. These traits can only be adequately described by adding the dimension of heritage characteristics.

According to Wijesuriya [42], Poulios [13], Haselberger and Krist [39], living heritage is characterized by the following aspects: Firstly, there is a continuity of the original function of the heritage site, meaning that its intended purpose or function has been preserved into the present day. Secondly, both the core community and other heritage elements are integral aspects of this heritage. Thirdly, ongoing care for the heritage, grounded in local traditional knowledge and management systems, fosters a symbiotic relationship among its elements. Lastly, living heritage is marked by continuous dynamic change for its vitality. Therefore, this study has proposed the heritage characteristics of vitality, (element) symbiosis, integrity, and continuity. To sum up, the description of living heritage is presented in Figure 2. This figure’s contents can be employed to assess and analyze perceptions and perspectives from different stakeholders regarding a living heritage legacy.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

The objective of this study is to investigate the differences in heritage perspectives between experts and villagers, who are key internal and external stakeholders in heritage conservation concerning living heritage. To achieve this, a structured flowchart comprising four steps has been devised (refer to Figure 3). Initially, for step 1, the constructure of heritage perspectives on cultural heritage was established, identifying four dimensions—heritage attributes, heritage values, heritage composition, and heritage characteristics—which elucidate these perspectives. This foundational step was completed in Section 2. Following this, for step 2, a measurement for assessing heritage perspectives of living heritage was developed, with traditional Chinese villages serving as a representative case. Subsequently, an accompanying questionnaire was designed. In step 3, a survey was conducted within the selected sample area to collect data using the formulated questionnaire. Statistical analysis was then performed on the gathered data to comprehensively compare differences in heritage perspectives among both resident and expert respondents regarding traditional Chinese villages in step 4. Additionally, this analysis aims to explore underlying causes and propose recommendations for optimization. The differences in heritage perspectives were systematically analyzed and compared across the four dimensions of heritage attributes, heritage values, heritage composition, and heritage characteristics. Finally, based on the results of this study, further discussion was provided, and conclusions were drawn.

3.2. Formulating the Measurement of Heritage Perspectives on Living Heritage

A framework for assessing heritage perspectives relevant to traditional Chinese villages was developed, and a corresponding questionnaire was designed. The heritage perspective information provided by stakeholders randomly interviewed during the preliminary research phase was systematically collected and organized. This information was integrated with the descriptions and viewpoints of traditional villages, as outlined in Chinese official policies and academic consensus, thereby creating a database of heritage perspectives for traditional villages. This information is primarily presented in textual format. Consequently, the NVivo research methodology was utilized for coding and extraction. The NVivo 12.0 software is based on the principles of qualitative research methods and employs a bottom-up three-tiered coding process, which includes three core functions: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Only the initial round of open coding and the subsequent stage of axial coding were conducted, resulting in a consensus on 121 first-order concepts and 11 second-order concepts (refer to

Table 2. The measurement of heritage perspectives regarding traditional Chinese villages.

	Heritage Descriptors	Measurement Indicators	Source
Heritage attributes	Heritage essence	To safeguard and inherit the essence of Chinese culture and tradition *	Relevant national policies or regulations [43,44,45,46]
		To safeguard the existing architecture and spatial pattern
		To safeguard traditional customs and skills
	Heritage type	It is a living legacy *
Heritage value	Cultural value	To inherit Chinese culture *	Relevant national policies or regulations [43,44,45,46] Highly cited references or review literature [41,47,48]
	Artistical value	To maintain traditional architecture *
	Historical value	To inherit traditional techniques
	Emotional value	To keep/deposit nostalgia attachment/home-longing
	Economic value	To obtain economic benefit *
		To develop tourism
	Social value use significance *	To safeguard living heritage/“living cultural relics”
Heritage composition	Tangible heritage elements	Houses and buildings *	Relevant national policies or regulations [43,44,45,46] Highly cited references or review literature [48,49,50,51]
		Street and construction pattern
		Landscape environment
		Farmlands and livestock *
	Intangible heritage elements	Traditional folklore (customs)
		Cultural tradition *
		Local dialect
		Traditional festivals *
		Traditional diet
	Core community/local residents	Local residents
		Clan ethical order
		Community rules/family habits *
Heritage characteristics	Symbiosis	The coexistence of native inhabitants and other heritage aspects	Highly correlated literature [13,39,40,42]
	Integrity
	vitality	Whether tangible elements can be changed as cultural traditions are inherited and prosper
	Continuity

Note: Due to space limitations, only a portion of the code transformation results are presented in this paper. The 11 second-order concepts, which developed from unstructured random interviews, are listed in the table with an asterisk (*).

). Subsequently, the data were classified and selected according to the four descriptive dimensions of living heritage (heritage values, attributes, composition, and characteristics) without conducting selective coding, ultimately resulting in 16 heritage descriptors. The Delphi Method was then employed, inviting 10 volunteers (including 6 professionals and 4 villagers) to evaluate the measurement factors derived from the analysis of these heritage descriptors. With an agreement rate of 80% among the 10 volunteers across both rounds, a questionnaire was designed and further refined based on pre-research. The rationale for designing the questionnaire options is presented in Table 2.

To investigate the viewpoints and perspectives of a specific group of people concerning a particular issue or multiple issues, a survey research approach that utilizes questionnaires with respondents from the specific group is the most straightforward and conventional research method. The questionnaire comprises five sections. Apart from inquiries concerning the respondents’ basic information, it includes an exploration of perspectives on heritage value, attributes, composition, and characteristics. Given that traditional villages represent a highly complex form of heritage, they typically encompass multiple factors within the descriptions across the aforementioned four dimensions. Therefore, the survey questionnaire was designed to accommodate these characteristics by using two types of questions: single-answer and multiple-answer questions. The questions pertaining to heritage value and heritage composition are both formulated as multiple-answer versions. Additionally, ranking questions were incorporated to differentiate individual preference variations among respondents. The questions related to heritage attributes encompass both single-answer and multiple-answer formats. Specifically, the multiple-answer questions were designed to assess the essence of heritage in traditional villages, aiming to determine whether all aspects of this essence have been recognized. Conversely, the single-answer questions were utilized to gauge respondents’ perspectives on the nature of living heritage and its most essential component within traditional villages. Heritage characteristics represent intangible perceptions that respondents experience in traditional villages; consequently, this section of the survey employed measurements of attitudes and willingness. To this end, multiple 5-point semantic scales were developed, with all questions formatted as single-answer versions. These questions are presented alongside the research findings in the next section.

3.3. Surveying the Heritage Perspectives on Living Heritage

Field investigations based on questionnaires were carried out in accordance with the questionnaire. The reasons for selecting the sample areas and respondents for the field survey in this study are outlined below. Additionally, the sampling methods and sample sizes are also introduced here.

3.3.1. Research Area

Traditional cultures in many areas across the Asia-Pacific region have been passed down and evolved over thousands of years, remaining relatively unaffected by modern civilization [52]. The heritage of the Asia-Pacific region is highly esteemed in the field of contemporary heritage conservation due to its exceptional cultural continuity [53], which demonstrates typical characteristics of living heritage. Since 2012, the Chinese government has initiated a nationwide investigation and identification project focused on national-level village heritage (i.e., traditional Chinese villages). As of October 2023, a total of 8155 villages have been registered in the heritage list of traditional Chinese villages. A traditional Chinese village is defined as a village that was formed relatively early, possesses abundant cultural and natural resources, holds certain historical, cultural, scientific, artistic, economic, and social values, and thus deserves conservation [44]. They serve as ‘living fossils’ and ‘living museums’ and are an important vehicle for traditional Chinese culture and the spiritual homeland of the Chinese nation [43]. With that positioning, this study considers traditional Chinese villages as the quintessential exemplars of this type of cultural heritage and identifies representative traditional villages in the Luzhong region as the sites for data collection.

China is a vast country covering 9.6 million km², with its traditional villages scattered across diverse geographical environments and showcasing distinct regional traits influenced by local terroir. The Luzhong region (Luzhong means the central area of Shandong; Lu (鲁) is short for Shandong Province) of Shandong Province, known as the birthplace of Confucian culture, boasts numerous traditional villages that are widely distributed and deeply rooted in cultural heritage. Confucianism holds immense significance in Chinese civilization [54] and serves as the ideological foundation for cultural identity in East Asian countries such as Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Vietnam today [55]. Therefore, when discussing village samples from the perspective of the Chinese traditional cultural system, the villages in the Luzhong region are more representative. Furthermore, based on the ArcGIS (v 10.2) kernel density analysis of registered national and provincial traditional villages in Shandong Province, three prominent clusters have emerged: The Luzhong mountainous area located centrally in Shandong; the banks of the Grand [56]. Canal; the hilly area of Jiaodong Peninsula in eastern Shandong. Among them all, it is noteworthy that the Luzhong mountainous region exhibits both the highest concentration of and oldest settlements. Henceforth, this study has chosen to focus on village cases from this source area. To minimize any subtle influences arising from topography or variations in cultural systems, policies, and management practices, the study selected three representative villages from the 58 villages in the Traditional Chinese Villages list of Luzhong. The selected villages are Zhujiayu, Lijiatuan, and Sandefan (shown in Figure 4).

3.3.2. Data Collection

Different stakeholders engage in conservation due to diverse motives, thereby constituting a dynamic group of conservation stakeholders. The key stakeholders in the conservation of traditional villages in Luzhong encompass relevant government officials, experts in architectural heritage, folklorists, conservation planners, local villagers, and village committees (community organizations). In exceedingly rare circumstances, there are also enterprises, funding entities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social observers, and tourists. Through preliminary research and initial investigations, this study identified the following four categories of individuals: local villagers in the sample villages; government officials from the relevant departments; and relevant professionals and village committees (community organizations), who represent the key stakeholders in the conservation of traditional villages. As these key stakeholders assume the most crucial roles in safeguarding the villages, they are the planners, implementers, contributors, and beneficiaries of village conservation efforts.

The justifications for selecting and integrating the four response groups are delineated as follows. Local villagers are the residents and users of these sample villages, as well as the inheritors of this heritage, and they even constitute a part of it. Village committees are the autonomous institutions of rural communities in China, representing the common interests of villagers and are typically elected by local villagers within the community. Relevant professionals are crucial practitioners engaged in the conservation efforts of registered traditional villages in the sample area, mainly from domains such as architecture, planning, landscape, or history. The relevant government departments of traditional villages in Shandong Province are accountable for monitoring, reporting, deliberating, and guiding the daily management of various listed traditional villages’ conservation. From the perspective of knowledge background, position, and influence on village conservation, these four groups of people can be further categorized into local residents from within and experts from outside the traditional villages.

Different sampling methods were employed for the resident and expert respondents. For residents, the sampling frame was composed of the permanent population of three sample villages (Sandefan, Lijiatan, and Zhujiayu), and simple random sampling was utilized. Simple random sampling is appropriate for small-scale studies, and the sample size was determined through the qualitative data sample size calculation method (population rate method).

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{z^2\times e\times \left(1-e\right)}{d^2}}$$

(1)

Here, n denotes the requisite sample size, z represents the chosen confidence level, p represents the anticipated proportion error, and d represents the admissible error range. In accordance with the standard numerical settings (z = 1.96, e = 50%, and d = 5%) [57], the final calculation results in n = 384.16. Hence, at least 385 samples are required. The household population, actual resident population, and sampling situation of the sample village are listed in Appendix A. All the respondents were randomly selected from public spaces, such as squares or streets within the sample villages.

The number of experts involved in the conservation of sample traditional villages is conspicuously smaller than that of the sample village residents. As a consequence, disparate sampling methods were employed to ensure that the minimum sample size of 40, which was necessary for quantitative analysis, was achieved. Firstly, based on information from village conservation management officials, 7 organizations and 4 departments directly related to the conservation management of the sample villages were determined as the sampling frame for expert respondents (refer to Appendix B). Subsequently, through the utilization of equal probability sampling, expert respondents were selected based on the relevant expert lists provided by the responding units. Expert respondents were inquired via pre-arranged phone or email appointments for face-to-face or online questionnaire.

From October 2018 to October 2020, preliminary investigation research was conducted with non-interventional observations and unstructured random interviews. The surveys took place from June 2021 to October 2023 using the revised questionnaire with approval from Deakin University’s Ethics Research Committee. A total of 410 questionnaires were distributed in the designated areas, out of which 394 valid responses were collected, resulting in a validity rate of 96.09%. The sample size consisted of 320 valid responses from residents and 74 valid responses from experts.

Table 3. A statistical table of the sociological demographic characteristics survey.

Trait	Options	Resident		Expert
		Subtotal	Proportion (%)	Subtotal	Proportion (%)
Age	Under 29 years	72	22.50	6	8.10
	30–55 years	112	35.00	66	89.19
	Over 55 years	136	42.50	3	2.7
Gender	Male	148	46.25	42	56.76
	Female	172	53.75	32	43.24
Educational level	Elementary school	70	21.88	—	—
	Junior high school	126	39.38	—	—
	Senior high school	62	19.38	2	2.70
	Community college/TAFE	44	13.75	2	2.70
	Undergraduate	18	5.63	34	45.95
	Postgraduate	—	—	22	29.73
	Doctorate (PhD)	—	—	14	18.92
Occupation	Unemployed	54	16.87	—	—
	Farmer	144	45.00	—	—
	Worker/clerk	34	10.62	—	—
	Self-employed/freelance	50	15.62	—	—
	Civil servant/teacher	6	1.87	—	—
	Student	40	12.5	—	—
	University teacher	—	—	18	24.32
	Civil servant	—	—	6	8.10
	Planner/engineer	—	—	40	54.05
	Consulting agency staff	—	—	10	13.51
	Other	12	3.75	—	—

displays the characteristics of the 394 respondents whose questionnaires were deemed valid. On average, the residents were 57 years old, with a male–female ratio of 1:1.2. A vast majority (90.63%) were identified as native inhabitants of the villages (explanation in Appendix C). Educational attainment was junior high school for over half (58.76%) of the respondents, while most residents worked as farmers or freelancers by occupation. The experts had an average age of 45 years, with a male–female ratio of 1.31:1, and nearly all (94.6%) held a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Reliability analysis involved the assessment of the internal consistency and stability of the data derived from the scale within the questionnaire. This approach was used to ensure its reliability. The Cronbach α coefficient method is particularly suited for evaluating the reliability of subjective consciousness and cognitive questionnaires. Consequently, this study utilized the Cronbach α coefficient to assess the reliability of the questionnaire. Typically, the value of α ranges from 0 to 1; a Cronbach α value below 0.6 is generally considered indicative of insufficient internal consistency reliability, while values between 0.7 and 0.8 suggest considerable reliability, and those ranging from 0.8 to 0.9 indicate excellent reliability. Following verification, Cronbach α values of 0.777 and 0.781 were obtained for the village version and expert version, respectively, indicating that the questionnaires exhibit relatively high reliability.

3.4. Analyzing the Heritage Perspectives on Living Heritage

A statistical analysis was conducted on the data obtained from the questionnaire survey to investigate the differences in heritage perspectives between experts and local residents. The data were processed and analyzed using SPSS (v 26.0) and SPSSAU (v 23.0) online software, employing descriptive analysis and Pearson’s chi-square test.

3.4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis is a fundamental method of statistical analysis for social surveys that is commensurate with it [58]. The research method of descriptive analysis involves analyzing collected data to derive various quantitative features that reflect objective phenomena, thereby facilitating the determination of characteristics and trends in data, such as concentration or dispersion [59]. Describing the data characteristics of a specific population enables the determination of preferences, support, and satisfaction towards a certain variable within that population. Through descriptive analysis, the questionnaire data of this study can be utilized to calculate and compare frequency distributions or conduct correlation analyses between experts and residents. This facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the disparities and similarities in their perceptions of traditional villages as living heritage legacies, aiding in formulating conclusive hypotheses and conclusions.

3.4.2. Pearson’s Chi-Square Test

The Pearson chi-square test was originated by the statistician Karl Pearson and is particularly applicable to scenarios where both the rows and columns of the data are unordered variables. It is prevalently employed to test the independence of categorical variables (categorical data) and to compare different categorical variables without the data conforming to a normal distribution [60]. This hypothesis test calculates the extent of deviation between the observed values in a sample and the theoretically expected values [61]. For example, in this study, the Pearson chi-square test was used to examine the significance of differences in preferences between the two groups: experts and residents. The focus was on their choices for fixed-class options (without any quantitative correlation) within a specific theme. The results of the test were then analyzed to understand the variations in cognitive preferences between the different respondent groups regarding specific heritage conservation themes. Here, p_i represents the probability of x falling into the ith interval, k denotes the entire range of x values, n refers to the number of samples, and f_i indicates how many sample values fall into each interval. It is calculated as follows:

$$x^2={\sum }_{i=1}^k{\displaystyle \frac{{\left(f_i-n{p}_i\right)}^2}{n{p}_i}}$$

(2)

Research results usually rely on the p-value to conduct null hypothesis significance testing. When using the p-value to indicate the significance of differences between groups, it is commonly divided into segments such as 0.1/0.05/0.01. p ≤ 0.05 is considered statistically significant, suggesting a difference between the data for the two groups. p ≤ 0.01 is regarded as highly statistically significant, indicating a substantial distinction in preference between respondent groups for options within a specific category under a given topic. The statistical percentage of options in that category can be used to quantify the extent of this difference. At the same time, the greater the value of x² is, the more remarkable the difference between the two sets of numerical data becomes.

4. Results

4.1. Slight Disagreements over Heritage Attributes

The conservation stakeholders of traditional villages unanimously acknowledged that traditional villages embody living heritage, and their nature lies in the preservation of the cultural system within these communities. According to

Table 4. Respondents’ perspectives of traditional villages as living heritage.

Question	Option	Type (%)		Total	χ2	p
		Expert	Resident
Do you agree with traditional villages are living heritage/living relics?	Strongly agree	54 (72.97)	214 (66.88)	268 (68.02)	5.619	0.229
	Somewhat agree	18 (24.32)	79 (24.38)	97 (24.37)
	Indifferent	0 (0.00)	13 (4.38)	13 (3.55)
	Somewhat disagree	2 (2.70)	6 (1.88)	8 (2.03)
	Strongly disagree	0 (0.00)	8 (2.50)	8 (2.03)
	Totals	74	320	394

, a significant majority of residents (91.26%) and experts (97.29%) were inclined to view traditional villages as living heritage. Furthermore, a chi-square test yielded x² = 5.619 with p = 0.229 > 0.05, indicating no statistically significant difference between the two sets of data and demonstrating consistency in the results.

In the further perception measurement of the heritage nature of traditional villages, the expert group demonstrated a stronger consensus than the resident group regarding the conservation of traditional villages as safeguarding their cultural system rather than tangible or intangible cultural products. According to

Table 5. Results of the most important reason for conserving traditional villages.

Question	Option	Type (%)		Total	χ2	p
		Expert	Resident
The most important reason for conserving traditional villages is	To safeguard and inherit the essence of Chinese culture and tradition	66 (89.19)	201 (63.13)	268 (68.02)	21.320	0.000 **
	To safeguard the existing architecture and spatial pattern	4 (5.41)	40 (12.50)	44 (11.17)
	To safeguard traditional customs and skills	0 (0.00)	43 (13.13)	43 (10.66)
	To take conservation as an opportunity to develop economy	2 (2.70)	27 (8.75)	29 (7.61)
	Other	2 (2.70)	8 (2.50)	10 (2.54)
	Totals	74	320	394

Note: ** p < 0.01.

, the Pearson chi-square test indicated that x² = 21.320 with p = 0.000 ** < 0.01, supporting the existence of significant differences. This implied that there are disparities in viewpoints between the two groups of respondents on the heritage nature of traditional villages. A total of 89.19% of the respondents from the expert group supported ‘To safeguard and inherit the essence of Chinese culture and tradition’, which is far higher than the 5.41% selection rate of ‘To safeguard the existing architectures and spatial pattern’ in the second position of this group. The selection rate of ‘To safeguard and inherit the essence of Chinese culture and tradition’ for the residents was 63.13%, while the selection rates of ‘To safeguard traditional customs and skills’ and ‘To safeguard the existing architectures and spatial pattern’ in the second and third positions were 13.13% and 12.50%, respectively. The concentration of the experts’ choices on this viewpoint is more pronounced.

4.2. Varied Preferences for Heritage Values

The statistical data presented in

Table 6. Awareness regarding conservation purposes (heritage values) for traditional villages.

Question	Item	Type (%)		Sum (n = 394)
		Expert (n = 74)	Resident (n = 320)
What do you think is the purpose of conserving traditional villages? (multiple answers)	To inherit Chinese culture	71 (94.59)	282 (88.13)	353 (89.34)
	To maintain traditional architecture	61 (83.78)	254 (79.38)	315 (80.20)
	To inherit traditional techniques	54 (72.97)	168 (52.50)	222 (56.35)
	To keep/deposit nostalgia attachment/home-longing	54 (72.97)	157 (48.75)	211 (53.30)
	To get economic benefit	10 (13.51)	94 (29.38)	103 (26.40)
	To develop tourism	16 (21.62)	173 (54.37)	189 (48.22)
	To safeguard living heritage/living cultural relics	60 (81.08)	164 (51.25)	224 (56.85)
	Other	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)

Note: Chi-square test (χ²) = 36.066; p = 0.000.

illustrate that both residents and experts consistently recognized the cultural, artistic, and historical values of traditional villages. However, significant differences in preferences were observed across other value types. The results indicated that the experts exhibited a more pronounced preference for emotional and social values, whereas the residents demonstrated a preference for economic values. The results of the Pearson chi-square test yielded x² = 36.066 with p = 0.000 < 0.01, indicating substantial differences among the options. The selection rates effectively elucidate the variations in choices among respondents.

Although the two groups of respondents held relatively similar viewpoints on ‘To inherit Chinese culture’ and ‘To maintain traditional architecture’, they demonstrated distinct preference differences in overall conservation purposes (heritage values). It is known from Table 6 that the proportion of the expert group who chose ‘To inherit Chinese culture’ was 94.59%. The proportions of ‘To maintain traditional architecture’ and ‘To safeguard living heritage/living cultural relics’ also exceeded 80%. Additionally, the proportions of ‘To keep/deposit nostalgia attachment/home-longing’ and ‘To inherit traditional techniques’ were both 72.97%. Nevertheless, the proportions of choosing ‘To develop tourism’ and ‘To get economic benefit’ decreased significantly, being only 21.62% and 13.51%, respectively. This indicates that, in comparison with the latter two options, the expert group strongly agreed with the former five items. By contrast, the data from the resident group presented a different perspective. In the options of ‘To inherit Chinese culture’ and ‘To maintain traditional architecture’, the choices of this group were consistently close to or above 80%. However, the proportion of respondents choosing ‘To safeguard living heritage/living cultural relics’, ‘To develop tourism’, ‘To keep/deposit nostalgia attachment/home-longing’, and ‘To inherit traditional techniques’ was approximately 50%, suggesting that the residents had a certain degree of perception of these heritage purposes, and there were no significant preference differences among the types. As a result, the resident group did not have a stronger preference for the emotional value of keeping the subjects of homesickness and the social value of safeguarding living cultural relics in traditional villages as the expert group did. Instead, they placed greater emphasis on developing heritage tourism in traditional villages.

It is notable that among the seven alternative items, only two witnessed the support rate of the resident group exceeding that of the expert group, and these two items were the ones with the lowest selection rates among the expert group. These two options are ‘To get economic benefit’ and ‘To develop tourism’. Compared to other options, which had a selection rate of 72.97% at least, the expert group’s selection rate for ‘To development tourism’ experienced a significant decline to 21.62%. In contrast, the village group still maintained a choice rate of 54.38%. The support for ‘To get economic benefits’ was remarkably low in both groups, with only 13.51% among the experts and 29.38% among the residents.

4.3. Distinct Differences in Heritage Composition

The results reveal that the expert group attaches significance to all types of tangible heritage elements, whereas the resident group is selective regarding both tangible and intangible heritage elements, and the resident group evidently possesses more knowledge related to local community elements. To verify the respondents’ perception of heritage elements, a statistical survey and ranking of heritage elements were designed in this study. The Pearson chi-square test results presented in

Table 7. Awareness regarding heritage elements in traditional villages.

Question	Option	Type (%)		Total (n = 394)
		Expert (n = 74)	Resident (n = 320)
What are the contents you think make up traditional villages? (multiple answers)	Houses and buildings	74 (100.00)	304 (95.00)	378 (95.94)
	Street and construction pattern	74 (100.00)	228 (71.25)	302 (76.65)
	Landscape environment	66 (9.19)	242 (75.63)	308 (78.17)
	Farmlands and livestock	21 (27.03)	136 (42.50)	157 (39.59)
	Traditional folklore (customs)	66 (89.19)	264 (82.50)	330 (83.76)
	Cultural tradition	62 (83.78)	254 (79.38)	316 (80.20)
	Local dialect	42 (56.76)	153 (48.13)	195 (49.75)
	Traditional festivals	66 (89.19)	202 (63.13)	268 (68.02)
	Traditional diet	59 (81.08)	164 (51.25)	223 (56.85)
	Local residents	46 (62.16)	184 (57.50)	230 (58.38)
	Community rules and family habits	46 (62.16)	226 (70.63)	272 (69.04)
	Clan ethical order	36 (48.65)	159 (49.38)	195 (49.24)
	Neighborhood friendship	42 (56.76)	194 (60.62)	236 (59.90)
	Other	4 (5.41)	0 (0.00)	4 (1.02)

Note: Chi-square test (χ²) = 36.525; p = 0.000.

(x² = 36.525 with p = 0.000 < 0.01) indicate that there are significant differences in the selection ratios of each item among the respondent groups. This implies that the differences between the groups can be accounted for by the selection rates.

4.3.1. Perspectives Regarding Tangible Heritage Elements

Regarding tangible heritage elements, the expert group evidently showed a preference for the vast majority of types. However, for certain specific tangible heritage elements, the perception by the expert group was lower than that of the resident group. Table 6 reveals that the experts unanimously regarded ‘Houses and buildings’ and ‘Street and construction pattern’ as the most indispensable heritage elements of traditional villages, with an inclusion rate of 100%. By contrast, the selection rate of ‘Houses and buildings’ among the residents was marginally lower at 95%, and the preference rate for ‘Street and construction pattern’ decreased substantially to 71.25%. As for the category of ‘Landscape environment’, the expert group still showed a high selection rate of 89.19%. However, the resident group’s preference decreased to 75.63%. The respondents of the expert group highly valued all aspects of village heritage in terms of physical and material aspects. In comparison, the residents showed a greater interest in residential buildings, while they did not place as much importance on the streets, lanes, and environmental landscape surrounding the village as the experts. However, it is worth noting that while the expert group ranked ‘Farmland and livestock’ as the least-selected option, with 27.03% among the tangible elements, the residents gave a selection rate of 42.5%. This suggests that residents were more likely than experts to consider ‘Farmland and livestock’ an important composition of village heritage.

4.3.2. Perspectives Regarding Intangible Heritage Elements

Regarding intangible heritage elements, experts placed more pronounced emphasis on general descriptive terms and newly added types of heritage elements designated by official authorities, whereas the residents’ perception of these was marginally lower. The resident and expert groups both showed high preferences for ‘Traditional folklore (customs)’ with selection rates of 82.5% and 89.19%, respectively (refer to Table 7). Similarly, both groups highly favored ‘Cultural traditions’ with selection rates of 79.38% and 83.78%, respectively. These options were widely recognized by consensus among the respondents, indicating strong agreement between the two groups. However, the two groups of respondents showed a clear difference in preference for the other intangible heritage options. For instance, when it came to ‘Traditional festivals’, 63.13% of the resident group selected it, while an impressive 89.19% of the expert group chose it. Similarly, for ‘Traditional diet’, 51.25% of the resident group preferred it compared to a higher rate of 81.08% among the experts. These two options had the largest disparity in opinion between the two groups, with differences in selection rates amounting to 26% and 30%, respectively. While both experts and residents agreed on the importance of traditional folklore and cultural traditions as village heritage elements, there was a perceived difference between the two groups in terms of specific intangible heritage elements.

4.3.3. Perspectives Regarding Human-Related Heritage Elements

Regarding heritage elements associated with local residents or communities, the residents demonstrate a significantly stronger preference than the experts. The selection rate for this aspect significantly decreased for both groups of respondents when compared with their selection rates for the tangible and intangible heritage elements. However, the decline was more pronounced among the experts. Among the choices made by the expert group, this category had the lowest selection rate compared to the other two types of heritage elements. In contrast, the resident group experienced a smaller downward trend in its selection rates. Furthermore, in contrast to the scenario where the overall selection rate of the expert group exceeded that of the resident group for both tangible and intangible heritage elements, it was observed that the selection rate of the resident group surpassed that of the expert group for the heritage elements falling under this category. For example, the selection rate of the expert group for the option of ‘Local residents’ at 62.16% was slightly higher than that of the resident group at 57.50% (refer to Table 7). However, when it came to ‘Neighborhood friendship’ and ‘Community rules and family habits’, the selection rates were higher in the resident group. That is, for ‘Neighborhood friendship’, ‘Community rules and family habits’, and ‘Clan ethical order’, the selection rates in the resident group surpassed those of the expert group. The data result for this type is very different from the first two categories. It can be argued that the resident group’s heritage identification related to human-related heritage elements was higher than that of the expert group.

4.3.4. Ranking Heritage Elements in Traditional Villages

The ranking of heritage elements carried out to further evaluate the respondents’ preferences for heritage elements of traditional villages reveals that the experts have a more pronounced preference for tangible heritage elements, showing a high degree of consistency, whereas the resident group focuses on specific tangible and intangible heritage elements and holds more scattered viewpoints.

Table 8. Results on heritage element ranking by experts.

Option	Score	1st	2nd	3rd	Subtotal
Street and construction pattern	12.59	24 (34.29%)	44 (62.86%)	2 (2.86%)	70
Houses and buildings	11.76	44 (68.75%)	14 (21.88%)	6 (9.38%)	64
Traditional folklore (customs)	7.3	2 (4.55%)	8 (18.18%)	34 (77.27%)	44
Cultural traditions	2.32	0 (0%)	3 (28.57%)	10 (71.43%)	13
Landscapes environment	2.03	2 (16.67%)	2 (16.67%)	8 (66.67%)	12
Traditional festivals	0.97	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (100%)	6
Traditional diet	0.68	0 (0%)	2 (50%)	2 (50%)	4
Community rules and Family habits	0.38	2 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2
Local residents	0.32	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (100%)	1
Local dialect	0.32	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (100%)	1
Clan order	0	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0
Neighborhood Friendship	0	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0
Farmlands and livestock	0	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0

and

Table 9. Results on heritage element ranking by residents.

Option	Score	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	Subtotal
Houses and buildings	10.41	184 (75.41%)	36 (14.75%)	24 (9.84%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	244
Traditional folklore (customs)	6.72	28 (16.67%)	80 (47.62%)	58 (34.52%)	2 (1.19%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	168
Cultural traditions	6.2	34 (21.79%)	54 (34.62%)	64 (41.03%)	2 (1.28%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	156
Street and construction pattern	4.19	16 (15.38%)	62 (59.62%)	25 (25%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	103
Landscapes environment	3.08	18 (23.08%)	26 (33.33%)	32 (41.03%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	78
Community rules and Family habits	1.89	6 (12.5%)	18 (37.5%)	22 (45.83%)	2 (4.17%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	48
Local residents	1.79	16 (34.78%)	10 (21.74%)	16 (34.78%)	2 (4.35%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	46
Neighborhood Friendship	1.63	2 (4.55%)	10 (22.73%)	30 (68.18%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	44
Traditional festivals	1.61	4 (9.52%)	14 (33.33%)	20 (47.62%)	2 (4.76%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	42
Local dialect	0.69	6 (33.33%)	2 (11.11%)	6 (33.33%)	2 (11.11%)	0 (0%)	2 (11.11%)	18
Farmlands and livestock	0.66	6 (33.33%)	4 (22.22%)	4 (22.22%)	0 (0%)	2 (11.11%)	0 (0%)	18
Clan order	0.59	0 (0%)	2 (12.5%)	12 (75%)	0 (0%)	2 (12.5%)	0 (0%)	16
Traditional diet	0.34	0 (0%)	2 (20%)	6 (60%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	10

Note: The ranking of heritage elements by residents reaches up to the 13th position. The 7th–13th positions, with only one option for each position, are absent in this table due to their insignificant contribution to the corroborating results.

present the sorting outcomes (refer to Appendix D for ranking, scoring rules, and calculation method). The statistical data presented by the tables suggest that there is a marked disparity in the preferences for village heritage elements between experts and village respondents.

The expert group’s top three choices were ‘Houses and buildings’, ‘Street and construction pattern’, and ‘Traditional folklore (customs)’, with respective scores of 12.59, 11.76, and 7.3 (refer to Table 8). These scores highly surpassed the next options, namely, ‘Cultural traditions’ (2.32) and ‘Landscape environment’ (2.03), while all other options in the group scored less than 1 point. The expert group consistently selected specific options, indicating a high level of agreement among them. In contrast, the resident group ranked ‘Houses and buildings’ as the highest with a score of 10.41, followed by ‘Traditional folklore (customs)’ at 6.72 and ‘Cultural traditions’ at 6.2. Additionally, Street and construction pattern’ received a score of 4.19, while ‘Landscape environment’ scored 3.08. There were still four options that scored above 1.5 (refer to Table 9). The group of residents displayed a gradual decline in option scores, and the consistency of their choices was not particularly noticeable. This suggests a high level of agreement among the experts, while the opinions of the residents were more diverse.

4.4. Evident Discrepancies Regarding Heritage Characteristics

The findings reveal that respondents recognized the four aspects of heritage characteristics: vitality, continuity, symbiosis, and integrity. Specifically, they acknowledged the coexistence of various heritage elements, including local communities. However, their understanding of the vitality and continuity of traditional villages was comparatively limited, and there were notable discrepancies in perspectives regarding the symbiosis of specific elements and the overall integrity of village heritage legacies.

The data presented in

Table 10. Respondents’ perspectives regarding multiple heritage elements.

Question	Option	Type (%)		Total (n = 394)
		Expert (n = 74)	Resident (n = 320)
As far as you know, the village is listed in the heritage list because of (multiple answers)	Traditional architecture and morphological pattern	70 (94.59)	269 (84.06)	339 (86.04)
	Folk skills, traditional culture, and customs	54 (72.97)	210 (65.63)	264 (67.01)
	The inheritance and continuation of Chinese culture by local residents	58 (78.38)	194 (60.62)	252 (63.96)
	Other	6 (8.11)	6 (1.88)	12 (3.05)

Note: Chi-square test (χ²) = 6.378; p = 0.095.

indicate that the selection rates of various heritage components by both respondent groups exceed 60%. This suggests that respondents generally recognize the existence of both material and non-material elements, as well as the cultural inheritance and practices upheld by local residents within traditional villages. The Pearson chi-square test indicates a chi-square value of 6.378 with p = 0.095 > 0.05, signifying that the difference between the two respondent groups is not statistically significant. Furthermore, this implies that there is no difference in perspectives between the two groups concerning this topic.

The subsequent research findings show that both types of respondents demonstrated highly consistent approval regarding the inheritance and conservation of cultural traditions and customs by residents, and the expert group manifested a more intense approval.

Table 11. Awareness of the relationships of local residents and intangible heritage elements.

Question	Option	Type (%)		Total	χ2	p
		Expert	Resident
Should the traditional culture and customs in the village be inherited and preserved by local residents?	Yes	66 (89.19)	318 (99.38)	384 (97.46)	26.956	0.000 **
	Neutral	4 (5.41)	2 (0.63)	6 (1.52)
	No	4 (5.41)	0 (0.00)	4 (1.02)
	Totals	74	320	394

Note: ** p < 0.01.

reveals that the selection rates of the residents and experts reached as high as 99.38% and 89.19%, respectively. The Pearson chi-square test result, with x² = 26.956 and p = 0.000 < 0.01, indicates that the data exhibits statistically significant differences. This suggests that the approval of the resident group is lower than that of the expert group. Nevertheless, it still indicates that the respondents hold a strongly affirmative perspective on the inseparable symbiotic relationship between local residents and the village cultural system. This conclusion was further corroborated by another question. The results of the investigation into whether local communities are necessary elements for traditional villages to be regarded as living heritage demonstrate consistency (x² = 3.877 with p = 0.275 > 0.05) (

Table 12. Respondents’ perspectives regarding the local community as a heritage element.

Question	Item	Type (%)		Total	χ2	p
		Expert	Resident
Is the local community a necessary element in a traditional village as a living heritage legacy?	Strongly agree	46 (62.16)	190 (59.38)	236 (59.90)	3.877	0.275
	Agree	20 (27.03)	80 (25.00)	100 (25.38)
	Neutral	8 (10.81)	34 (10.63)	42 (10.66)
	Disagree	0 (0.00)	16 (5.00)	16 (4.06)
	Strongly disagree	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
	Totals	74	320	394

).

However, in the perspective measurement of the living heritage elements for vitality and continuity, no consensus was reached among the two types of respondents. The question ‘as long as culture and tradition flourish, if buildings and the village’s spatial pattern changed would you still consider it an authentic traditional village?’ seemingly measures which is more important among the tangible and intangible heritage elements. Nevertheless, this also implies a measurement of village characteristics, such as symbiosis, dynamics, and continuity.

Table 13. Awareness regarding the relationships between intangible and tangible heritage elements.

Question	Option	Type (%)		Total	χ2	p
		Expert	Resident
Do you agree with as long as culture and tradition flourish, if buildings and the village’s spatial pattern changed would you still consider it an authentic traditional village?	Strongly agree	12 (16.22)	60 (18.75)	72 (18.27)	3.709	0.447
	Somewhat agree	28 (37.84)	88 (27.50)	116 (29.44)
	Indifferent	16 (21.62)	68 (21.25)	84 (21.32)
	Somewhat disagree	10 (13.51)	56 (17.50)	66 (16.75)
	Strongly disagree	8 (10.81)	48 (15.00)	56 (14.21)
	Totals	74	320	394

indicates that the result of the Pearson chi-square test is x² = 3.709 with p = 0.447 > 0.05, which implies that the respondents’ viewpoints are consistent and lack statistically significant differences.

The experts concurred that local residents were an indispensable part of a village heritage legacy, whereas the residents held a completely contrary view. Judging from the Pearson chi-square test results presented in Table 13, there existed a highly significant clash in the percentage distribution of choices among experts and residents in different respondent groups (x² = 47.649 with p = 0.000 ** < 0.01). As presented in

Table 14. Respondents’ perspectives regarding the relationships between local residents and village entities.

Question	Option	Type (%)		Total	χ2	p
		Expert	Resident
Do you agree that the village is still an authentic traditional one when the local residents have moved out?	Strongly agree	0 (0.00)	58 (18.13)	58 (14.72)	47.649	0.000 **
	Agree	8 (10.81)	78 (24.38)	86 (21.83)
	Neutral	22 (29.73)	42 (13.13)	64 (16.24)
	Disagree	30 (40.54)	52 (16.25)	82 (20.81)
	Strongly disagree	14 (18.92)	90 (28.13)	104 (26.40)
	Totals	74	320	394

Note: ** p < 0.01.

, the results indicate that ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ were selected by 18.92% and 40.54% of the experts, respectively. A neutral stance was held by 29.73% of the experts. However, none of the experts chose ‘strongly agree’, and only 10.81% opted for ‘agree’. The data suggest that experts attribute significance to the involvement of local residents in identifying traditional village heritage. In contrast, there is a notable clash between the viewpoints of the resident group and the consensus among experts. The statistical findings reveal a lack of uniformity in opinions among surveyed residents on this matter, with 18.13% and 24.38%, respectively, expressing ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ regarding traditional villages being able to become heritage without local residents’ participation, while 28.13% and 16.25% of the residents oppose this view.

5. Discussion

5.1. Evident Differences in Heritage Perspectives Versus Unilateral Coping Measures

The research findings reveal significant disparities in heritage perspectives between experts and residents. However, the existing conservation measures are primarily aligned with expert viewpoints. The preservation of traditional villages in China is a government-initiated policy strategy [62]. The principles of conservation explicitly state that the views of residents must be respected and that preservation efforts should be collaborative [43]. Nevertheless, a comparative analysis of the research findings and current conservation policies indicates that the implementation of these practices aligns more closely with expert intentions. For instance, concerning heritage composition, experts exhibit an increased focus on various material elements within villages, including the surrounding natural landscape, which are regarded as criteria for identifying traditional villages. In contrast, agricultural scenes and items prioritized by residents fall out of both expert considerations and existing conservation measures. Regarding intangible heritage elements, experts demonstrate a greater emphasis on two of the newly incorporated aspects (traditional cuisine and traditional festivals) within the official criteria for defining traditional villages in China. Conversely, concerning human-related factors, such as village customs and regulations or neighborhood relationships, experts show a lack of knowledge of and cite a lack of sufficient protective measures for these elements, which are more pertinent to residents’ lives (although these factors are included within the existing heritage identification framework).

Significant disparities exist in heritage viewpoints; however, these are predominantly reflected in expert perspectives within current conservation strategies and measures, while the resident perspective lacks corresponding initiatives. This situation arises from the ineffective integration of resident viewpoints into the village heritage conservation framework, although residents play a crucial role as implementers of conservation practices and form an integral part of heritage. In contemporary conservation practices, certain local residents have exhibited reluctance to engage with specific conservation measures; concurrently, conservation professionals have expressed concerns regarding the efficacy of these initiatives, which has prompted discussions surrounding concepts such as ‘protective destruction’ and ’destructive conservation’ [22,51,63]. The findings of this study indirectly highlight the underlying causes for some residents’ resistance to conservation efforts. This is due to the fact that current conservation practices have not adequately addressed or responded to the perspectives or interests of local residents.

In summary, the findings of this study initially validate the rationality of the criticism within the global heritage sphere concerning the excessive employment of expert perspectives in heritage conservation. Secondly, within the global conservation practices for living heritage that advocate conservation strategies, whether it is joint engagement or community-driven, this study furnishes specific dimensions, contents, and extents of local heritage knowledge and perspectives that can be referred to for supplementation. To a certain extent, the results contribute to bridging the research gap raised by this area of research previously.

5.2. Shaping Heritage Perspectives as Conservation Tools

The disparities in preferences between experts and residents can be attributed to the respondents’ modes of interaction with and their knowledge of the villages. The research findings indicate that experts place greater emphasis on heritage perspectives that are officially recognized and endorsed by the state as well as by mainstream conservation academia, whereas resident groups prioritize content that is directly relevant to their daily lives. For instance, the initiative to preserve traditional Chinese villages is thought to have been inspired by the widely resonant notion of ‘nostalgia for one’s hometown [64]’. However, this sentiment is more profoundly experienced by those who have departed from their villages, while long-term residents often feel it the least. The expert group is likely to be the demographic that perceives this nostalgic attachment. Regarding knowledge and perspectives on village heritage, experts—being outsiders—tend to rely heavily on the information provided to them; consequently, their views align closely with current policies and official narratives, reflecting a higher degree of consistency.

These findings indicate that heritage perspectives are inextricably linked to individuals’ knowledge background, knowledge sources, positions, and held values and that the promotion of heritage knowledge constitutes crucial conservation measures. Under the authenticity requirements for living heritage conservation, which is highly dependent on the practices of local communities, influencing the heritage perspectives of stakeholders through the promotion of heritage knowledge is a more efficacious conservation approach than applied measures.

5.3. Insufficient Awareness of Heritage Characteristics Leads to Devitalized Conservation

According to the findings, both groups of respondents demonstrated a certain level of comprehension regarding the characteristics of traditional villages. However, their understanding of these appeared to lack depth. All participants acknowledged the significance of local residents in terms of heritage preservation, maintenance, and development; they also agreed with them being an integral part of the village heritage. This suggested that respondents possessed a certain degree of awareness concerning the necessity for coexistence and inter-relation among elements constituting living heritage. However, in the ensuing discussions regarding the symbiotic relationship between tangible and intangible elements, as well as the separation of local residents from their villages, distinct divisions emerged within each group, accompanied by infrequent instances of opposing viewpoints emerging between groups. These circumstances suggest that while respondents are aware of the importance of preserving the comprehensive cultural system of village heritage, their relevant knowledge remains quite limited. Based on the respondents’ performance, this content seems to be neither distinctly recognized nor insufficiently trained. In addition, the characteristics of living heritage have been neglected in both conservation practices and strategies for traditional villages.

The findings of this study suggest that a distinct knowledge disparity exists among stakeholders regarding the unique heritage characteristics of living heritage, as their understanding of the attributes, values, and composition of heritage varies. Consequently, this is a dimension that ought to be emphasized in conservation practices worldwide. Shifting heritage measures from an excessive focus on the current manifestation and elements of heritage to responding to the unique characteristics of living heritage, namely vitality, symbiosis, continuity, and integrity, is something that is globally necessary for heritage practices.

6. Conclusions

We conducted a comprehensive measurement and analysis of the differences between residents and experts in heritage perspectives on living heritage within the context of traditional Chinese villages. Firstly, by drawing upon prior research, the description of living heritage was delineated. Subsequently, an assessment of heritage perspectives and a corresponding questionnaire tailored to traditional Chinese villages were developed. Finally, field surveys were conducted across selected villages in the Luzhong region.

The results indicated varying degrees of differences in the heritage perspectives among key stakeholders, residents, and experts across different dimensions. While respondents exhibited a unanimous understanding of heritage attributes associated with traditional villages, notable preference divisions emerged regarding different heritage values and composition. Experts predominantly favored historical, cultural, social, and emotional value, whereas residents showed a stronger inclination towards economic value. In terms of heritage composition, experts tended to concentrate their choices excessively on tangible aspects while demonstrating a cognitive gap concerning intangible content and human-related elements pertinent to village life—such as agricultural production scenarios and artifacts, community rules, family habits, and clan ethical orders. Furthermore, significant contrasts in viewpoints were observed between the two respondent groups regarding certain aspects of the heritage characteristics of traditional villages—especially the symbiotic relationship between material and immaterial elements—highlighting a general lack of knowledge in this aspect.

The findings of this study provided valuable directions for conservation strategies of living heritage. Concurrently, this study offers empirical support for the refinement of conservation strategies regarding traditional Chinese villages. In safeguarding living heritage, the initial step should involve sharing and weighing the perspectives of key stakeholders to ensure that the strategy aligns with declared heritage perspectives. Secondly, heightened importance ought to be attributed to the promotion of heritage knowledge as an essential measure for safeguarding living heritage. Finally, augmenting the awareness of stakeholders with respect to the characteristics of living heritage is urgently demanded by global living heritage conservation strategies.

Despite these contributions, the study has several limitations. While this study identified the distinctive characteristics of stakeholders’ perspectives regarding living heritage, several aspects have not been further investigated. For instance, a cross-comparison of heritage perspectives among stakeholder classifications in relation to individual traits has not been undertaken, nor have further tracking investigations into the significantly different perspectives. Furthermore, the research data obtained from the case study are confined to the sample area and may not be universally applicable to other living heritage contexts. For the next step, studies in additional case areas will be conducted to validate the applicability of the conclusions with a larger sample size. Meanwhile, after the recommendations proposed in this study have been implemented, further research will also augment cross-analysis, especially underpinned by the periodic tracking and observation of the evolution of different perspectives between experts and residents, as an extension of this study.