Cognition–Paradigm Misalignment in Heritage Conservation: Applying a Correspondence Framework to Traditional Chinese Villages

Abstract

As heritage cognition evolves, aligning conceptual understanding with conservation strategies becomes essential for effective practice. This study develops the Heritage Cognition–Conservation Paradigm Correspondence Framework, a methodological tool designed to evaluate the alignment between heritage cognition and conservation paradigms. Methodologically, the framework is constructed through document analysis, conceptual classification, and framing co-construction. Building on a critical review of the development trajectory of heritage conservation, it integrates four cognitive phases and three conservation paradigms into a dual-axis matrix, operationalized through six analytical dimensions for heritage cognition and four for conservation paradigms. The framework is subsequently applied through a case study of Traditional Chinese Villages, demonstrating its diagnostic capacity and analytical utility. The case study reveals a significant misalignment: while official discourse reflects pluralistic heritage thinking (within the most advanced, fourth cognitive phase), conservation practice remains rooted in value-based logics and material-based approaches (within the initial paradigms). This misalignment stems from fragmented object recognition, form-focused objectives, and top–down governance structures that marginalize local agency and overlook cultural processes as the heritage nature of those villages. By establishing and operationalizing the correspondence framework, this study provides a transferable tool for diagnosing cognition–practice disjunctions across heritage contexts. Beyond its empirical findings, the study advances a methodological contribution for heritage conservation and advocates a strategic shift toward process-oriented, community-embedded approaches that emphasize cultural continuity, reframed objectives, and participatory governance.

1. Introduction

Emerging heritage types, categories, and perspectives continue to reshape the epistemological foundations of the field. Contemporary understandings of cultural heritage have gradually shifted from preserving artefacts and testimonies to safeguarding the cultural processes that sustain diversity [1,2,3]. This cognitive evolution has prompted corresponding transformations in conservation methods, policy instruments, and ideological foundations, giving rise to new paradigms of heritage conservation.

Yet, the rapid development of these paradigms has also revealed persistent challenges, particularly in the conservation of newly recognized heritage types. Across different contexts, conservation efforts have encountered criticism for their conservation effectiveness, methodological misalignment, and limited community engagement [4]. The conservation of Traditional Chinese Villages presents an illustrative example of these tensions.

Traditional villages are regarded as the roots of Chinese civilization that has continued uninterrupted for five millennia [5]. They preserve a wide array of cultural elements, such as ancestral ethics, indigenous knowledge, vernacular technologies, and religious beliefs [6,7]. They are not merely physical settlements, but dynamic cultural spaces and living heritage systems [8]. However, in the context of rapid industrialization and urbanization, traditional villages in China face mounting crises: population decline, spatial degradation, and cultural discontinuity [9]. In response, the Chinese government initiated a national programme for the identification and conservation of those villages in 2012, accompanied by a series of policy documents and technical guidelines. By December 2023, after six rounds of national surveys, a total of 8,155 villages had been officially listed as Traditional Chinese Villages.

While this initiative has achieved some initial success, especially in preventing large-scale loss [10], it has also drawn criticism. Issues such as over-commercialization [11], museumification [12], ‘hollow-out heritage’, [13] and ‘specimen villages’ [14,15] have emerged, along with concerns about de-vitalized conservation [7,16]. Heritage authorities have undertaken revisions to conservation strategies, including the adjustment of recognition criteria and increased emphasis on revitalization. For example, the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development [MOHURD] has actively worked on the consolidated and contiguous conservation and utilization of traditional villages since 2023; the adaptive reuse of rural heritage has been repeatedly underscored in the Central Government’s No. 1 Policy Document in 2024 and 2025. Nevertheless, these critiques appear to have remained unaddressed or only partially resolved.

The persistent ineffectiveness prompts critical reconsideration: a more deep-seated, structural issue may be at work. Against this backdrop, this study traces the evolution of global heritage cognition and conservation paradigms, aiming to critically assess the limitations of China’s traditional village conservation efforts and to propose informed directions for strategic recalibration. To support this analysis, the Heritage Cognition–Conservation Paradigm Correspondence Framework (hereafter referred to as the correspondence framework) is proposed as a tool to evaluate the degree of alignment between heritage understanding and conservation strategies. By that, it also offers diagnostic insight and provides a basis for optimizing heritage governance.

2. Theoretical Foundations for Constructing the Correspondence Framework

2.1. Theoretical Basis

Following classification as a knowledge-making practice [17], this study regards both heritage cognition and conservation paradigms as distinct but interrelated classificatory systems within heritage studies. Each of these systems has undergone semantic evolution and structural transformation over time. By combing upon their respective trajectories, the study identifies key developmental phases and extracts their attributes. Specifically, heritage cognition is divided into four evolutionary phases: conceptual emergence, conceptual stabilization, cognitive shift, and semantic pluralism, while conservation paradigms are analyzed in the three existing types: material-based, value-based, and people-centred (or present-oriented) paradigms.

Building on the work of Goffman [18] and Snow and Benford [19], this study adopts the framing co-construction perspective to conceptualize the relationship between heritage cognition and conservation paradigms as a dynamic process of frame alignment and negotiated meaning. In this context, classificatory systems provide the analytical foundation for constructing a correspondence framework that links shifts in heritage understanding to changes in conservation practice.

The proposed Heritage Cognition–Conservation Paradigm Correspondence Framework integrates semantic evolution mapping with frame negotiation. As a form of cognitive structuralism, it illustrates how changing heritage meanings are embedded in evolving conservation strategies. This approach offers a nuanced lens for examining the co-evolution of value logics and methodological pathways within heritage governance.

2.2. Methods and Data Sources

To construct this framework, the authors conducted a systematic review and semantic analysis of key international and regional heritage charters, policy texts, and scholarly literature. Two core research methods were employed: document analysis was used to extract key terms, policy rationales, and conceptual frameworks from official documents, planning guidelines, and academic publications, enabling comparative assessment across heritage contexts. Semantic analysis interpreted the discursive shifts in how heritage concepts are constructed and operationalized within different institutional and cultural contexts, revealing ideological trajectories and paradigm transformations.

For empirical grounding, the study takes the conservation of Traditional Chinese Villages as a case study. It systematically analyses national and local-level policies, guidelines, and planning documents, with a specific focus on Shandong Province. Supplementary data are drawn from fieldwork, including qualitative observations and semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders, thereby providing a grounded understanding of how national heritage policies are interpreted and implemented at the village level.

3. Periodizing Heritage Cognition and Conservation Paradigms

3.1. Semantic Evolution and Periodization of Cultural Heritage

The conceptual evolution of cultural heritage is not merely an expansion of its scope but also a reconstruction of the value recognition [2,20]. Cultural heritage, once perceived as a set of historical evidence, has increasingly come to be understood as a collection of meanings constructed by social groups in specific contexts [1,2,20,21]. Accordingly, this evolution can be divided into two fundamental stages: the first regards heritage as determined by the inherent values of objective material entities, while the second views it as defined by values ascribed and negotiated. Based on their discourse, the evolution of heritage meaning can be further segmented into four historical phases: Conceptual emergence, Conceptual stabilization, Cognitive shift, and Semantic pluralism (the summarized characteristics do not apply to all heritage types within a phase but capture common trends among dominant or emerging heritage during that phase); see Figure 1. The trajectory of those shifts are well reflected in heritage charters and policy documents, which offer a chronological panorama of heritage ideology transformation [22].

3.1.1. Conceptual Emergence and Stabilization: Terminological Formation and Material Orientation

Cultural heritage did not originate as a clearly defined concept; rather, it gradually took shape through historical evolution and institutional development. As Zeayter and Mansour [23] note, while heritage-like practices can be traced back to the pre-classical era, particularly in religious or commemorative contexts, the term ‘cultural heritage’ lacked the institutional meaning it carries today until the mid-20th century.

The international discourse on monument conservation that emerged in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries laid essential foundations for modern conservation thought. Thinkers such as Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, who advocated restoration as stylistic unity; John Ruskin and Georg Dehio, who insisted on preservation rather than restoration; Camillo Boito, who proposed a critical balance between the two; Camillo Sitte, who emphasized the artistic principles of urban form; and Max Dvořák, who highlighted the spiritual mission of heritage protection, all contributed to shaping the field. Above all, Alois Riegl’s seminal formulation of the multiple values of monuments: age, historical, and artistic, provided a lasting theoretical framework [23].

Building on that intellectual background, the Athens Charter (1931) set out international principles for the protection of artistic heritage, while the Hague Convention (1954) introduced the term ‘cultural property’ within the context of safeguarding heritage in times of armed conflict. It was not, however, until the Venice Charter (1964) followed by the establishment of ICOMOS in 1965 that the term ‘cultural heritage’ was formally institutionalized at the international level. This transition marked a shift from conceptual emergence to the phase of stabilization.

The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO, 1972) further codified a classical understanding of cultural heritage, defining it as monuments, groups of buildings, and sites of outstanding universal value due to their historical, artistic, or scientific significance. This document foundationally shaped the global discourse on cultural heritage and exemplified three key characteristics of heritage cognition during this phase:

• Materialization: cultural heritage was framed predominantly in terms of built forms and physical artefacts.
• Objectification of value: cultural heritage value was considered inherent to the object, assessed through historical, scientific and artistic merit.
• Expert authority: legitimacy in heritage recognition was reserved for professionals.

It is worth noting that the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972) defines cultural heritage primarily in contrast to natural heritage, especially embedding an implicit assumption of materiality within the term itself. In this context, the understanding of heritage has evolved from an initial emphasis on individual monuments to architectural ensembles, and eventually to broader concepts of tangible historic environments. However, this material-oriented perspective has tended to overlook critical insights into the socially constructed nature of heritage value [24].

3.1.2. Cognitive Shift: Value Pluralization and Decentralized Subjecthood

Growing critiques of the Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1965)’s focus on materiality, along with increasing challenges to the logic of ‘outstanding universal value’ embedded in the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO,1972), triggered a series of fundamental shifts in heritage cognition. One of the most significant was the reconceptualization of cultural heritage not as an object with inherent, self-evident value, but as a socially constructed concept, in which meaning is attributed through stakeholder recognition and embedded in practices.

This shift is exemplified in the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS,1979, revised 1999), which positioned cultural significance as central to heritage identification. It promotes the expanded scope of heritage to include not only physical fabric but also intangible dimensions such as social memory, symbolic association, and community-based practices. This marked a decisive move from object-based valuations to constructions of significance grounded in people and processes [25].

A number of international charters, such as Washington Charter (ICOMOS, 1987) and subsequent regional conservation guidelines, began to explicitly address the interplay between tangible heritage and intangible values. The recognition of cultural landscapes further reflected the integration of sociocultural and ecological dimensions into heritage discourse [26,27]. Prior to this, the expansion of the Universal Copyright Convention (UNESCO,1971) to cover intangible cultural expressions such as folklore and oral traditions, along with the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore (UNESCO, 1989), laid the foundation for the formal recognition of Intangible Cultural Heritage [ICH] in 2003. During this period, three major developments occurred on cultural heritage:

• Diversification of heritage objects: beyond physical sites, cultural heritage came to include landscapes, practices, skills, and community-based expressions.
• Expansion of value types: symbolic, ritualistic, and social values were brought into the discourse alongside traditional historical and esthetic ones.
• Pluralization of cognitive agents: recognizing the roles of communities, NGOs, networks, and individuals beyond experts.

Those changes marked a paradigmatic shift from objectivist to constructivist understandings of heritage, from singular expert authority to dialogic, participatory forms of value assignment [28].

3.1.3. Semantic Pluralism: Openness and Negotiability on Heritage Meaning

Since the early 21st century, the concept of cultural heritage has increasingly moved away from its traditional association with historical remains, giving rise to an unprecedented degree of polysemy, openness, and contestability [24]. In this phase, heritage is no longer perceived as a fixed and clearly bounded cultural object, but as a dynamic cultural process embedded in contemporary social practices [29,30]. The focus has shifted toward heritage’s social functions, including identity formation, intercultural dialogue, and contributions to sustainable development [31,32]. This study refers to this phase as semantic pluralism.

Concurrently, liveness and wholeness have emerged as key criteria for assessing the contemporary relevance of heritage [33]. In contrast to material-based concepts such as authenticity and integrity, liveness emphasizes the ongoing interaction between heritage and everyday life, particularly through community [34,35,36]. It highlights the immediacy, generative potential, and capacity for reinterpretation inherent in cultural processes [37]. As a result, heritage is increasingly understood not as an object to be preserved, but as a process of practice [38], which closely tied to social memory, symbolic meaning, identity construction, and place-based belonging [39,40,41].

In this phase, decentralization has emerged as a defining trend in heritage thinking [42]. Heritage is increasingly as a space for cultural expression, identity negotiation, and political engagement among diverse communities [43]. In regions such as Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, local knowledge systems, marginalized cultures, and counter-hegemonic narratives, long excluded from the canon of ‘classical’ heritage, have begun to acquire new forms of cultural legitimacy through the process of heritagization [44,45,46]. This diversification challenges traditional, Eurocentric heritage standards while enriching the global landscape of representation [42].

At the same time, heritage typologies have expanded at an unprecedented pace. New categories, such as agricultural, industrial, post-disaster, digital, gendered, and ecological knowledge heritage, are increasingly recognized in both academic and policy discourses. The Delhi Declaration [47], for instance, reflects this shift by offering more inclusive and expansive definitions of what constitutes heritage. Within this broadened framework, heritage is no longer understood merely as a recollection of the past, but as a cultural choice about how the past is remembered and reinterpreted [28]. In sum, heritage cognition in this phase is characterized by:

• Dynamic and non-material forms of heritage: process-oriented and symbolic phenomena are increasingly recognized
• Relativization of value standards: moving away from universal benchmarks to contextual interpretations.
• Functional relevance: being valued for its contributions to social resilience, cultural identity, and sustainable futures
• Decentralization of authority: local communities, grassroots actors, and non-state stakeholders began to assert legitimacy in heritage-making.
• Open-ended definition: heritage is no longer ‘discovered’ but co-constructed and continuously renegotiated.

3.2. Conservation Paradigm Shifts and Their Characteristics

The evolution of heritage cognition not only redefines what is considered heritage but also fundamentally reshapes how it should be conserved. Conservation philosophy is not a neutral or purely technical undertaking; rather, it reflects a paradigmatic approach shaped by historically specific understandings of heritage values, objects, and methods.

In the context of international conservation practice, three major paradigms have emerged in a relatively continuous but not substitutive sequence: material-based paradigm, value-based paradigm [48], and people-centred paradigm [49,50] (refer to Figure 2).

3.2.1. Material-Based Paradigm: Authenticity and Restoration Logic

The material-based paradigm centres on the inherent value of heritage as a physical entity, prioritizing the preservation of its material integrity and authenticity. Rooted in the tradition of architectural restoration that emerged in postwar Western Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries, this approach considers safeguarding original structures and forms as the core objective of preservation.

Key documents such as the Athens Charter (1931) and the Venice Charter (1964) formalized this perspective, advocating minimal intervention and emphasizing fidelity to original materials, structural forms, and stylistic coherence. Under this model, authenticity is conceived as fixed and objective, which treating heritage as a static repository of historical evidence whose care is entrusted to professionally trained experts. Laurajane Smith conceptualizes this expert-driven model as the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) [1], critiquing its hierarchical authority structures, technical exclusivity, and elitist selection criteria. This paradigm is characterized by four key features:

• Primacy of authenticity: focused on preserving and replicating original fabric and form.
• Object-based conception: heritage understood as static material evidence.
• Expert dominance: professionalized, top–down decision making.
• Technical restoration focus: methods rooted in architectural repair and accuracy.

The material-based paradigm took shape during the phases of conceptual emergence and stabilization, closely reflecting the dominant values of those periods. It laid the groundwork for modern conservation theory and institutional frameworks. Despite growing critique, it remains deeply embedded in contemporary practice worldwide. However, its limitations, particularly in non-Western contexts, have become increasingly evident, as its object-focused and expert-driven orientation often fails to accommodate local values, practices, and meanings [32].

3.2.2. Value-Based Paradigm: Pluralism and Subjective Valuation Logic

Emerging in response to the limitations of material-centric approaches, the value-based paradigm reorients heritage conservation toward the recognition of diverse cultural meanings shaped through negotiation among multiple stakeholders [49,51]. This paradigm recognizes a wide range of heritage values, such as symbolic, emotional, social, and functional dimensions, extending beyond traditional expert assessments [52]. Within this framework, conservation is no longer the sole domain of professionals; instead, it emphasizes active participation from communities, local groups, and non-state actors. Practices such as community-based management, cultural landscape conservation, and participatory planning have emerged as key strategies [53]. Notably, the paradigm advocates for safeguarding intangible heritage, such as rituals, oral traditions, and place-based knowledge alongside tangible assets, foster a more integrated understanding of cultural continuity [35,45]. The value-based paradigm is defined by four key features:

• Pluralistic value orientation recognizes diverse cultural values beyond historical or esthetic significance, contextualized within specific socio-cultural settings.
• Expanded conservation scope includes intangible elements and integrated expressions such as landscapes, community practices, and local knowledge.
• Participatory governance encourages inclusive decision making through collaboration among communities, professionals, and institutions.
• Value-responsive strategies tailor conservation methods to the specific values and types of heritage, balancing physical preservation with cultural transmission.

However, despite its significant contributions to global heritage conservation, the value-based paradigm also exhibits inherent limitations. First, the process of value attribution, which grounded in multi-stakeholder negotiation, often reflects unequal power dynamics. In practice, decision making remains largely dominated by experts and institutional actors, sidelining the voices of local communities and marginalized groups. Second, the paradigm’s ambition to account for a wide spectrum of heritage values is difficult to implement [54]. The translation of recognized values into concrete conservation strategies remains a persistent challenge.

3.2.3. People-Centred Paradigm: Livingness and Social Function Logic

Since the early 21st century, the emergence of new heritage categories has been accompanied by a growing recognition of heritage’s social functions. This shift has led to a range of innovative approaches, including living heritage approach [55], sustainable conservation, heritage-based tourism, and the Historic Urban Landscape framework [56]. Collectively, these developments mark the rise of a third conservation paradigm: people-centred paradigm.

Rather than restoring historical appearances or preserving fixed values, this paradigm emphasizes living continuity, functional revitalization, and heritage’s role in shaping identity and resilience in contemporary society [49]. It signals a fundamental shift: from preserving objects to empowering people, and reframes heritage as a dynamic force for present and future well-being [57].

Moving beyond static preservation, the people-centred approach highlights continuity, adaptability, and regenerative capacity of heritage [34]. Heritage is seen as an evolving cultural ecosystem that supports identity, cohesion, and sustainable development [58,59], grounded in active community engagement and responsiveness to change [57]. This paradigm is defined by four core features:

• Contemporary relevance and continuity: heritage is valued as a living process, integrated into everyday life and capable of renewal.
• Holistic cultural ecosystems: conservation focuses on interconnected practices, memories, knowledge, and place-based identity, beyond material objects.
• Community-led governance: emphasizes inclusive, bottom-up decision making involving communities, professionals, and institutions.
• Adaptive, function-driven strategies: prioritizes revitalization, adaptive reuse, and local development.

In essence, this paradigm reflects a shift from preservation to participation, from authenticity to agency, and from monument-focused to future-oriented heritage practice. It reimagines conservation as a tool for inclusive governance, community empowerment, and sustainable cultural development.

4. Constructing the Correspondence Framework

4.1. The Correspondence Framework and Coupling Relationships

When heritage cognition and conservation paradigms are viewed as two parallel yet interrelated trajectories, a clearer understanding emerges of how conceptual change drives shifts in conservation practice. As discussed in Section 3, advances in heritage cognition often precede and catalyze the renewal of conservation paradigms. In turn, these paradigms evolve in response to changing conceptualizations of what heritage is and why it matters.

At certain points in this co-evolution, a dynamic alignment may occur, where a specific phase of heritage cognition corresponds with a compatible conservation paradigm. Such alignment reflects a state of conceptual and operational coherence, enabling the mutual reinforcement of theoretical understanding and practical intervention. This interaction forms a critical analytical lens for evaluating the consistency between heritage interpretation and conservation strategy.

Building on this relationship, this study proposes the Heritage Cognition–Conservation Paradigm Correspondence Framework (see Figure 3). The framework maps four cognitive phases: conceptual emergence, conceptual stabilization, cognitive shift, and semantic pluralism onto three dominant paradigms of conservation: material-based, value-based, and people-centred. It visualizes the degree of alignment between these phases and paradigms to reflect their level of synergy and adaptive fit over time.

Theoretically, the framework identifies three primary types of alignment between heritage cognition and conservation paradigms:

• Full alignment: occurs when a phase of heritage cognition closely aligns with a corresponding conservation paradigm, reflecting strong coherence between conceptual understanding and practical methodology.
• Delayed coupling: arises when cognitive advances outpace methodological practice, revealing a transitional tension between emerging conceptual clarity and the inertia of established conservation approaches.
• Cognitive–paradigmatic misalignment: emerges when heritage cognition reaches more advanced stages (e.g., those informed by cultural ecology or processual thinking), while conservation practice remains anchored in material-based paradigms. This misalignment leads to significant conceptual and practical inconsistencies.

The latter two forms of misalignment are typically transitional and unstable, requiring gradual recalibration as conservation thinking evolves. In such cases, the correspondence framework serves as both a diagnostic tool and a guide for realignment. It also underscores the continuous recalibration between heritage thinking and practice, particularly in the governance of complex and living heritage systems.

4.2. Analytical Dimensions and Identification Criteria

From both explanatory and practical perspectives, this study develops a set of analytical dimensions derived from the semantic structure of heritage discourse. Based on the developmental characteristics of heritage cognition across its four phases, six key analytical dimensions are identified: heritage object, heritage nature, value orientation, actor structure, heritage attributes, and cognitive perspective. In parallel, four dimensions are drawn from the iterative evolution of conservation paradigms: conservation objectives, objects of conservation, conservation modes, and conservation approaches. Together, these dimensions provide a typological framework for assessing the orientation and characteristics of heritage thinking and conservation practice.

Building on the analytical dimensions outlined above and the key findings on heritage cognition and conservation paradigms discussed in Section 3, this study presents the correspondence framework (Figure 4) visually that illustrates the coupling relationship between heritage understanding and conservation strategies. The framework enables users to systematically identify the cognitive phase and conservation paradigm most applicable to a given heritage project by analyzing relevant heritage logics and strategic approaches. It further allows for a precise assessment of the degree of alignment between heritage cognition and conservation practice, serving as a diagnostic tool for tracing the root causes of conceptual–practical inconsistencies. Hence, it provides a structural basis for empirical research and case-based comparative analysis.

5. Applying the Correspondence Framework to Traditional Chinese Villages

5.1. Classifying the Heritage Cognition Phase in Traditional Chinese Villages

5.1.1. Heritage Value, Heritage Nature and Heritage Attributes

Traditional Chinese Villages are officially recognized as rural settlements formed in earlier periods and designated for conservation due to their historical, cultural, scientific, artistic, economic, and social significance [60]. These villages are increasingly understood as complex heritage entities [8,61]. They are promoted as carriers of multi-layered heritage values and contemporary rural identity [7,8,15,62]. For example, national-level documents, such as the Index System for Assessment and Identification of Traditional Villages (Provisional) (Document No. 125) [ISAITV] and the Registration Form for Traditional Villages, highlight the importance of preserving cultural continuity and maintaining lived characteristics. The heritage value of traditional villages extends well beyond historical, artisanal, or esthetic dimensions. These villages are regarded as embodying deep cultural meanings, symbolic associations, and forms of communal identity [63]. Their contemporary relevance and function in cultural transmission reflect a living form of heritage that goes beyond the material fabric of their built environments [64].

A widely cited proposition by prominent scholar Jicai Feng [65] characterizes traditional villages as a distinct type of cultural heritage that does not fit into the conventional categories of tangible and intangible heritage. This conceptualization has been influential within Chinese heritage discourse, garnering over 1200 citations on CNKI (It is China’s national academic database, accessed on 19 June 2025). Feng’s view aligns with an increasingly accepted position: traditional villages should be understood as holistic heritage systems, not merely as aggregations of physical structures and intangible practices. Echoing the broader recognition of traditional villages as living heritage [66], this perspective emphasizes their systemic and integrated nature, which distinguishing them from conventional built heritage.

Although the cultural processual nature of traditional villages has yet to receive sustained discussion, there is broad consensus that their defining heritage attributes lie in their holistic structure, systemic coherence, and divergence from static architectural heritage [33].

5.1.2. Heritage Object and Cognitive Perspective

In the early policy documents of the Notice on the Survey of Traditional Villages (Document No. 58) and the ISAITV, traditional villages are divided into three heritage components: historic buildings, village spatial layout, and ICH items. This classification reflected an early conceptualization of traditional villages as composite heritage systems encompassing both tangible and intangible elements. However, in practice, identification criteria have tended to prioritize material aspects, subjecting them to detailed and systematic evaluation, while the intangible dimension has often been reduced to a checklist of officially recognized ICH items. This has marginalized dynamic, community-based cultural practices and resulted in a persistent material bias in conservation efforts.

Significant revisions to the evaluation criteria were introduced in the fifth (2018) and sixth (2022) rounds of village identification. These updates expanded the scope of assessment to include everyday cultural expressions. The revised framework now recognizes embedded cultural practices and forms of situated knowledge, encompassing elements like traditional cuisine, ritual festivals, customary regulations, and community norms. Organized around eight components (see Appendix A, left column), the new criteria emphasize the interrelations among social structure, cultural activity, and knowledge transmission within village life.

This cognitive advancement signifies a shift in how traditional villages are conceptualized: not merely as a composite of tangible and intangible elements, but as culturally embedded ecosystems shaped by spatial forms, everyday lifeways, collective memory, and locally situated value systems. Traditional village heritage is no longer perceived as a static legacy, but rather as a dynamic vehicle of cultural continuity, place-based identity, and ongoing social function [67].

5.1.3. Actor Structure and Synthesis

From the perspective of actor structure in heritage cognition, the prevailing understanding of traditional villages has been primarily shaped and promoted by institutional actors (state agencies, national policy frameworks, and heritage experts). While local perspectives are often subjects of academic inquiry, they have rarely played a substantive role in shaping official conceptualizations. As a result, the heritage discourse on traditional villages remains largely top–down in nature.

Drawing on the six analytical dimensions adopted in this study, this analysis finds that traditional villages align with the phase of semantic pluralism across five of the six dimensions. This positioning reflects a growing recognition of traditional villages as complex, multidimensional, and living heritage systems, characteristic of the most recent phase in heritage thinking. For details and positioning, see Figure 5.

5.2. Identifying the Conservation Paradigm for Traditional Chinese Villages

5.2.1. Objects of Conservation: Fragmented Recognition Under a Dualistic Framework

The objects of traditional village conservation have largely been transferred or directly adopted from the existing heritage element classifications. As discussed in Section 5.1.2, the early classification divided villages into three categories: historic buildings, village spatial layouts, and ICH items. This classification was later expanded to eight components (see Appendix A, left column). Although the updated classification incorporates a wider range of elements, closer analysis reveals that it remains grounded in a dualistic structure that separates tangible and intangible heritage elements. While traditional villages have been conceptualized as a distinct third type of heritage, which beyond the types of tangible and intangible heritage, they continue to be interpreted through an additive model, lacking deeper reflection on their specific heritage structures and attributes.

Although policy discourse increasingly portrays traditional villages as integrated, living cultural ecosystems, field investigations show that current conservation practices are still largely shaped by a logic of categorical identification and segmented intervention. Conservation efforts remain focused on managing separate heritage components (both tangible and intangible) without sufficient attention to the internal relationships and structural coherence that sustain the integrity of village heritage. As a result, despite rhetorical shifts toward integration, the object framework has yet to reflect the interconnectedness and holistic nature that define traditional villages.

5.2.2. Conservation Objectives: Selective Application and Functional Displacement

Since the release of the Basic Requirements for the Conservation and Development Planning of Traditional Villages (Provisional) [BRCDPTV] in 2013, official documents have consistently positioned traditional villages as ‘key carriers of Chinese traditional culture and ways of life’, adhering to the overarching principle of ‘prioritizing conservation and coordinating development.’ These policies emphasize the preservation of ‘historical layouts, architectural styles, and traditional customs.’ While authenticity, integrity, and sustainability are frequently cited as guiding principles, their application tends to be selective, which applied to individual heritage elements rather than holistically.

In practice, authenticity is equated with architectural accuracy, integrity with the completeness of spatial layouts, and sustainability with the ongoing display of ICH items. As a result, conservation objectives have increasingly prioritized form over function, with government-led restoration efforts focusing on visual reconstruction and structural preservation. These principles are applied in a fragmented manner, and cultural continuity, essential to living heritage, is often neglected. The implicit shift in conservation objectives has reoriented efforts toward preserving historical appearances and staging lifestyle imagery, rather than maintaining the genuine cultural life of village communities. This reflects a central contradiction in the current approach to conserving traditional villages as living heritage.

Moreover, under China’s widely adopted heritage governance principle: prioritize protection, strengthen management, promote rational use, and ensure sustainable development, many restored villages have been directed toward heritage tourism. Tourism development represents an exogenous function in relation to the original lifeworld of traditional villages. After the restoration of the built environment, local governments often seek to introduce tourism functions in pursuit of economic benefits, a common approach under the national policy framework of rural revitalization. However, in some cases, residential use has even been restricted or replaced by tourism-oriented activities. This clearly contradicts the fundamental principle of living heritage as defined by ICCROM, that heritage sites whose original functions have continued into the present [34]. From this perspective, additional functions such as tourism may, under certain circumstances, undermine rather than enhance the heritage value of traditional villages.

5.2.3. Conservation Approaches: Tangible Bias and Technocratic Implementation

Conservation approaches for Traditional Chinese Villages have largely followed an engineering-oriented model focused on physical restoration. Since the release of the BRCDPTV in 2013, local practices have adhered closely to top–down planning procedures. Typically, professional teams are commissioned to conduct heritage surveys and establish archives; based on these, protection zones are delineated, and conservation measures are developed by category and priority. Implementation then proceeds through technical operations such as street repairs, building restoration, and façade rehabilitation. In some cases, entire reconstruction or image restoration projects have been undertaken, aiming to reproduce idealized historical forms through architectural replication [9].

To address the perceived conflict between contemporary residential needs and conservation priorities, residential functions are often relocated to newly built housing areas outside the historic core. This externalization leaves the original settlement in a static, museum-like condition (refer to Figure 6 as an example).

In contrast, intangible heritage elements have received limited systematic attention. Existing policies tend to rely on representative displays, such as exhibition halls, staged festivals, and archival documentation, without establishing mechanisms for sustaining core cultural practices, including traditional lifeways, folk beliefs, and local knowledge systems. Intangible elements are often treated as supplementary content attached to material forms, with their safeguarding still dependent on spatial interventions, such as dedicated performance spaces or designated exhibition zones.

Overall, the prevailing conservation approaches remain heavily biassed toward tangible elements and material interventions, with limited regard for the embedded cultural practices that constitute the living nature of traditional villages (See Appendix A for element–measure correspondence).

5.2.4. A Top–Down Conservation Mode and Synthesis

The conservation of traditional villages exhibits a clearly top–down governance structure. Since the launch of the national traditional village conservation programme, all key stages, including application, evaluation, approval, planning, funding allocation, and post-implementation supervision, have been led by government agencies, with MOHURD serving as the principal coordinating body.

Although policy documents frequently invoke terms such as community participation and multi-stakeholder governance, in practice, villagers are more often positioned as passive recipients of top–down initiatives rather than as active heritage stakeholders with decision making power.

The sixth round of national-level traditional village designation illustrates this dynamic (see

Table 1. Selection procedure and institutional actors for traditional villages.

Phase	Description	Main Actors
Evaluation and Application	Village surveys, submission of materials, mobilization for nomination	HURD at all levels, expert panels, village committees
Registration and Archiving	Inventory of heritage elements, value assessment, classification	County-level HURD, experts, local gov’t
Funding Allocation	Budget approval, project matching, fiscal disbursement	Finance departments, MOHURD
Conservation Planning	Preparation of conservation plans, zoning of repair priorities	Planning experts, design institutes, government
Inspection and Oversight	Monitoring implementation, spot checks, progress assessments	Higher-level authorities, supervising agencies

). The process typically begins with county-level investigations and proceeds through multiple tiers of expert review and administrative approval. While mechanisms for public participation, such as consultation meetings or signed consent forms, are formally included, they tend to serve procedural rather than substantive roles.

During the planning and implementation phases, external design firms and construction contractors often wield greater influence than local residents. Although a few pilot areas have demonstrated promising models of community participation, such cases remain exceptional and lack structural integration into the broader conservation framework. As a result, local cultural expression and identity practices have yet to be institutionalized within heritage management processes. This governance model continues to reinforce the authority of state institutions and professional experts, limiting the potential for bottom-up, community-driven conservation.

An integrated analysis of the four dimensions above suggests that the conservation strategy for traditional villages aligns conceptually with the value-based paradigm (second paradigm), yet in practice often defaults to material-based approaches (within first paradigm) (see Figure 7). This reflects a continued reliance on engineering-oriented methods and a state-led governance model, while mechanisms for sustaining cultural processes remain underdeveloped and weakly institutionalized.

5.3. Mapping the Cognitive–Paradigmatic Misalignment

When evaluated through the lens of Heritage Cognition–Conservation Paradigm Correspondence Framework, a clear misalignment emerges: the heritage cognition of Traditional Chinese Villages has progressed to the fourth phase of semantic pluralism, while conservation strategies largely remain anchored in the second-phase value-based paradigm, and methodologically continue to reflect a material-based orientation. As illustrated in Figure 8, the applied conservation paradigm lags behind the current cognitive understanding of these villages. Based on the preceding analysis, the key factors contributing to this misalignment are as follows (Figure 8).

The selective translation from heritage object to conservation object has led to a failure to respond to the holistic nature of traditional villages. As integrated cultural ecosystems, the heritage value of traditional villages depends on the continuity of everyday life and social practices within local communities. However, current conservation practices tend to fragment these villages into discrete tangible and intangible components, resulting in a technocratic approach centred on restoration and visual display. The lack of systematic recognition of multidimensional heritage attributes has led to the neglect of key aspects essential to sustaining vitality and integrity. This segmented approach to conserving individual heritage elements further severs the connection between heritage and lived reality, producing the paradox of spatial restoration coexisting with cultural hollowing.

The disconnection between conservation objectives and the inherent nature and attributes of traditional villages makes it difficult to assess the appropriateness of conservation approaches. In practice, conservation efforts have largely prioritized the continuity of historical form while overlooking the contemporary cultural expression and social function of villages. Such goal-setting reflects a limited understanding of heritage as a living cultural process. When conservation is narrowly focused on visual reconstruction rather than the functional and dynamic character of villages as socio-cultural spaces, the chosen technical approaches fail to address the actual needs of the heritage system. This misalignment not only marginalizes local communities’ roles in maintaining cultural vitality but also renders technical interventions inadequate in addressing deeper structural and cultural mechanisms. As a result, conservation practices become formalistic and reductive.

In sum, issues in current conservation practices can be traced to the failure to institutionalize a nuanced understanding of the nature and attributes of traditional villages. Treating traditional villages as a sum of discrete tangible and intangible elements, with each subject to separate interventions, has often led to their musealization and detachment from the living cultural systems they once embodied. Future conservation strategies must therefore begin with a re-anchored recognition of villages as holistic, dynamic, and systemically integrated village heritage, and work toward realigning conservation cognition with intervention practices.

5.4. Enhancing Conservation Strategies for Traditional Chinese Villages

In response, this section proposes several recommendations aimed at facilitating a strategic transition from a material-oriented, expert-driven model toward a process-oriented, pluralistic governance approach:

(1)

Developing a recognition framework grounded in cultural vitality

Current identification criteria for traditional villages inadequately reflect their dynamic and lived qualities. It is essential to revise existing assessment frameworks to incorporate indicators that capture cultural continuity, community engagement, and the vitality of local knowledge systems. Such recalibration would enable a more accurate recognition of contextualized living heritage, while also helping to prevent the excessive development of additional functions such as tourism that may undermine heritage itself.

(2)

Reframing conservation objectives from element-focused to process-oriented

Conservation objectives should be redefined to prioritize the safeguarding of ongoing cultural processes rather than the mere preservation of physical form. This requires a shift from representational display to the active support of local life systems, emphasizing the transmission of cultural functions and everyday practices as core components.

(3)

Restructuring governance to empower local communities

A meaningful transition from centralized, expert-dominated governance to community-led, multi-stakeholder co-management is necessary. This includes institutionalizing participatory mechanisms, granting local communities substantive decision-making authority, and supporting structures for cultural self-governance. Such changes would legitimize the role of villagers as active heritage bearers rather than passive recipients of conservation outcomes.

(4)

Fostering interdisciplinary approaches and context-responsive innovation

Heritage conservation must move beyond technocratic and engineering-dominated methodologies. Integrating perspectives from architecture, anthropology, sociology, and ecology can foster more nuanced and adaptable conservation strategies. In parallel, technical innovation should be locally informed and aligned with the cultural and ecological specificities of traditional villages. Efforts should also be made to support the preservation and revitalization of indigenous knowledge systems as a key resource for sustainable conservation practices.

6. Conclusion and Research Outlook

6.1. Summary of Findings

This study traced the co-evolution of heritage cognition and conservation paradigms, identifying four cognitive phases and three conservation paradigms. Based on this, it proposed the Heritage Cognition–Conservation Paradigm Correspondence Framework, which is designed to assess the alignment between conceptual understandings of heritage and their operational translation into conservation strategies.

Applied to the case of traditional village conservation in China, the framework reveals a significant cognitive–practical misalignment: while policy discourse increasingly reflects fourth-phase thinking, conservation practices remain largely anchored in second-phase, value-based paradigms, with a strong reliance on material restoration methods. This misalignment is not due to conceptual absence, but rather institutional inertia and methodological path dependency.

6.2. Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications

This study offers three key theoretical contributions: it conceptualizes cognition–practice misalignment as a structural issue in heritage governance; it provides a systematic framework for diagnosing misalignments between heritage thinking and conservation actions; and it develops a transferable analytical framework applicable across different heritage types and governance contexts.

For complex and living heritage forms like traditional villages, conservation strategies must move beyond element-based restoration. A shift toward cognition-oriented, process-based approaches is required, which emphasizes cultural continuity, local agency, and systemic coherence. The proposed framework provides a tool for institutions and practitioners to recalibrate conservation planning toward more adaptive, inclusive, and culturally responsive governance.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study is primarily grounded in theoretical construction and policy review. While it offers an analytical framework, it falls short in empirical validation through fieldwork and quantitative methods. Future research may expand in the following directions: incorporating additional village cases to conduct cross-regional comparisons and test how the observed misalignment manifests under different governance regimes, applying the framework to other emerging heritage categories to evaluate its applicability and boundary flexibility, and deepening investigation into the social action processes of frame co-construction, with particular attention to how community actors exercise agency in heritage definition and governance.