Recognition and Evaluation of Architectural Heritage Value in Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages

Abstract

This study investigates the value identification and assessment of architectural heritage in Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village. As representative 20th-century settlements of returned overseas Chinese, these villages demonstrate distinctive architectural integration of Southeast Asian and Minnan architectural traditions while preserving historical memories of diasporic communities, though systematic evaluation remains lacking. An innovative multidimensional assessment framework combining qualitative and quantitative approaches was developed, with spatial analysis and value evaluation conducted on 247 representative structures employing Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), Delphi method, and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Three primary findings emerged: (1) Spatial distribution patterns revealed core-periphery clustering characteristics, with Xiamen and Zhangzhou forming high-density cores (23.5% concentration ratio) showing KDE values of 4.138–4.976, reflecting historical migration networks and policy-driven site selection logic. (2) Heritage values were categorized into seven dimensions, with historical significance (0.2904), artistic merit (0.1602), and functional utility (0.1638) identified as primary value drivers. (3) A four-tier evaluation system quantified heritage significance through weighted indices, demonstrating 53.89% dominance of intrinsic value components, with historical and cultural factors contributing 29.04% and 18.52% respectively. Assessment outcomes indicated 23.5% of structures scoring above 80 points, particularly highlighting Xiamen’s comprehensive preservation value. This research advances traditional conservation paradigms through its pioneering “value identification–quantitative assessment–conservation and utilization” closed-loop model, providing methodological innovation applicable to similar Overseas Chinese communities. The developed framework fills critical research gaps in the systematic evaluation of Southern Min diaspora architecture while establishing quantitative parameters for decision-making synergy between cultural preservation and urban–rural development. By transcending conventional single-dimensional approaches, this study offers replicable analytical tools for differentiated conservation strategies and policy formulation.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background

The protection and sustainable development of 20th-century architectural heritage, as a physical carrier of modern civilizational memory, has become a central issue of international concern. From the 1986 Nomination of Contemporary Architecture for World Heritage to the 2008 Wuxi Recommendations on the Protection of 20th-Century Heritage, international consensus has been gradually formed, with 20th-century architecture increasingly incorporated into the cultural heritage protection system. This process emphasizes its historical value in technological innovation, social transformation, and cultural integration. Since the State Administration of Cultural Heritage issued the Notice on Strengthening the Protection of 20th-Century Architectural Heritage in 2008 [1], China’s cognitive understanding and practical protection of modern architectural heritage have been continuously deepened. Against this backdrop, Overseas Chinese New Villages, as typical examples of hometown heritage, have become important practical cases within this heritage system, distinguished by their cross-cultural architectural features and material embodiment of historical memory. Constructed in the mid-20th century, the Overseas Chinese New Villages along the Fujian coast served as both carriers of national overseas Chinese policies and physical embodiments of historical memory. Integrating architectural characteristics of Southeast Asia and southern Fujian, they constitute a unique type within the 20th-century architectural heritage system, combining regional distinctiveness and historical significance [2].

The Overseas Chinese New Villages along the Fujian coast, established during the mid-20th century, were strategically conceived in the 1950s–1960s as a response to anti-Chinese sentiment in Southeast Asia and to attract overseas remittance investments. Characterized by a unit-based layout integrating residential structures with courtyards, along with a synthesis of red-brick construction and Southeast Asian architectural elements, these settlements–distributed across cities such as Xiamen, Zhangzhou, and Quanzhou–constitute architectural ensembles of significant regional and historical value. However, the distinctive nature of this heritage, attributable to its relatively recent construction period, predominantly private ownership, and considerations of diaspora privacy, has resulted in scholarly attention being disproportionately focused on traditional village conservation, leaving systematic research on this specific settlement type notably underdeveloped [3]. Existing studies are predominantly concentrated on diaspora architectural heritage in locations like Guangzhou and Shanghai, revealing two critical academic gaps concerning the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages: Regionally, their value assessment–as integral components of Fujian’s diaspora culture, urban history, and heritage system–is essential for ensuring the comprehensiveness of the regional heritage framework. Methodologically, scientific assessment is required to provide quantitative foundations and pathway guidance for conservation and adaptive reuse, thereby mitigating subjective decision-making and ensuring the optimal allocation of conservation resources. Current research remains largely limited to historical contextualization and stylistic description, with insufficient application of quantitative evaluation systems. As a result, a scientifically robust assessment framework and corresponding conservation strategies have yet to be established, hindering effective responses to regional challenges such as inadequate recognition and protection. Therefore, the development and application of such a framework are imperative for informing future conservation and utilization practices [4].

1.2. Literature Review

1.2.1. Research on Architectural Heritage of the 20th Century

The protection and recognition of twentieth-century heritage have been subjects of debate for an extended period. Due to the diverse typology of twentieth-century architectural heritage, research has evolved from singular conservation efforts toward systemic approaches integrating environmental and living factors. Early research focused primarily on the interaction between architecture and the natural environment, as evidenced by American scholar Katie Campbell’s analysis of Frank Lloyd Wright’s “architecture integrated with nature” philosophy in Twentieth-Century Landmarks in Landscape Design, and Richard Haag’s innovative practices in transforming derelict industrial sites into public spaces [5]. These works exemplify the incorporation of living scenarios and environmental elements into the heritage conservation framework. The Docomomo Process: Experiences in Conserving Modern Architecture (1988–2012) systematically examined five core themes–including the evolution of modern heritage conservation and its cultural relevance–through interdisciplinary research involving thirty international experts, providing theoretical reflections and practical experiences for global conservation efforts [6]. Since 2008, when Shan Jixiang systematically examined the concepts and practices of twentieth-century heritage conservation and Zhang Song advocated for the development of a localized theoretical framework, research has progressively established a comprehensive framework encompassing value assessment and conservation strategies, often using industrial heritage as an entry point. The inscription of the Fagus Factory on the World Heritage List in 2011, followed by the designation of eight Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in 2019, reflects the international community’s deepening recognition of twentieth-century architectural heritage value [7]. This recognition has facilitated the systematization of conservation institutions, assessment criteria, and practical methodologies.

The advent of digital technologies has propelled the digital preservation of architectural heritage to the forefront of research. This is exemplified by the work of scholar Olga Mykhailyshyn in 2021, who utilized 3D mapping technology to create detailed facsimiles and archival data for Ukrainian architectural heritage, thereby establishing an actionable technical pathway for its preventive conservation [8]. While domestic research in this field commenced later, significant progress is evidenced by the inclusion of over 120 Beijing buildings in the seventh cohort of the China 20th-Century Architectural Heritage List, announced in 2023 [9]. This milestone signifies that research has progressed beyond the initial phase of theoretical introduction and is now progressively shifting its focus towards localized practice. Consequently, a more tailored research framework–encompassing value recognition, assessment systems, and conservation strategies–is being developed to address the specific needs of heritage context.

Analysis of the existing literature reveals that while a relatively comprehensive theoretical framework for examining twentieth-century architectural heritage has been established, a notable gap persists in the systematic analysis of Overseas Chinese Residential Heritage. Particularly lacking are in-depth investigations into the value deconstruction, conservation models, and cultural identity mechanisms specific to Overseas Chinese enclaves. This gap necessitates an expansion of research dimensions within a cross-cultural context to address these critical scholarly deficiencies.

1.2.2. Research on the Value of Architectural Heritage

The value of architectural heritage is traditionally defined by its historical, artistic, and scientific significance, assessed according to key indicators such as performance, distinctive characteristics, and the degree to which human needs are met [10]. For an extended period, traditional heritage research has been focused on registered heritage buildings, with value judgments predominantly derived from expert perspectives. With the academic community’s in-depth exploration of the relationships between material and intangible cultural heritage and their surrounding environments, the understanding of the historical, artistic, and scientific values of heritage has become more comprehensive, and multiple values, such as economic functions and social impacts, have increasingly been acknowledged. Within this context, the conceptualization of twentieth-century architectural heritage value has transcended traditional frameworks, prompting efforts to explore assessment methodologies that more accurately reflect its unique attributes (Table 1). While the theoretical foundation for objective value assessment was established early and has been extensively developed, the theory of perceived value in architectural heritage, despite receiving growing attention, continues to be refined in terms of its conceptual frameworks and technical methodologies.

In recent years, assessment frameworks for heritage values have been constructed by scholars through diverse approaches and methodologies. When applied to twentieth-century architectural heritage, initial recommendations regarding indicator selection, evaluation methods, and implementation protocols were proposed by Lin et al. (2020) [11]. As research has advanced, the critical importance of architectural heritage value assessment for informing conservation and adaptive reuse strategies has been increasingly recognized within the academic community. However, traditional assessment systems, predominantly centered on historical significance, are often found inadequate for addressing the complex spectrum of twentieth-century architectural heritage. While established frameworks exist internationally–such as the UNESCO Cultural Landscape criteria and the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) matrix system [12]–specialized assessment systems tailored specifically to architectural heritage remain underdeveloped. Consequently, the formulation of new assessment frameworks necessitates the inclusion of multiple stakeholders and the integration of diverse value perspectives. This comprehensive approach is essential for achieving scientifically rigorous evaluations and facilitating effective conservation alongside sustainable utilization of heritage resources.

Table 1. A list of the main types of research value of the literature.

Related research	Time	Literature/Figures	Value System
	1902	Alois Riegl [13]	The value of the era, historical value, commemorative value, practical value, and the new value created.
	1933	Charter of Athens [14]	With artistic, historical, and scientific interests
	1964	Venice Charter [15]	Cultural value, historical value, artistic value
	1972	World Heritage Convention [16]	It has outstanding universal value from the perspectives of history, art, science, conservation, and aesthetics
	1975	European Charter of the Architectural Heritage [17]	Spiritual value, social value, cultural value, economic value
	1979	Burra Charter [18]	Aesthetic value, historical value, scientific value, social value
	1982	Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics [19]	Historical value, artistic value, scientific value
	1982	Felton [20]	Architectural value, aesthetic value, historical value, documentary value, archaeological value, economic value, social value, political and spiritual, or symbolic value
	1993	Prukin [21]	Historical value, urban planning value, architectural aesthetic value, artistic sentiment value, scientific restoration value, functional value
	1997	Lü Zhou [22]	Historical value, artistic value, scientific value, cultural value, and emotional value
	1998	Zhu Guangya [23]	Historical value, scientific value, artistic value, spatial layout value, practical value
	2000	China’s Guidelines for the Conservation of Cultural Relics and Monuments [24]	Historical value, artistic value, scientific value, social value, cultural value
	2004	Wang Shiren [25]	Self-value (historical value), social value (use value)
	2005	Xi’an Declaration [26]	Formally propose the environmental value
	2008	Xu Songling [27]	Aesthetic value, spiritual value, historical value, sociological value, anthropological value, symbolic value, and economic value
	2008	Randall Mason [28]	Economic value and other cultural values
	2018	Xu Jinliang [29]	Intrinsic value (historical, scientific, artistic, environmental value), extrinsic value (social, cultural value), functional value
	2022	Edyta Łaszkiewicz [30]	Architectural value, functional value, aesthetic value, social value, and ecological value
	2023	Li Dengyue [31]	Basic value, core value, and ancillary value
	2025	Lu Jing [32]	Scientific value, artistic value, social value, and practical value
	2025	Qiao Xiaoyang [33]	Historical value, artistic value, scientific value, social value, cultural value

Table 1. A list of the main types of research value of the literature.

Related research	Time	Literature/Figures	Value System
	1902	Alois Riegl [13]	The value of the era, historical value, commemorative value, practical value, and the new value created.
	1933	Charter of Athens [14]	With artistic, historical, and scientific interests
	1964	Venice Charter [15]	Cultural value, historical value, artistic value
	1972	World Heritage Convention [16]	It has outstanding universal value from the perspectives of history, art, science, conservation, and aesthetics
	1975	European Charter of the Architectural Heritage [17]	Spiritual value, social value, cultural value, economic value
	1979	Burra Charter [18]	Aesthetic value, historical value, scientific value, social value
	1982	Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics [19]	Historical value, artistic value, scientific value
	1982	Felton [20]	Architectural value, aesthetic value, historical value, documentary value, archaeological value, economic value, social value, political and spiritual, or symbolic value
	1993	Prukin [21]	Historical value, urban planning value, architectural aesthetic value, artistic sentiment value, scientific restoration value, functional value
	1997	Lü Zhou [22]	Historical value, artistic value, scientific value, cultural value, and emotional value
	1998	Zhu Guangya [23]	Historical value, scientific value, artistic value, spatial layout value, practical value
	2000	China’s Guidelines for the Conservation of Cultural Relics and Monuments [24]	Historical value, artistic value, scientific value, social value, cultural value
	2004	Wang Shiren [25]	Self-value (historical value), social value (use value)
	2005	Xi’an Declaration [26]	Formally propose the environmental value
	2008	Xu Songling [27]	Aesthetic value, spiritual value, historical value, sociological value, anthropological value, symbolic value, and economic value
	2008	Randall Mason [28]	Economic value and other cultural values
	2018	Xu Jinliang [29]	Intrinsic value (historical, scientific, artistic, environmental value), extrinsic value (social, cultural value), functional value
	2022	Edyta Łaszkiewicz [30]	Architectural value, functional value, aesthetic value, social value, and ecological value
	2023	Li Dengyue [31]	Basic value, core value, and ancillary value
	2025	Lu Jing [32]	Scientific value, artistic value, social value, and practical value
	2025	Qiao Xiaoyang [33]	Historical value, artistic value, scientific value, social value, cultural value

1.2.3. Research Synthesis on Overseas Chinese New Village

Overseas Chinese New Villages represent uniformly planned, low-rise, garden-style residential areas constructed by the government in the early years of the People’s Republic of China to accommodate returned overseas Chinese [34]. Characterized by a fusion of Chinese and Western architectural styles, these settlements embody significant historical and cultural narratives. Research on this distinctive twentieth-century architectural heritage, scholarly research on The Overseas Chinese New Villages emerging from a unique socio-political context, initially focused on exploring the relationship between repatriation policies and built environment practices [35]. In 1957, the foundational work of Chinese scholar Zhu Pu was published, systematically outlining the construction philosophy and implementation details of these villages while emphasizing their role as exemplary case studies integrating New China’s diaspora policies with residential development [36]. By 2007, investigations into the conservation and regeneration strategies for their historic districts were undertaken by scholars, including Zhang Lei and Yuan Yuan, who advocated for a “structured yet adaptable” planning approach necessitating a balance between preservation and development [37]. After 2010, researchers including Wang Min and Tian Yinsheng analyzed the changes in Overseas Chinese New Villages from the perspectives of property rights transformation and evolving social structures [38]. Their study proposed a flexible regeneration model combining top–down policy guidance with bottom–up resident participation. Collectively, these studies elucidate the core characteristics of the Overseas Chinese New Villages, thereby providing a critical theoretical foundation for their value assessment, conservation, and adaptive reuse as significant twentieth-century architectural heritage.

Despite sustained and in-depth scholarly inquiry into Overseas Chinese New Villages since the twentieth century, current research is confronted with dual challenges: significant geographical imbalance and a lack of systematic analytical frameworks [39]. Scholarly attention has been predominantly concentrated on architectural heritage in major diaspora hubs such as Guangzhou and Shanghai, leaving critical academic gaps in the systematic investigation of the Fujian case. Regionally, the persistent focus on Guangzhou has resulted in a conspicuous absence of systematic studies on the Minnan diaspora settlements. This geographical disparity has contributed to fragmented conservation practices and the absence of a cohesive regeneration framework. Methodologically, existing research tends to be confined to singular dimensions–such as residential planning, landscape design, or policy interpretation–while a systematic analysis of the holistic value system specific to Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages remains underdeveloped [40]. Furthermore, assessments have largely been restricted to unidimensional economic evaluations from a twentieth-century architectural heritage perspective, failing to implement quantitative multidimensional value assessments. Consequently, a dedicated value assessment framework for the Fujian settlements has not been established, rendering conservation and adaptive reuse efforts scientifically underinformed and thus inadequate for addressing regional challenges like insufficient recognition and protection. The development and application of such a comprehensive framework are therefore imperative for effective heritage practice.

Table 2. Overseas Chinese New Village research literature.

Scholar	Year	Core Content	Research Method	Limitation
Zhu Pu [36]	1957	This study elaborates on the construction philosophy and implementation specifics of Overseas Chinese New Village.	Literature analysis method	This study is limited by the integration of the spatial characteristics and theoretical research of the Overseas Chinese New Village. It lacks practice-oriented analysis, systematic synthesis, and fails to establish a comprehensive overall evaluation framework.
Wang Min [41]	2012	This study systematically analyzes the spatiotemporal evolution of urban morphology and its driving mechanisms by examining transformations in urban form, socioeconomic dynamics, and socio-spatial structures across distinct chronological phases, encompassing both the target area and its adjacent urban contexts.	Literature analysis method
Wang Min [42]	2012	The discussion on the various renovation methods of Overseas Chinese Village by different owners due to multiple changes in property rights reflects the materialization trend of humanistic landscapes and presents unique regional characteristics.	Literature analysis method
Chen Yufan [43]	2018	From a policy perspective, this paper explores the construction and development of Overseas Chinese Village and analyzes its planning characteristics as a high-quality residential area for returned overseas Chinese in combination with the specific historical background.	Literature research method Observation method Comparative analysis method
Sang Xiaole [44]	2020	Axial analysis and proxy calculation were conducted on the current situation of overseas Chinese settlements and the external space after integration and improvement, verifying the research hypothesis that the demolition of abandoned buildings in hollow villages is an effective integration method for protecting the cultural characteristics of the region. Further, a sustainable development strategy was proposed.	space syntax
L Lihong [45]	2024	A comprehensive analysis of the cultural value of traditional villages of overseas Chinese in Lingnan is conducted, and their cultural manifestations in terms of architecture, folk customs, beliefs, etc., are deeply explored, with the expectation of revealing the potential cultural resources of these villages in the context of the integration of culture and tourism.	Literature research method Field investigation
Chen Wenchao, [46]	2025	The architectural form of the single-family residences of returned overseas Chinese in Fuzhou, China, was studied through planning layout and architectural combination, including the floor plan layout, appearance characteristics, and detailed decoration.	Literature research method Field investigation
Chen Jianyi [47]	2012	The construction process and development history of Guangzhou’s Overseas Chinese Village should be reviewed and summarized.	Literature research method	The existing research is geographically confined to Guangzhou, with its content lacking comprehensiveness and diversity, coupled with an absence of follow-up development studies. Consequently, it fails to thoroughly and comprehensively unveil the holistic landscape and underlying value of Overseas Chinese Village.
Luo Zizhe [48]	2019	From the perspective of users, the research method of post-use evaluation was employed to study the residents’ evaluations after the micro-renovation of Huaqiao New Village was completed. Analyze and summarize the experiences and deficiencies of micro-updates, and put forward the next update strategies and suggestions.	Literature analysis method Post-use Evaluation (POE)
Wang Min [2]	2023	The daily experiences of the long-term residents in the urban heritage revitalization process of Guangzhou Overseas Chinese Village (GOCV), as the first overseas Chinese village in China, were investigated.	Literature research method
Zhu Qi [49]	2025	Taking Taishan Overseas Chinese Hometown as an example, this paper analyzes the ideological concepts of the modern overseas Chinese hometown society in Guangdong.	Literature research method

lists representative studies related to Overseas Chinese New Village, summarizing the research period, core content, and limitations of these scholars’ studies.

1.3. Research Contributions

While prior research has established foundational knowledge in this domain, limited attention has been devoted to the specific context under investigation. To address this gap and define the research direction, the following hypotheses are proposed regarding the Overseas Chinese New Villages in Fujian Province:

(1) As a quintessential exemplar of twentieth-century architectural heritage, the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages are recognized as embodying a multidimensional value system integrating historical, artistic, scientific, cultural, social, environmental, and functional significance. These interconnected values are hierarchically structured and collectively constitute the integrity of this living heritage.

(2) A value assessment framework is developed in this study to scientifically quantify the heritage value hierarchy of these settlements. The resulting evaluation system, formulated through integrated qualitative and quantitative methodologies, enables spatial visualization and quantitative analysis of heritage values [50].

(3) Building upon value assessment metrics, tiered conservation and utilization strategies can be formulated through “graded classification and dynamic adaptation”. It is hypothesized that implementing differentiated approaches for high-scoring, medium-scoring, and low-scoring heritage assets will establish a responsive management system. This framework is designed to achieve synergistic development of heritage preservation, functional revitalization, and community engagement across all value tiers.

This study employs a comprehensive methodology integrating literature review [51], Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), Delphi technique, and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [52,53,54] to systematically examine the Overseas Chinese New Villages. Significant contributions are made to address the academic gaps identified in the literature review: Regionally, spatial distribution patterns are revealed through ArcGIS 10.8 [55] and KDE analysis of 247 coastal Fujian specimens, marking the first systematic investigation of Minnan diaspora settlements. This foundational work fills a critical research void while providing essential support for enhancing regional heritage integrity. Methodologically, a four-tiered evaluation framework comprising target, indicator, element, and factor Levels is developed. Through quantitative weighting of core assessment factors, limitations of qualitative-only approaches are transcended, establishing an integrated “multidimensional value analysis–quantitative assessment–conservation and utilization” paradigm. The research not only provides a scientific interpretation of the settlements’ transcultural architectural characteristics and historical memory value through multidimensional quantification, but also formulates differentiated strategies based on evaluation metrics. These operational pathways address the critical lack of targeted conservation approaches while advancing the transformation of twentieth-century architectural heritage research from fragmented descriptions toward scientifically grounded evaluation systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Subjects and Study Area

The Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages are predominantly distributed across coastal Southern Fujian, encompassing cities such as Xiamen, Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, Putian, and Fuzhou [56]. These settlements were established as distinctive clusters centered on repatriated overseas Chinese communities. Characterized by linear spatial extension along port corridors and diaspora networks, their distribution pattern reflects unique historical, cultural, and geographical attributes (as shown in Figure 1). Bounded by the Central Fujian Mountains to the north and the Taiwan Strait to the south, the region exhibits diverse topography where hills, plains, and coastal zones interact to form a complex territorial matrix for settlement development. The spatial organization and morphological features of these Overseas Chinese New Villages demonstrate the integration of top–down deliberate planning with bottom–up cultural adaptation, simultaneously mirroring the identity reconstruction processes and evolving residential needs of the diaspora population [57].

This study integrates historical documentation, geographic information data, and field investigations to precisely geolocate 247 Overseas Chinese New Village structures across five Fujian cities using ArcGIS 10.8 [55]. Among these, 189 buildings were identified as retaining either complete integrity or recognizable original features, preserving authentic characteristics from the 1950s to the 1960s, such as “residential unit with courtyard” layouts and fair-faced red brick facades. Their transportation networks and public service facilities (e.g., Overseas Chinese Kindergartens, sports stadiums) remain operational, thereby maintained as living exemplars of repatriate resettlement policies and community planning.

2.2. Research Design

As a quintessential exemplar of twentieth-century architectural heritage, the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages require a value assessment that incorporates multidimensional attributes spanning historical, artistic, and scientific significance. The questionnaire design is targeted at identifying core evaluation factors through expert consultation and determining their weighting coefficients. Eventually, an assessment framework is constructed using the Delphi method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This systematic approach provides a foundation for subsequent single-building evaluations and formulates tiered conservation strategies.

2.2.1. Questionnaire Design

The research questionnaire was developed based on international heritage conservation theory and twentieth-century architectural heritage scholarship, guided primarily by the China Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites [58]. This foundation was supplemented with the value framework proposed by Felton and the environmental value theory articulated in the Xi’an Declaration [26]. The core framework revolves around a three-round screening mechanism of the Delphi method and the computational logic of AHP weights to ensure the scientific validity of the questionnaire (Appendix A).

The questionnaire was structured to comprise three primary components: expert demographic profiling, value assessment index system scoring, and open-ended commentary collection. For expert profiling, metrics were established regarding research specialization, professional credentials, and years of experience, with particular emphasis placed on prior engagement with Overseas Chinese New Village research and its duration (e.g., exceeding five years, three to five years). This approach ensured representation across architecture, heritage conservation, and sociology disciplines, resulting in the selection of qualified evaluators with domain-specific expertise.

2.2.2. Data Processing

Following questionnaire collection, expert feedback data were subjected to statistical analysis. Through iterative Delphi rounds, evaluation factors exhibiting high frequency and strong consensus were systematically refined, culminating in a finalized assessment framework: the top 37 factors were prioritized in Round 1, reduced to 30 in Round 2, with 23 consensus factors ultimately retained in the final round. Subsequently, importance ratings from the questionnaires were processed using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology. Weight coefficients across all hierarchical levels were calculated and validated through consistency checks to ensure scientific allocation. This procedure yielded a comprehensive weighting matrix for the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages’ heritage value assessment system, establishing an empirical basis for subsequent single building evaluations and tiered conservation strategies.

2.3. Research Methods

A mixed-methodology approach integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques—including literature review [51], Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), Delphi technique, and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [52,53,54]—was employed to construct a multidimensional assessment framework for evaluating the heritage values of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages. The validity and applicability of these research methods within architectural heritage assessment have been demonstrated, and they have been extensively validated in heritage studies for spatial analysis, expert consensus building, and multi-criteria decision-making. A spatial database was constructed using ArcGIS to geolocate Overseas Chinese New Village structures across Fujian, with Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) employed to reveal spatial clustering patterns. Concurrently, architectural values were examined through literature review, establishing key dimensions of heritage significance. Subsequently, a comprehensive evaluation framework is then constructed by integrating the Delphi method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), resulting in a systematic and multidimensional approach to value recognition and assessment (as shown in Figure 2). Unlike novel research approaches such as grounded theory—which is better suited for developing theories inductively from qualitative data—the methods selected for this study enable the systematic quantification of heritage value, the identification of spatial patterns, and the calculation of weights based on a well-defined evaluation framework. A structured assessment of predefined value dimensions is required, making quantitative analytical tools more suitable for ensuring accuracy in heritage conservation and policy applicability [20].

2.3.1. Literature Analysis Method

The literature analysis method, involving the critical interpretation of historical records, policy texts, and scholarly publications, is employed to identify gaps in knowledge and delineate research trajectories [59]. Within the field of heritage conservation, this method is commonly utilized to construct multidimensional value frameworks. Through a comprehensive review of international literature concerning value systems research and studies focused on architectural heritage value classification, it was revealed that existing research lacks a systematic assessment of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages. This identified gap establishes the innovative contribution of the present study. By analyzing the distinctive characteristics of these Overseas Chinese New Villages, their core value dimensions were identified. Subsequently, a multidimensional value framework was constructed for the Overseas Chinese New Villages, laying the theoretical groundwork for the assessment of their value systems.

2.3.2. Kernel Density Estimation (KDE)

Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) is a nonparametric spatial statistical technique employed to analyze spatial aggregation patterns of point features. Its core principle involves the smoothing of discrete point data through a kernel function to generate a continuous density surface. Within architectural applications, KDE is utilized to mathematically estimate and visually represent the density of point features (such as heritage value or distribution characteristics) within building clusters, thereby serving as a spatial analysis method to reveal their degree of spatial agglomeration and identify hotspot areas. For the Overseas Chinese New Villages, the geographic coordinates of 247 buildings were georeferenced within this study. Parametric settings were then applied to perform density calculations and facilitate visualization. This method enables the precise identification of spatial agglomeration patterns among the buildings within the Overseas Chinese New Villages. Density distributions are aggregated across spatial locations to produce an overall density distribution map, thereby providing a quantitative basis for uncovering their spatial distribution characteristics and identifying core aggregation zones.

The computational methodology for point-based kernel density, along with the determination of its default search radius, is defined by the following formula. The kernel density is determined by the following formula:

$$\mathrm{f}\left(\mathrm{x}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{{\mathrm{nh}}^{\mathrm{d}}}}{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathrm{t}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{K}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{h}}}\left(\mathrm{x}-{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{t}}\right)\right]$$

(1)

K is the kernel function, h is the bandwidth, n is the number of known points within the bandwidth, and d is the dimension of the data. The bandwidth parameter (h), representing the search radius that determines the area surrounding each cell for density computation, was set at 0.5 m in this study. This empirically determined value was selected to optimally reveal the spatial aggregation characteristics of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages through the generated density surface.

2.3.3. Delphi Method

The Delphi method, also known as the expert survey method, is fundamentally a structured communication technique employing anonymous, iterative feedback. Its effectiveness relies on the expertise of participants, anonymity, and the iterative feedback process. Within the context of assessing the cultural heritage value of the Overseas Chinese New Villages, this method was applied across three rounds of anonymous expert questionnaires (involving 42 experts from fields including architecture, heritage conservation, and sociology) to achieve consensus. Core evaluation factors were systematically identified from an initial set through this process, mitigating groupthink bias [53]. Subsequently, a scientifically defensible weighting system was established. The application of this method ensures the scientific rigor and relevance of the indicators, streamlines the evaluation framework, and addresses issues of overlapping value dimensions. This thereby establishes the foundation for subsequent weight calculations using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the graded assessment of architectural heritage.

2.3.4. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a systematic, hierarchical decision-making method that integrates qualitative judgment with quantitative calculation. Applicable to the value assessment of 20th-century architectural heritage, this method operates through the construction of pairwise comparison matrices to calculate indicator weights [60]. Within this study, grounded in architectural heritage theory, a four-level hierarchical structure model—comprising the Goal, Criterion, Element, and Factor layers—was constructed. Hierarchical weights were calculated based on expert-derived pairwise comparison matrices, and their consistency was verified. This approach decomposes complex heritage values into a quantifiable evaluation framework. A sequential weighting of core value dimensions is thereby quantitatively established, scientifically revealing the relative importance of each value dimension within Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages. Furthermore, high-value heritage structures can be precisely identified, providing a mathematically rigorous basis for decision-making concerning graded conservation strategies and prioritized resource allocation. The process of applying the research methodology is captured in Figure 3.

3. Results

3.1. Spatial Distribution of Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village

3.1.1. Distribution Analysis

A distinct “core agglomeration with regional differentiation” spatial pattern is exhibited by the Overseas Chinese New Village in Fujian Province. Spatial visualization through ArcGIS reveals that 247 heritage structures are predominantly clustered within five coastal cities—Xiamen, Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, Fuzhou, and Putian—demonstrating a coastal-core concentration with a diminishing gradient toward inland areas.

Provincial distribution metrics demonstrate Xiamen’s primacy at 23.5%, with Fuzhou (29.9%), Quanzhou (21.9%), Zhangzhou (21.5%), and Putian (17.0%) comprising the remaining distribution. This coastal concentration with an inland dispersion pattern is fundamentally associated with differential historical contexts of overseas Chinese settlements, urban development intensities, and heritage preservation policies. Collectively, these settlements constitute a living heritage network that interconnects the cultural fabric of Fujian’s coastal urban centers.

3.1.2. Kernel Density Analysis

Spatial distribution density of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages was analyzed using kernel density analysis within ArcGIS 10.8 (Figure 4). The density visualization revealed distinct spatial clustering patterns, with the highest concentration observed in Southern Fujian. The color scale in the figure represents density values derived from Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), where color intensity is positively correlated with magnitude—for instance, dark red areas correspond to high-density values (4.138–4.976), while lighter hues represent low-density values (0–0.273). Analysis indicated that core density values in parts of Xiamen and Zhangzhou ranged from 4.138 to 4.976, leading to their designation as primary clusters. Fuzhou and its surrounding areas were identified as secondary high-density zones (1.991–3.473), whereas Northern and Western Fujian exhibited the lowest densities (0–0.273). This non-uniform distribution confirms a concentrated rather than dispersed pattern, highlighting a pronounced coastal–inland dichotomy characterized by resource accumulation versus scarcity. This spatial configuration is likely influenced by historical, socioeconomic, and developmental factors. Consequently, it can serve as a quantitative foundation for identifying core heritage value areas, thereby enhancing the assessment accuracy of subsequent spatial analyses.

3.2. Value Recognition of Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village

A multidimensional value system for the architectural heritage of Overseas Chinese New Village was established through critical analysis of relevant literature, informed by a comprehensive examination of their historical development, current conditions, and distinctive characteristics in Fujian Province. This framework is comprehensively explicated across seven distinct value dimensions: historical value, artistic value, scientific value, cultural value, social value, environmental value, and functional value (Figure 5).

The architectural heritage value of Overseas Chinese New Village is principally manifested across the following dimensions:

Emotional value (nostalgic memory and identity recognition): Overseas Chinese New Villages are imbued with a profound emotional attachment to ancestral homelands among returnees. Architectural elements and streetscapes within these settlements serve as enduring symbols of nostalgia and collective memory, constituting an inseparable connective fabric between individuals, their familial heritage, and historical continuity. This environment reinforces place-based identity and belonging among both returnees and subsequent generations [61,62].

Economic value (cultural and tourism drive and commercial vitality [63,64]): The Overseas Chinese New Village attracts substantial tourist visitation due to its distinctive architectural styles and streetscapes. This settlement has been utilized as a premier filming location for television and cinema productions, catalyzing commercial development in adjacent areas. Numerous trendsetting retailers have subsequently established operations within the community, thereby enhancing local commercial vitality and stimulating heritage-driven tourism economic growth [65].

Spatial value (residential and public space creation [66]): Spacious residential space complemented by private courtyards is provided within the Overseas Chinese New Village, meeting high-quality living standards for returned overseas Chinese. Concurrently, rational street widths and layouts are implemented to form pedestrian-oriented public realms conducive to social interaction, thereby significantly enhancing urban spatial quality.

Technical value (architectural technique inheritance and reference [67]): Construction materials employed in the Overseas Chinese New Village—including fair-faced red bricks and lime mortar—are strategically selected to adapt to local climatic and geographical conditions while achieving pragmatic functionality and aesthetic merit. Traditional masonry techniques are manifested through exceptional artisanal expertise, thereby offering valuable references for contemporary regional architectural design.

Historical value (testimony of the era and policy practices [68]): The Overseas Chinese New Village is recognized as an enduring testimony to the resettlement of returned overseas Chinese, documenting state policies on overseas Chinese affairs and their historical influx during specific periods. This settlement reflects the struggles and national contributions of returnees while embodying distinctive residential typologies developed during homecoming construction initiatives. It serves as a material witness to urban transformation across successive developmental phases.

Social value (community cohesion and cultural integration [30]): Community interaction among returned overseas Chinese and their families is facilitated within the Overseas Chinese New Village, resulting in tightly knit neighborhood relationships characterized by a mutual aid ethos. This settlement is acknowledged as an exemplar of communal cohesion and cultural consolidation. Concurrently, syncretic integration between returnee cultures and indigenous traditions propels cross-cultural exchange between Eastern and Western paradigms, thereby fortifying broader social solidarity.

Cultural value (cultural inheritance and multicultural integration [69]): The Overseas Chinese New Village is acknowledged as a tangible manifestation of patriotism within overseas Chinese communities, enriching the cultural discourse through its syncretic integration of traditional Chinese and Southeast Asian elements. This settlement perpetuates the enduring tradition of mutual assistance, thereby exemplifying the profound historical sedimentation characteristic of Fujian’s overseas Chinese hometowns [70].

Artistic value (architectural aesthetics and style fusion): Distinct aesthetic characteristics are embodied in the architectural forms of individual structures within the Overseas Chinese New Village. From comprehensive site planning to detailed façade treatments, eclectic stylistic elements are integrated, ranging from Classicism and Modernism to traditional Chinese architectural features. A hybrid Sino–Western ornamental approach is achieved in decorative schemes, thereby manifesting a cohesive yet distinctive architectural character.

The Overseas Chinese New Village in Fujian is distinguished by unique values when compared with other cultural and architectural heritage sites. These values are not isolated phenomena but rather interconnected and mutually reinforcing attributes that collectively constitute a comprehensive value framework for this architectural heritage.

3.3. Value Assessment of the Architectural Heritage in Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages

3.3.1. Development of an Assessment Framework

A comprehensive evaluation framework is constructed to systematically analyze the multifaceted value attributes of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Village as 20th-century architectural heritage, thereby establishing a theoretical foundation for its preservation and scholarly investigation:

(A) Selection of Evaluation Indicators

The Delphi method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were employed to assess the heritage values of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Village. Based on spatial distribution analysis and value perception outcomes, the evaluation framework was structured into four hierarchical levels: goal level, criterion level, element level, and sub-criteria level.

(1) Selection of Evaluation Indicators for the Indicator Level

The categorization of historical and cultural heritage values is fundamentally based on a core principle: whether attributes are inherently embedded within the physical heritage itself. This principle has been widely accepted as establishing two primary classifications within academic discourse. Such categorization provides the foundational basis for value assessment, upon which systematic evaluation frameworks are constructed to analyze heritage significance and importance. The specific categories are shown in

Table 3. Common heritage value categories.

Scholar	Value Categories
Hao Zhigang	Ontological value, spatial value
Xu Jinliang	Intrinsic value, extrinsic value
Gong Liquan	Ontological value, derived value
Li Zhen	Use value, non-use value
Xu Lingyu	Intrinsic value, instrumental value, economic value
Wang Changsong	Core value, reuse value

.

Building upon the operational values identified in Table 3—utility value, exploitable value, and adaptive reuse potential—and through rigorous analysis of scholarly literature concerning 20th-century architectural heritage frameworks, the functional utility of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Village is recognized as an indispensable component within its evaluation system, given its conformity to established 20th-century heritage characteristics. To establish a comprehensive assessment framework, three primary value categories were consequently selected for the criterion level: ontological value, extrinsic value, and functional utility.

(2) Selection of Evaluation Indicators for the Element Level

The heritage value evaluation system of the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village takes intrinsic value, external value, and functional value as the indicator level. On this basis, to construct the element-level indicators, this study comprehensively considers the indicator level, literature materials, and regulations for screening and selects 15 value elements from the relevant literature. By counting the frequency of these elements in the literature, ranking them, and combining them with the established indicator level, the top-ranking elements, such as historical value, artistic value, scientific value, cultural value, social value, and environmental value, are selected as the core indicators for the element level. Functional value, as a significant value point of the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village architectural heritage, is mainly reflected in its current usage. Therefore, it is believed that the element-level evaluation indicator corresponding to the functional value at the indicator level is the usage function value.

(3) Selection of Evaluation Indicators for the Factor Level

Through systematic analysis of the seven element-level categories in conjunction with documentary sources and case studies, 49 preliminary factors were identified and screened for the factor-level tier. A comprehensive questionnaire survey was subsequently administered to determine the final factor-level assessment metrics, engaging 42 specialists across architecture, history, heritage conservation, and sociology through three iterative consultation rounds. This Delphi method culminated in the definitive selection of the top 23 assessment factors constituting the factor-level framework within the final evaluation system. Based on the previously determined value system element level, the 23 value factors and their elements are now summarized in

Table 4. Factor elements of evaluation system.

Screening Process	Element Stratum	Factor Stratum
First-round Screening Factors	Historical value	Historical uses of buildings, historical context, degree of historical correlation, the impact on the local historical development, historical figures and events, remnants of historical environmental elements
	Artistic value	Architectural authenticity, regional characteristics of architecture, overall layout of architecture, architectural detailing and ornamentation, architectural style and form, integrity of architecture, color and material of architecture
	Scientific value	Site selection for buildings, building materials, rationality of building functions, building structure, reference and learning for contemporary times, building techniques, spatial layout of buildings
	Cultural value	Reflection of local cultural standards, religious worship, cultural propaganda and education, national belief, spiritual symbolism, the value of intangible cultural heritage, cultural inheritance
	Social value	Social belonging, the rationality of current usage, social emotional attachment, connection to people’s livelihoods
	Environmental value	Location and transport accessibility, heritage’s immediate environment, harmonization with the surrounding environment, the surrounding natural environment
	Functional Utility Value	Structural safety of the building, completeness of supporting facilities, superiority of geographical location
Second-round Screening	Historical value	Historical uses of buildings, historical context, degree of historical correlation, the impact on the local historical development, historical figures and events
	Artistic value	Architectural authenticity, regional characteristics of architecture, overall layout of architecture, architectural detailing and ornamentation, architectural style and form
	Scientific value	Site selection for buildings, building materials, building structure, reference and learning for contemporary times, building techniques, spatial layout of buildings
	Cultural value	Reflection of local cultural standards, cultural propaganda and education, national belief, spiritual symbolism, the value of intangible cultural heritage, cultural inheritance
	Social value	The rationality of current usage, social emotional attachment, connection to people’s livelihoods
	Environmental value	Heritage’s immediate environment, location and transport accessibility, harmonization with the surrounding environment
	Functional Utility Value	Structural safety of the building, completeness of supporting facilities, superiority of geographical location
Third-round Screening Factors (Finalized Core Factors)	Historical value	Historical context, historical figures and events, degree of period representation
	Artistic value	Architectural style and form, architectural detailing and ornamentation, overall architectural layout, regional architectural characteristics, architectural authenticity
	Scientific value	Spatial layout of buildings, site selection for buildings, building materials
	Cultural value	Spiritual symbolism, cultural propaganda and education, reflection of local cultural standards
	Social value	The rationality of current usage, connection to people’s livelihoods, societal emotional attachment
	Environmental value	Heritage’s immediate environment, location and transport accessibility, harmonization with the surrounding environment
	Functional Utility Value	Structural safety of the building, completeness of supporting facilities, superiority of geographical location

.

(B) Calculation of Factor Weights

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was systematically applied to determine weight coefficients for each assessment factor derived through prior research. Quantitative values were subsequently assigned to individual factors, culminating in an aggregate valuation of the architectural heritage significance for Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Village, including comprehensive scoring for all constituent value dimensions.

(1) Establishment of the Hierarchical Structure Model

The entire value system of the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village heritage is divided into four levels: goal level A, indicator level B, element level C, and factor level D. Based on the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village value evaluation system mentioned earlier, a hierarchical structure model can be constructed as shown in

Table 5. Evaluation system for the heritage value of Fujian Overseas Chinese Village.

Objective Level	Indicator Level	Element Stratum	Factor Stratum
Heritage Value of Fujian Overseas Chinese Village A	Ontological value B1	Historical value C1	Historical context D1 Historical figures and events D2 Degree of period representation D3
		Artistic value C2	Architectural style and form D4 Architectural detailing and ornamentation D5 Overall architectural layout D6 Regional architectural characteristics D7 Architectural authenticity D8
		Scientific value C3	Architectural spatial layout D9 Building materials D10 Building site selection D11
	Extrinsic value B2	Cultural value C4	Spiritual symbolism D12 Cultural propaganda and education D13 Reflection of local cultural standards D14
		Social value C5	Current usage rationality D15 Connection to people’s livelihoods D16 Societal emotional attachment D17
		Environmental value C6	Heritage’s immediate environment D18 Location and transport accessibility D19 Harmonization with the surrounding environment D20
	Functional Value B3	Functional Utility Value C7	Structural safety of the building D21 Completeness of supporting facilities D22 Superiority of geographical location D23

.

(2) Constructing the Judgment Matrix

A pairwise comparison methodology was systematically implemented for indicators within the same hierarchical tier. Specialists were engaged to evaluate the relative importance of indicator pairs using a standardized scale of 1 to 9. These expert assessments yielded relative weight values, enabling the construction of judgment matrices that establish a quantitative foundation for assessing the architectural heritage values of the Overseas Chinese New Village.

(3) Calculating the Relative Weights of Indicators

The weights of each indicator are normalized to obtain the final weight of each indicator. The specific calculation process and formulas are as follows.

Normalization of the indicators in the judgment matrix:

$${\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{ij}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{ij}}}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{ij}}}}$$

(2)

The summation of Wi

$${\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}}={{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathrm{n}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$$

(3)

Computation of Weight Vectors

$$\mathrm{W}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}}}},\mathrm{W}={({\mathrm{W}}_1,{\mathrm{W}}_2\cdots {\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{n}})}^{\mathrm{T}}$$

(4)

Computation of Eigenvalues λmax

(4) Consistency Verification of Judgment Matrices

Computation of the Consistency Index (CI)

$$\mathrm{CI}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathsf{\lambda }}_{\max }-\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{n}-1}}$$

(5)

Computation of the Consistency Ratio (CR)

$$\mathrm{CR}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{CI}}{\mathrm{RI}}}$$

(6)

(5) Computational Results

Through systematic analysis, the weight values of hierarchical indicators across all levels in the heritage value assessment of Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages have been determined, as detailed below in

Table 6. Weight distribution table for the architectural heritage value assessment system of Fujian Overseas Chinese Village.

Objective Level	Indicator Level	Element Stratum	Factor Stratum
Heritage Value of Fujian Overseas Chinese Village A	Ontological value B1 (0.5389)	Historical value C1 (0.2904)	Historical context D1 (0.1843) Historical figures and events D2 (0.0834) Degree of period representation D3 (0.0227)
		Artistic value C2 (0.1602)	Architectural style and form D4 (0.0449) Architectural detailing and ornamentation D5 (0.0087) Overall architectural layout D6 (0.0153) Regional architectural characteristics D7 (0.0681) Architectural authenticity D8 (0.0233)
		Scientific value C3 (0.0883)	Architectural spatial layout D9 (0.0294) Building materials D10 (0.0123) Building site selection D11 (0.0466)
	Extrinsic value B2 (0.2973)	Cultural value C4 (0.1852)	Spiritual symbolism D12 (0.1180) Cultural propaganda and education D13 (0.0194) Reflection of local cultural standards D14 (0.0478)
		Social value C5 (0.0713)	Current usage rationality D15 (0.0137) Connection to people’s livelihoods D16 (0.0076) Societal emotional attachment D17 (0.0499)
		Environmental value C6 (0.0408)	Heritage’s immediate environment D18 (0.0255) Location and transport accessibility D19 (0.0097) Harmonization with the surrounding environment D20 (0.0056)
	Functional Value B3 (0.1638)	Functional Utility Value C7 (0.1638)	Structural safety of the building D21 (0.0898) Completeness of supporting facilities D22 (0.0345) Superiority of geographical location D23 (0.0395)

.

Analysis of the calculated weight values reveals a significant correlation between the assigned weights of relevant value types and building typologies, as well as policy-driven priorities. Within the heritage value assessment framework, the distinctiveness of architectural typologies is highlighted by the weight allocations for artistic value (0.1602) and functional value (0.1638). Specifically, within artistic value, “Architectural Style and Form” (D4, 0.0449) and “Regional Architectural Characteristics” (D7, 0.0681) collectively account for 70.5% of its weighting. This directly corresponds to the hybrid architectural typology observed in Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages, characterized by the integration of Southeast Asian arcaded gallery elements with Southern Fujian red-brick dwelling traditions. For instance, the characteristic form featuring “fair-faced red brick walls with arched colonnades” found on HuaXin Road in Xiamen was highly rated due to its preserved authenticity (D8, 0.0233). Furthermore, the weight settings for “Structural Safety” (D21, 0.0898) and “Integrity of Supporting Facilities” (D22, 0.0345) within Functional Value quantitatively demonstrate the impact of typological features—such as brick-timber construction and courtyard layouts—on long-term functional sustainability.

Regarding policy factors, the formulation of policies concerning the Overseas Chinese New Villages is identified as the core driver, reflected in the highest weight allocation within the system: Historical Value (0.2904). Specifically, the assigned weights for “Historical Context” (D1, 0.1843) and “Epochal Representativeness” (D3, 0.0227) are directly linked to the construction of these villages during the 1950s–1960s, propelled by national overseas Chinese affairs policies. This quantifies their historical significance as “The material carrier embodied by policies,” establishing them as the preeminent dimension within the weighting framework. Spatially, a correspondence is observed between the kernel density values (4.138–4.976) in the core areas of Xiamen and Zhangzhou and the weight assigned to historical value. This spatial pattern is interpreted as empirical evidence confirming the impact of the “Coastal Priority Siting” policy on the spatial agglomeration of heritage resources. Furthermore, the weight assigned to “Geographical Advantage” (D23, 0.0395) within Functional Value implicitly quantifies the locational benefits accrued by port cities due to policy support.

3.3.2. Heritage Value Assessment of Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages

A standardized scoring protocol was implemented for the architectural assessment of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Village. Given the substantial sample size, a straightforward valuation approach employing uniform weighting across value components was adopted to enhance operational feasibility. Comprehensive scoring criteria with explicit measurement rationales for each factor were systematically developed. Finally, domain specialists were engaged to refine both the scoring standards and their underlying measurement justifications, ensuring scientific rigor and procedural validity in the standardization process.

Scores are systematically assigned to each factor for every structure within the Overseas Chinese New Village, with a uniform maximum value of 100 points established per factor. Weighted factor scores are subsequently derived through the multiplication of raw scores by their corresponding weight coefficients. The aggregate building valuation is ultimately calculated by the summation of all weighted factor scores. This scoring system incorporates a five-tier classification framework wherein each tier corresponds to distinct evaluation criteria.

(A) Evaluation Score Statistics

Implementation of the previously described valuation methodology for the Overseas Chinese New Village yields final assessment scores for all 247 individual structures within the Fujian case study (Appendix B). Due to the large volume of data, the detailed scores are not shown here. Only the score statistics are presented (

Table 7. Scoring statistics of architectural heritage value assessment for Fujian Overseas Chinese Village.

Score Range	Xiamen	Zhangzhou	Quanzhou	Putian	Fuzhou	Total
Score ≥ 80	23 buildings	6 buildings	11 buildings	12 buildings	6 buildings	58 buildings
70 ≤ Score < 80	16 buildings	16 buildings	13 buildings	11 buildings	18 buildings	74 buildings
60 ≤ Score < 70	8 buildings	10 buildings	6 buildings	0 buildings	23 buildings	47 buildings
Score < 60	13 buildings	8 buildings	18 buildings	10 buildings	19 buildings	68 buildings

).

(B) Evaluation Score Analysis

Among the 247 evaluated buildings in the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village architectural heritage, according to the statistical analysis results in Table 7, 23.5% of the buildings received evaluation scores exceeding 80 points, and 53.5% received scores exceeding 70 points. This indicates that most buildings in the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Village possess high heritage value.

Analysis of the heritage value assessment scores for Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages reveals a direct correlation between high-scoring structures and the province’s recent implementation of a designation system for protecting overseas Chinese-related architecture. In 2021, the Fujian Provincial Regulations on Traditional Architectural Features Protection was promulgated, explicitly stipulating requirements for the restoration and adaptive reuse of traditional buildings. This provided a regulatory foundation for safeguarding culturally significant structures like the Overseas Chinese New Villages. Subsequently, in 2023, the Notice on Strengthening the Protection and Management of Overseas Chinese-Related Architecture in Fujian Province was jointly issued by departments including the Fujian Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development [71]. This policy prioritizes the inclusion of eligible overseas Chinese heritage resources into protective registries, such as those for Historically and Culturally Famous Villages, Traditional Villages, and Listed Historic Buildings. The system ensures the preservation of historical authenticity (weight: 0.2904) through the prioritized designation of historic buildings. Concurrently, a provincial special fund of 196 million RMB was strategically allocated, primarily targeting clusters of high-scoring buildings. These resources are directed towards structural safety maintenance (indicator D21 weight: 0.0898) and the enhancement of supporting facilities, thereby directly elevating functional utility value (weight: 0.1638). This establishes a reinforcing cycle: policy-driven inclusion in protective registries enables targeted funding for restoration and maintenance, consequently driving the enhancement of architectural heritage value.

Overall, the distribution of heritage value across the Overseas Chinese New Villages in Fujian’s cities is recognized as reflecting variations shaped by the interplay of historical contexts, cultural distinctiveness, and policy interventions. Consequently, context-specific conservation and utilization strategies are required. Furthermore, these empirical results provide a scientific basis for subsequent graded conservation and cluster-based management approaches.

4. Discussion

4.1. Practical Significance of Value Recognition

Value assessment of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Village reveals divergent stakeholder perspectives. Residents prioritize residential functionality and emotional attachments, exemplified by courtyard spaces and Nanyang-style architectural details. Government and planning entities emphasize historical-cultural preservation and urban landscape coherence. Scholarly attention concentrates on historical significance, artistic merit, and scientific achievement as defining attributes of 20th-century architectural heritage [72]. These divergent valuations provide multidimensional insights and innovative methodological approaches for heritage conservation and adaptive reuse strategies.

4.2. Discussion of Protection Recommendations

Employing an integrated qualitative–quantitative assessment framework, the Fujian Overseas Chinese New Villages were found to possess outstanding value across multiple dimensions, including historical, artistic, and social significance. Their characterization as carriers of overseas Chinese hometown culture provides a scientific basis for tiered conservation and adaptive revitalization strategies. Furthermore, this assessment underscores the future necessity for interdisciplinary research and dynamic monitoring systems. Accordingly, specific responsibilities and actions are outlined below for key stakeholders engaged in the conservation of these villages:

(1) Implications for heritage conservation practitioners and managers: The conservation of architectural heritage within the Overseas Chinese New Villages should be integrated into a systematic management framework. Targeted conservation plans must be formulated, guided by the results of the value assessment, to establish a closed-loop process encompassing conservation, utilization, and transmission. Concurrently, dynamic monitoring mechanisms should be established to regularly evaluate changes in building values, enabling the timely modification of conservation measures.

(2) Recommendations for policymakers: A specialized legislative and policy framework should be established by the government for the conservation of architectural heritage in the Overseas Chinese New Villages. On the legislative front, clear criteria for heritage designation, conservation scopes, and responsible entities must be defined. Drawing upon precedents such as the Quanzhou Regulations on the Protection of Overseas Chinese Historical Remains [73], detailed conservation protocols need to be developed for scenarios involving both clear and unclear property rights. Regarding policy incentives, dedicated funding should be allocated for heritage conservation. Financial subsidies or tax incentives should be provided to property owners undertaking conservation and restoration work. Furthermore, preferential treatment in land use and project approval processes ought to be granted to enterprises investing in the cultural tourism development of these villages. Additionally, the effectiveness of conservation efforts in the Overseas Chinese New Villages should be incorporated into the performance evaluation metrics for local governments, thereby enhancing their motivation for conservation at the grassroots level.

(3) Implications for socio-cultural continuity and development: The conservation of architectural heritage in the Overseas Chinese New Villages is intrinsically linked to the continuity of socio-cultural traditions. By preserving these structures, the cultural lineage of overseas Chinese communities can be perpetuated, strengthening the cultural identity and sense of belonging among both overseas compatriots and local residents. Government and societal actors should jointly promote cultural dissemination initiatives centered on these villages. This can be achieved through the development of “Overseas Chinese Culture”-themed tourism routes, as well as the organization of cultural festivals celebrating overseas Chinese history, academic symposiums on architectural heritage, and related events designed to engage the public and elevate societal awareness. Concurrently, community residents should be encouraged to participate in hands-on conservation activities and adaptive reuse efforts, transmitting local craftsmanship and fostering an “active living heritage” environment. This approach positions the Overseas Chinese New Villages as vital spaces for regional cultural transmission and innovative development, thereby contributing to the enhancement of local cultural soft power and broader socio-cultural prosperity.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Research Conclusion

This study focuses on the architectural heritage of Fujian’s Overseas Chinese New Villages. A comprehensive research framework integrating “value identification, quantitative assessment, and conservation strategy” was systematically constructed by employing kernel density estimation (KDE), the Delphi method, and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The principal conclusions are as follows:

(1) The spatial distribution is characterized by significant clustering and regional variation.

Analysis of the 247 Overseas Chinese New Village buildings in Fujian Province revealed a distinct coastal core distribution belt formed by the cities of Xiamen, Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, Fuzhou, and Putian. Among these, Xiamen accounted for the largest proportion (23.5%, n = 58), followed by Zhangzhou (21.5%) and Quanzhou (21.9%). Kernel density estimation identified two high-density cores centered on Xiamen and Zhangzhou (with densities ranging from 4.138 to 4.976). In contrast, densities in inland Fuzhou were found to be below 1.991. This spatial pattern confirms the observed principle of concentration along the coast and dispersion in inland areas.

(2) A hierarchical structure is observed within the multidimensional value system.

The weights of the seven value dimensions were determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Historical value was assigned the highest weight (0.2904), followed by cultural value (0.1852) and artistic value (0.1602), while scientific value received the lowest weight (0.0883). This weighting pattern highlights the significantly greater importance placed on the historical significance of the Overseas Chinese New Villages as witnesses to policy, compared with their technical significance. Within the historical value dimension, “historical context” (0.1843) and “epochal representativeness” (0.0227) were identified as the core constituent elements.

(3) Protection priorities are identified through heritage value assessment.

Evaluation scores for the 247 buildings revealed that 23.5% (n = 58) scored ≥ 80 points, and 53.5% (n = 132) achieved ≥ 70 points. High-scoring examples, such as No. 10 Huaxin Road, Xiamen (88.28 points), and No. 13 Overseas Chinese New Village, Zhangzhou (90.55 points), are characterized by their well-preserved authenticity, exemplified in the “residential building with courtyard” layout. In contrast, 27.5% of buildings in Fuzhou and Quanzhou scored below 60 points, primarily due to compromised integrity resulting from structural deterioration and functional obsolescence.

(4) Differentiated conservation strategies are informed by the empirical data.

Based on the evaluation results, the 23 high-scoring buildings in Xiamen are recommended for designation as “Core Conservation Units,” to be managed under a “Heritage Interpretation and Cultural Display” model. For the 74 medium-scoring buildings (scoring 70–80 points), “micro-regeneration” is proposed, incorporating the retention of distinctive features such as red-brick walls and the introduction of creative adaptive functions. Additionally, a “Dynamic Monitoring List” should be established for the 68 low-scoring buildings, with priority given to the mitigation of structural safety hazards (criterion D21, weight = 0.0898).

This study moves beyond the limitations of traditional single-dimensional approaches to heritage conservation by establishing, for the first time, a closed-loop model integrating value identification, quantitative assessment, conservation, and utilization strategies. This model is applicable to similar overseas Chinese communities, such as those in Guangdong and Hainan provinces, offering a methodological framework for the differentiated conservation of living heritage.

5.2. Limitations and Prospects

There are still certain limitations in the current research:

Although the evaluation framework provides a quantitative basis for tiered conservation, its implementation is confronted with policy coordination barriers. Specifically, the Fujian Provincial Regulations on Traditional Architectural Features Protection lack clear criteria for designating Overseas Chinese New Villages. This regulatory gap has resulted in the demolition of high-scoring buildings such as No. 13 Qiao Village in Zhangzhou (scoring 90.55 points) for commercial development, due to their exclusion from officially designated protection lists.

Concurrently, the system’s capacity to account for dynamic values constitutes a significant limitation. Critical factors such as property rights transfers and evolving community functions, which exert continuous influence on heritage values, have not been adequately assessed. To address this gap, the implementation of digital twin technology is proposed to establish a dynamic evaluation model capable of real-time monitoring of heritage value evolution over time.

Regarding sample coverage and data depth, this study was confined to five Overseas Chinese New Village sites in Fujian Province, precluding comparative analysis with similar settlements elsewhere in China. Furthermore, restricted access to certain historical materials—such as original design blueprints and emigrant archives, due to privacy considerations—resulted in incomplete retrieval of critical documentation. These limitations constrained the comprehensiveness of the value assessment. Future research could expand the geographical scope to incorporate data from dispersed Overseas Chinese settlements in Western Fujian’s mountainous regions, thereby addressing methodological biases associated with coastal-centric perspectives.

Furthermore, the socioeconomic and cultural anthropological values embedded in the Overseas Chinese New Villages have not been sufficiently explored, as the analysis remains predominantly grounded in architectural and heritage conservation perspectives. Greater integration of sociological and economic methodologies is required to deepen this inquiry. Concurrently, operational mechanisms for translating evaluation outcomes into conservation policies remain undefined. For instance, the conversion of value assessment scores into specific restoration standards necessitates the development of practical guidelines aligned with local planning regulations. Looking forward, it is expected that with enhanced policy support and the adoption of multidisciplinary approaches, the assessment and conservation of these villages will more accurately respond to the complexities inherent in their status as living heritage, thereby advancing the sustainable transmission of overseas Chinese hometown culture [74,75].