Identification and Risk Diagnosis of Atypical Traditional Villages in Southern Anhui from the Perspective of Human–Land Coupling—Yixian County as an Example

Abstract

The southern Anhui region is home to numerous atypical traditional villages. These settlements serve not only as vital spaces for residents’ daily lives but also as core venues for the transmission and dissemination of traditional culture. Consequently, effectively identifying and classifying these deteriorating traditional villages to formulate corresponding conservation and revitalization strategies has become a critical issue in cultural heritage preservation and utilization. This study focuses on 40 traditional villages in Yixian County, Huangshan City, Anhui Province, as its research subjects. Based on Points of Interest (POI), media sources, village archives, and field surveys, a systematic analysis of these traditional villages was conducted. By integrating a literature review with expert consultation within a multidisciplinary framework, we constructed a three-tiered evaluation system comprising 15 indicators across three major domains: resident experience, tourist engagement, and village environmental quality. The clustering results indicate that 33 out of the 40 villages are atypical. Based on indicator aggregation, these atypical villages are further categorized into two types: B1 (endangered-type) and B2 (resident-dominant/tourist supplementary type). Using this classification system, we propose tailored development strategies for each village type. The findings offer both theoretical and practical guidance for broader traditional village conservation efforts.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Globally, the preservation and revitalization of rural settlements have become a shared focus in cultural heritage research and sustainable development [1]. However, distinct regional approaches provide unique insights, offering crucial reference points for understanding the non-archaic traditional villages of southern Anhui. Traditional villages in China are experiencing unprecedented transformations due to urbanization and modernization. Challenges such as population decline, architectural deterioration, and cultural discontinuity have become more pronounced [2]. As an important component of cultural heritage and an important carrier of intangible cultural heritage, the originality and integrity of traditional villages should not be overlooked. Meanwhile, in response to the rich cultural and natural heritage of southern Anhui, the government has proposed “an ‘all-for-one tourism’” development model. Some traditional villages with solid foundations have achieved economic growth through the renovation of traditional architecture, the development of leisure tourism, and the cultivation of distinctive industries. Although these policies have benefited some well-preserved traditional villages that have been officially recognized, many widely distributed atypical traditional villages remain overlooked and insufficiently studied [3]. Despite their marginalization, these villages contain deep reservoirs of historical and cultural significance and represent indispensable components of China’s broader traditional settlement system. However, due to unclear classification criteria and a lack of scholarly attention, these villages remain on the periphery of heritage research and practice, urgently requiring systematic investigation to reassess their value and unlock their developmental potential.

Currently, scholarly research on atypical traditional villages is still in its early stages, characterized by unclear conceptual definitions, regionally limited methodologies; and narrow disciplinary perspectives. Existing evaluation systems often focus on isolated aspects relevant to typical villages and fail to capture the multifaceted nature of atypical cases [4,5,6]. Building on a critical review of the relevant literature and theoretical frameworks, this study aims to contribute to academic discourse by offering a more precise definition of atypical traditional villages. Focusing on Yixian County in southern Anhui Province—a region renowned for its rich cultural heritage, well-preserved rural landscapes, and dense concentration of historic settlements—this study selects 40 traditional villages as empirical cases. A comprehensive, multidimensional evaluation system, encompassing the domains of residents, tourists, and the village environment, was developed to ensure methodological rigor and contextual relevance. By combining indicator weighting and cluster analysis, this study identifies village types, diagnoses the core challenges they face, and visualizes their spatial and functional differentiation. Based on these findings, tailored strategies are proposed to support the sustainable revitalization of atypical traditional villages.

1.2. Literature Review

In 2012, China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development, together with the Ministry of Culture, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage, and the Ministry of Finance, jointly issued the Indicator System for the Evaluation and Recognition of Traditional Villages. Since then, numerous scholars have developed evaluation frameworks based on this policy. For example, Jude Dong constructed an index system for evaluating the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of villages in Yunnan Province [7], Yang Kai proposed a classification model based on clustering features of villages nationwide [8]; while Duan Degang developed a model addressing abandoned ancient villages from the perspectives of history, natural environment, and architecture [9]. Further advancements have seen researchers, such as Pan Ying and Zou Jun, incorporate demographic trends and heritage typologies [10], while Yang Liguo focused on dimensions such as authenticity, vitality, integrity, and inheritance [11]. Chen Xiaoyan emphasized the experiential dimensions of “culture–emotion–memory” [12]. These models often integrate qualitative and quantitative methods, such as expert scoring, vitality assessment, and structured surveys [7,8,9,10,11,12].

Additionally, spatial models such as Geo-Detector and GTWR have been employed to analyze external drivers and spatio-temporal dynamics in village evolution, facilitating habitat suitability evaluations [13]. Cultural tourism development has also received attention, with methods such as entropy weighting and the TOPSIS model being used to assess cultural inheritance capacity and sustainability [14].

In the fields of “Cultural Heritage Protection” and “Rural Tourism and Sustainable Development”, scholars have selected a range of indicators and factors to assess the potential of rural tourism, aiming to promote the sustainable development of traditional villages and rural revitalization [15,16,17,18,19]. Juan investigated the relationship between cultural heritage elements and tourist numbers in Spain [20], while Maria explored the role of heritage activation in rural development [21]. Mehdi examined the socioeconomic effects of tourism through farmer surveys [22], and Elgin assessed tourism impacts across economic, social, and environmental dimensions [23]. David studied how the spatial layout of rural buildings influences both residents and tourists [24]. These studies provide valuable comparative insights and inform the selection of indicators for the assessment of atypical traditional villages.

Despite this growing body of work, there is still no universally accepted evaluation frameworks (Figure 1). Existing models often suffer from indicator bias, regional specificity, and inconsistent criteria. To address these gaps, this study proposes a comprehensive indicator system tailored to atypical traditional villages. Drawing on social data, village archives, digital sources, and prior academic contributions, we have developed a framework that integrates three core perspectives—village structure, resident experience, and tourist engagement—to support differentiated revitalization strategies.

1.3. Conceptual Definition

The definition of China’s Atypical villages remains inconsistent, with existing research focusing on several key aspects (

Table 1. Research Differences in Defining Atypical Villages.

Author	Types of Village Names	Location Factors	Tourism Development	Historical Value	Regional Culture	Resident Production	Spatial Background
Zhang Jingxiang	Atypical ancient village	●		●		●	●
Kong Weijie	Atypical famous Village			●			●
Han Junyan	Atypical ancient village			●	●
Wei Jinda	Suburbantype Atypical villages Unconventional Famous Villages	●	●	●	●
Wang Meilin	Atypical Traditional Villages			●	●		●
Pu Zhonghong	Atypical Traditional Villages	●		●	●	●	●
Wu Zhennan	Atypical Traditional Villages		●	●	●	●
Li Xianfeng	Atypical Traditional Villages			●	●	●	●
Wu Yuhan	Atypical Traditional Villages			●	●	●
Li Zao	Atypical Traditional Villages		●	●	●	●
Wang Haoyuan	Atypical Traditional Villages			●	●	●	●
Zhang Ping	Atypical Traditional Villages			●	●		●

). While these settlements retain certain traditional characteristics in architectural style, historical culture, and lifestyle, their functions and structures have undergone significant changes amid rapid urbanization. In response to this phenomenon, scholars have proposed corresponding strategies from perspectives such as heritage preservation, tourism development, and community revitalization. After reviewing the multiple definitions of the concept of “atypical traditional villages”, it is evident that all the definitions clearly state that atypical traditional villages possess varying degrees of historical and cultural value, preservation status, and tourism use compared with typical traditional villages. Zhang Jingxiang, Han Junyan, and Wei Jinda have emphasized that many such villages are often located on the peripheries of urban–rural fringe zones, and due to overly narrow criteria for recognizing historical and cultural value, they have failed to receive national or province-level protection [25,26,27]. Similarly, Kong Weijie, Wei Jinda, and Zheng Shaojiang have pointed out the structural limitations of the current heritage recognition system, arguing that although many villages possess intrinsic value, they still fall short of the thresholds required for designation as “Historic and Cultural Villages” [28,29].

Wu Zhennan and Li Xianfeng highlight the differences between atypical villages and formally recognized ancient settlements in terms of architectural style, spatial layout, and preservation integrity [30,31]. Wang Haoyuan classifies atypical villages based on the extent to which they retain traditional features or have undergone complete spatial and stylistic transformations due to modernization [32]. Li Zao emphasizes the fragmented state of tangible heritage in these villages, where modernization has disrupted the historical spatial structure, weakening cultural continuity even when elements of cultural value remain [33].

Socioeconomic dimensions also play critical roles. Wu Yuhan identifies economic stagnation, low productivity, and population outflow as primary factors threatening the viability of atypical villages and undermining their capacity for heritage preservation [34]. Pu Zhonghong and Liu Tong have noted that such villages are often neglected, and even when they possess both tangible and intangible heritage resources, they are frequently marginalized outside the formal protection system [35,36].

Building upon relevant research findings and considering the current state of villages alongside conservation and development needs, this paper establishes an identification index system for atypical traditional villages. Based on the relative strengths of each indicator, traditional villages are categorized into two main types: typical and atypical. Traditional villages with well-preserved spatial foundations (structure, sites, architecture), high historical value, and relatively mature tourism development are defined as typical traditional villages. Conversely, those with deficiencies in spatial foundation preservation but possessing certain historical and cultural value and tourism development potential are defined as atypical traditional villages (Figure 2). Given the extensive distribution and large number of traditional villages in southern Anhui, adopting differentiated conservation and development approaches will facilitate the sustainable cultural and economic development of these villages.

The significance of this study lies in overcoming the limitations of previous research on traditional villages, which tended to focus solely on typical cases, by extending the research perspective to more general yet often overlooked atypical traditional villages. This approach addresses the practical challenges of village protection and development amid rapid urbanization. The innovations of this study are primarily reflected in three aspects: first, the construction of a comprehensive evaluation index system integrating spatial, cultural, tourism, and social dimensions, which strengthens the logic of village identification from a human–land coupling perspective; second, the establishment of a classification framework distinguishing typical and atypical villages, providing a new approach for scientifically understanding village types and differences; and third, the proposal of differentiated protection and development pathways, offering more targeted decision-making references for grassroots governance and policy formulation. This research not only enriches the theoretical system of traditional village protection and development but also provides practical value for rural revitalization and cultural heritage conservation in the southern Anhui region, playing an important role in promoting cultural inheritance and regional sustainable development.

1.4. Research Hypothesis

H1. 

Atypical traditional villages exhibit distinct spatial characteristics, cultural resources, and functional status, differentiating them from the monotony and maturity of typical villages. These villages possess inherent diversity and development potential.

H2. 

By constructing a comprehensive multi-indicator system that covers the fundamental aspects of the village, residents’ lifestyles, and tourism development, and utilizing cluster analysis, the types and internal variations of atypical traditional villages can be identified and systematically classified.

H3. 

Atypical traditional villages, classified based on their types, exhibit explainable development characteristics. Significant differences exist across types in indicators such as transportation access, cultural resources, tourism facilities, and residents’ income, which supports the validity of the classification.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Yixian County, located in Huangshan City, Anhui Province, encompasses 46 traditional villages (Figure 3). The region is renowned for its abundance of tangible cultural heritage, including the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Hongcun and Xidi. Blessed with a scenic natural environment and rich cultural traditions, Yixian is often referred to as the “Great Landscape of Xin’an”. Since ancient times, Yixian County has been nurtured by the celebrated landscape of the Xin’an River, shaped by a distinctive cultural ethos. Influenced by Neo-Confucian philosophy, local traditions emphasized both clan ethics and harmonious neighborhood relations. They valued education, honesty, mutual support, and humility. Classical couplets such as “I love my neighbors and they love me; fish thrive by water and water sustains fish” and “A virtuous neighborhood with benevolence and righteousness, a community shaped by propriety and justice” vividly illustrate the ancestors’ pursuit of a harmonious and humane social environment.

Yixian County currently has 46 nationally designated traditional villages. However, four of the villages are located within urban built-up areas, where the development environment fundamentally differs from that of traditional rural settlements. Given that the spatial characteristics of urban areas may excessively interfere with the relevant indicators, these villages were excluded from the scope of this study. Additionally, the two newly added traditional villages from the sixth batch are still in the preliminary construction and designation phase. Their various indicators remain unstable and lack comparability, leading to their exclusion as well. Based on these considerations, this study ultimately selected 40 relatively mature and representative traditional villages from the first five batches as the sample for analysis. Among these 40 samples, 33 cases meeting the characteristics of “Atypical villages” were further identified based on indicators such as residential vitality, cultural heritage, architectural preservation, and tourism development. These cases will be used for subsequent classification and optimization pathway research.

2.2. Data Sources

This study integrated multiple data sources to ensure the comprehensiveness and reliability of the analysis. The primary datasets include traditional village archival records, geospatial vector data, socioeconomic statistics, online Points of Interest (POI) data, and results from field investigations.

Archival data on traditional villages were acquired through structured interviews and document replication conducted at local township offices. Geospatial data, comprising village centroid coordinates, digital elevation models (DEM), administrative boundaries, and road network data, were sourced from the official portal of the National Natural Resources Bureau of China.

Socioeconomic statistics were obtained from official publications of local government agencies, providing baseline information on the population, economic structure, and village-level development indicators. Additionally, infrastructure and service-related data, including the spatial distribution of commercial facilities, food, lodging, transport, and lifestyle amenities, were extracted from the open API of the Gaode (AutoNavi) mapping platform. This multisource dataset enables comprehensive spatial and functional profiling of the selected villages.

2.3. Research Methods

2.3.1. Construction of Indicator System for Identification of Atypical Traditional Villages

The evaluation indicator system developed for this study was based on national standards such as the Evaluation System for Traditional Villages and the Assessment Indicators for China’s Historic and Cultural Towns and Villages, as well as relevant academic research (

Table 2. Indicator Selection.

Research Author or Indicator Source	Research Objective	Indicator Dimensions	Referencing Indicators
“Traditional Village Evaluation and Identification Indicator System”	Traditional village evaluation	Traditional architecture, village location, intangible cultural heritage	C04, C08
Zou Jun [37]	Classification of traditional villages	Population vitality, heritage vitality	C12, C04, C01, C13
Yang Liguo [11]	Evaluation of traditional village protection	Authenticity, completeness, vitality, inheritance	C11, C05
Chen Xiaohua [38]	Evaluation of traditional village functionality	Culture, economy, living, ecology	C03, C02, C01
Li Zao [39]	Cultural ecology cognition and inheritance evaluation	Function, heritage, continuity	C09, C04
Chu Jinlong [40]	Evaluation of traditional village value	Architectural heritage, folk culture, production methods, living environment	C08, C12, C01, C05
Tu Shuangshuang [41]	Evaluation of traditional village space	Regional environment, settlement morphology, spatial proximity	C08, C10, C11
Li Bohua [42]	Evaluation of traditional village living environment	Living environment landscape, regional function, subject adaptability	C13, C04, C05, C09
Tang Chengcai [43]	Evaluation of cultural and tourism integration in traditional villages	Economy, society, ecology, culture	C13, C08, C05
Shan Yanming [44]	Evaluation of vitality inheritance in traditional villages	Facility foundation, industrial development, village subject	C01, C02, C03
Yang Kai [8]	Evaluation of spatial status in traditional villages	Culture, economy, living, ecology	C01, C08, C13, C10
Zhao Zhiyuan [45]	Evaluation of traditional village value	Material and intangible cultural heritage	C04, C05, C08, C09
Zhang Shengrui [46]	Evaluation of tourism value in traditional villages	Village culture, ecological nature, tourism facilities	C12, C06, C07, C14
Xu Xiaodong [47]	Evaluation of production and living in traditional villages	Production, ecology, living	C13, C04, C05
Liu Sheng [48]	Vitality of traditional villages	Protection, development	C08, C03, C02, C13
Jing Fu [49]	Evaluation of ancient residential heritage value	Architecture	C08, C09
Degen Wang [50]	Factors influencing traditional village hollowing	Land, population, industry	C13
Fu Li [51]	Evaluation of ecological environment in traditional villages	Ecology, land, economy	C13
Tang C [52]	Evaluation of cultural and tourism integration in typical traditional villages	Culture, tourism	C06, C07, C15, C05

) [8,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. Based on these foundations, adjustments and optimizations were made to better align with the specific characteristics of atypical villages in southern Anhui.

First, by systematically reviewing relevant literature and existing indicator systems, the fundamental characteristics of traditional villages in terms of spatial layout, cultural value, and heritage preservation were identified, which guided the selection of evaluation indicators. To ensure the scientific rigor and contextual adaptability of the evaluation system, this study constructed the indicator system from the dual perspectives of human and land. “Human” refers to the active populations in southern Anhui’s traditional villages, including residents and tourists, while “land” refers to the village itself, encompassing the village environment and historic buildings. Based on these two core perspectives, the identification indicator system for atypical traditional villages was developed (as shown in Figure 4).

Building on the initial framework, expert consultations and multiple rounds of refinement were conducted to continuously improve the indicator system, making it more scientifically robust and targeted. Ultimately, a comprehensive identification indicator system for atypical traditional villages was finalized (see

Table 3. Indicator system.

Level 1 Indicators	Secondary Indicators	Tertiary Indicators	Calculation Method
Human	Resident level	C13	Annual per capita income level of the local population
		C02	Number of public toilets, village offices and medical points crawled by the network
		C04	Number of village archives accessing intangible culture
		C05	Survey on the level of cultural heritage in villages
	Tourist level	C06	Calculate the number of B&B hotels
		C07	Calculation of the number of restaurant catering facilities
		C14	Whether it is a key village for rural tourism and a historical and cultural village
		C15	Counting the number of notes posted in a year of social media posting
Land	old building	C08	Village Records Statistics on the Number of Residences and Ancestral Halls before 1949
		C11	Calculation of the proportion of land area occupied by conventional building footprints
		C10	Number of National, Provincial, Municipal and District Levels
		C09	Number of ancient roads, bridges, wells and trees
		C12	Village records statistics
	Village environment	C01	Calculate the average travel time for villages to reach the HSR station and the county seat
		C03	Calculate the number of parking lots and bus stops in each village

).

2.3.2. Database Construction

To conduct spatial analysis and identify village types, this study imported relevant data into a Geographic Information System (GIS) platform, specifically using ArcGIS Pro version 3.4.0. for data processing and analysis. We established a comprehensive geographic database that integrates multiple datasets, including village locations, infrastructure, and environmental data. The natural breakpoint method (Jenks) was used for data classification within the GIS software. This method, proposed by George F. Jenks [53], is a classic technique widely applied in fields such as territorial spatial planning [54], economic geography [55], environmental science, and remote sensing [56]. Due to its advantages in optimizing classification interpretability and application value, the natural breakpoint method is particularly suitable for traditional village research involving multi-attribute spatial data. By minimizing within-class variance and maximizing between-class variance, the method effectively identifies natural clustering patterns within the data, thereby enhancing the scientific rigor and interpretability of the classification results.

Building upon this foundation, a standardized five-level scoring system (1–5 points) is introduced to ensure consistency and comparability across indicator evaluations while supporting multidimensional structured assessments (see

Table 4. Indicator scoring criteria.

Indicator (CXX)	Scoring Method					Data Sources
	5	4	3	2	1
C13	18,541–78,740	13,661–18,540	9001–13,660	6499–9000	4200–6498	village archives
C02	7–8	4–6	3	1–3	0	Gao De Map
C04	7–10	6	4–5	2–3	1	village archives
C05	31–49 points	21–30 points	14–20 points	7–13 points	3–6 points	village archives
C06	177–584	99–176	39–98	11–38	0–10	Gao De Map
C07	190–280	60–189	16–59	5–15	0–4	Gao De Map
C14	Tourism key villages and cultural villages	Tourism key villages	village of cultural significance	Other titles	untitled	National Releases
C15	200–764	33–199	9–32	3–8	0–2	social media
C08	93–312	48–92	32–47	19–31	7–18	village archives
C11	81–98%	64–80%	37–63%	3–36%	0–2%	village archives
C10	national level	provincial level	municipal level	county level	none	village archives
C09	Ancient Roads, Bridges, Wells and Trees	3 and more	3 and fewer	two items	one	village archives
C01	11.83–15.31 min	15.32–22.31 min	22.32–28.63 min	28.64–33.63 min	33.64–101.08 min	Gao De Map
C03	6–7	4–5	3	1–2	0	Gao De Map
C12	Song dynasty	Song dynasty	the Ming dynasty	Qing dynasty	after the Qing dynasty	village archives

). The integration of the natural breakpoint method with the ordinal scoring system enhances data standardization quality, laying the groundwork for cluster analysis and village type classification.

2.3.3. Cluster Analysis

After assigning scores to the various indicators, the data were imported into IBM SPSS Statistics version 27 software for cluster analysis. This study employed the Ward’s minimum variance method to perform hierarchical clustering, using squared Euclidean distance as the measure of dissimilarity to ensure consistency in distance calculations between villages. Ward’s Method is a commonly used clustering technique in hierarchical clustering, which minimizes the sum of squared errors within clusters to select the optimal clusters. To eliminate bias caused by differences in variable scales, all indicator values were standardized using Min–Max normalization (0–1 range). The 0–1 normalization, also known as Min–Max normalization, is a commonly used method for scaling data into a range between 0 and 1. This normalization method maps the minimum value of each variable to 0 and the maximum value to 1, thereby scaling all data points to the specified range. The formula is as follows $X_{norm}$ is the normalized data value, $X_{min}$ is the minimum value of the variable, and $X_{max}$ is the maximum value of the variable.

$${\displaystyle \frac{X-X_{min}}{X_{max}-X_{min}}}=X_{norm}$$

3. Results

3.1. Classification Results

The clustering results generate a systematic clustering tree diagram that clearly delineated the internal structure and clustering hierarchy of the 40 sampled villages (Figure 5). Based on the distribution of the aggregation coefficients and the observed inflection point in the clustering spectrum, the samples were optimally divided into three distinct categories. These categories display clear differentiation across dimensions, such as village morphology, tourism development, residential infrastructure, and cultural heritage preservation (

Table A1. Village Value Assignment Data.

Village ID	Village	Transportation Accessibility Score C01	Public Service Facilities Rating C02	Transportation Infrastructure Score C03	Number of Intangible Cultural Heritage Items C04	Intangible Cultural Heritage Indicator Scoring C05	Accommodation Rating C06	Restaurant Rating C07	Traditional Architecture Rating C08	Historical Environmental Factors C09	Cultural Relics Grade Rating C10	Traditional Architecture Proportion Score C11	Formation Age Score C12	Income Level Score C13	Village Recognition C14	Village Promotion Rating C15
T01	Hongcun	2	5	4	3	4	5	4	5	5	4	5	5	4	5	5
T02	xidi	5	4	3	3	4	3	3	5	5	4	5	5	4	5	5
T03	Jicun	3	4	4	1	1	3	4	1	2	1	4	3	3	1	1
T04	Lucu	2	3	5	4	4	4	3	4	5	2	5	4	2	3	4
T05	Pingshan	4	2	4	3	4	2	2	5	5	4	5	4	2	3	4
T06	Nanping	4	3	3	2	3	2	2	5	4	2	5	4	2	3	4
T07	Guanlu	3	1	2	2	2	1	1	4	5	3	3	4	2	3	4
T08	Tachuan	2	1	3	4	4	2	1	3	4	2	5	4	2	4	4
T09	Bishan	4	2	3	2	2	2	2	3	2	3	3	4	2	3	5
T10	Zhukeng	4	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	1	2	4	2	1	1
T11	Liyuan	3	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	2	1	3	4	1	1	1
T12	Tuanjie	3	3	1	2	3	1	3	4	3	1	4	4	2	1	1
T13	Longchuan	4	3	3	1	1	2	2	3	5	1	2	3	2	1	2
T14	Shiting	4	1	2	4	4	1	1	3	2	2	2	3	2	1	2
T15	Zhuxi	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	1	5	4	2	1	1
T16	Guzhu	4	3	2	1	2	1	2	4	4	2	5	3	2	1	1
T17	Huangcun	4	3	2	1	2	1	2	4	1	1	3	4	2	1	1
T18	Meikeng	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	3	3	2	4	4	1	1	1
T19	Zhuke	1	2	1	4	2	1	2	2	5	1	4	4	1	1	1
T20	Cuilin	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	4	3	1	5	4	2	1	1
T21	Yuguang	4	1	1	2	3	1	1	2	2	3	2	3	1	1	1
T22	Lanhu	1	1	1	2	3	1	1	1	3	2	5	4	2	1	1
T23	Shangcun	4	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	1	4	4	3	1	1
T24	Hengduan	4	1	3	1	1	2	1	2	3	1	4	4	3	1	1
T25	Jiangcun	4	3	4	3	2	2	2	3	3	3	3	4	3	1	1
T26	Qinglingshan	2	1	1	4	4	1	1	2	2	1	4	4	3	1	1
T27	Lichuan	4	1	1	3	3	1	1	3	4	3	4	4	1	1	1
T28	Chiling	3	3	2	2	3	1	1	3	2	3	2	4	2	1	1
T29	Lishe	1	1	1	3	4	1	1	3	3	1	5	4	2	1	1
T30	Shuli	3	2	1	3	3	1	1	2	3	1	3	4	3	1	1
T31	Wancun	2	2	1	2	3	1	1	2	2	1	5	4	3	1	1
T32	Yanchuan	5	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	2	4	3	3	1	1
T33	Pengxia	3	2	2	2	3	2	2	2	3	3	2	3	4	1	1
T34	Shexishangcun	1	1	1	3	3	1	1	3	3	1	4	4	3	1	1
T35	Zhongguang	3	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	2	3	1	1	1
T36	Hongtan	1	2	1	3	3	1	2	1	2	2	5	4	3	1	2
T37	Yicun	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	4	4	2	1	1
T38	Dongkeng	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	2	5	2	4	3	3	1	1
T39	Xiazikeng	3	3	3	2	3	2	1	3	4	3	4	4	4	1	1
T40	Xiuli	4	2	3	2	5	2	1	3	4	2	3	3	2	1	3

).

3.1.1. Category A: Typical Traditional Villages

Represented by the World Heritage sites Xidi and Hongcun, these exemplary traditional villages possess significant historical and cultural value alongside mature development models. Such villages exhibit harmonious integration of natural and human environments, strong continuity in spatial layout, and ample preservation of traditional architecture with high overall quality. With an average of 160 traditional buildings and a building density reaching 85%, they collectively showcase a highly intact historical character. In terms of tourism development, these villages possess comprehensive facility systems encompassing diverse functions such as lodging, dining, and guided tours, demonstrating strong visitor capacity and market operation capabilities. On average, each village hosts 45 restaurants and nearly 100 lodging establishments, with annual social media posts exceeding 300, indicating extensive external influence and activity. At the community level, residents in these villages enjoy an average per capita income exceeding CNY 10,000. Public service facilities are relatively comprehensive, with an average of three medical stations and parking lots per village. Each village preserves an average of four intangible cultural heritage items, collectively exemplifying the harmonious integration of traditional village conservation and tourism development (see

Table 5. Indicators of Typical Traditional Villages.

Category A	Indicator	Value
Typical Traditional Villages	Average number of restaurants	45
	Average number of accommodations	96
	Average annual media publications	306 times
	Per capita income level	10,057.87 RMB
	Number of basic service facilities	3
	Number of intangible cultural heritage items	4
	Number of traditional buildings	160
	Traditional building density	85%
	Average area (ha)	25.07 ha

).

3.1.2. Category B: Atypical Villages

This category exhibits significant internal variation and can be further subdivided into two subcategories based on clustering results.

Subcategory B1—Endangered Traditional Villages

Represented by villages such as Zhuxi Village and Lanhu Village, these villages commonly face severe population outflow and insufficient community vitality. Public service facilities are scarce, averaging less than one per village. Transportation accessibility is low, with average travel times of 47.6 min by car to the county seat and 62.4 min to the high-speed rail station, indicating pronounced spatial isolation. Village infrastructure is weak, living conditions are rudimentary, and vacant buildings are prevalent, necessitating urgent improvements to overall human settlements. Despite their relatively small scale, these villages retain substantial traditional architectural resources, averaging 28 buildings with a density of approximately 80%. Their historical remains are well-preserved, offering significant potential for cultural reuse and heritage conservation. Consequently, these villages are ideal candidates for prioritized rescue conservation and revitalization of rural cultural heritage.

“While Subcategory B1 highlights villages facing significant challenges related to population decline, infrastructure deficiencies, and spatial isolation, Subcategory B2 presents villages that, although stable and well-established in terms of residential and leisure functions, still face developmental gaps, particularly in tourism and heritage conservation”.

Subcategory B2—Traditional Villages Dominated by Residential and Leisure Functions

Represented by villages such as Guzhu and Yuguang, these villages prioritize daily residential functions, featuring excellent overall ecological environments, vibrant community life, and relatively well-developed public service facilities (averaging about 2 per village). Per capita income reaches approximately CNY 9223, ensuring relatively stable living conditions. Transportation accessibility is relatively good, with an average 13 min drive to county seats, offering certain locational advantages. However, tourism development remains insufficient, with an average of only 14 restaurants and 11 lodging establishments. External promotion is limited, with fewer than 3 social media posts per year on average, hindering the formation of scaled appeal. Regarding cultural resources, some traditional buildings are poorly preserved, with an overall building density below 50% and an average of 31 structures. The architectural landscape urgently requires restoration and revitalization. Future development for such villages should focus on targeted restoration and cultural empowerment to enhance the display and inheritance of historical value. Simultaneously, leveraging their location advantages, they should gradually expand tourism functions to achieve synergistic development between residential living and tourism.

3.2. Village Diagnostic Analysis

To systematically reveal developmental disparities among different types of traditional villages, this study selected 40 villages in southern Anhui Province as samples. It conducted a comparative diagnostic analysis using the developmental stages following the publication of the National List of Traditional Villages since 2012 as the research timeframe. By integrating multi-dimensional indicators such as spatial patterns, infrastructure, tourism development, socio-economic conditions, and cultural resources, the aim is to identify the shortcomings and common characteristics of both typical and atypical traditional villages in their current development phases. This lays the groundwork for proposing targeted optimization pathways. During the analysis, Origin 2024 and ArcGIS software were employed for data visualization, enabling intuitive presentation of the characteristics of different types of villages while providing empirical support for classification outcomes.

3.2.1. Village Environment Analysis

Accessibility was assessed by calculating the average travel time from each village to Yixian County and the Yixian East High-Speed Railway Station. The results revealed a clear spatial stratification (see

Table 6. Mean value analysis of environmental indicators in the village.

Types of Traditional Villages	Accessibility			Transportation Facilities
	Driving Time to the Highspeed Rail Station	Driving Time to the County Seat	Average Passage Time	Average Number of Parking Lots	Average Number of Bus Stops
Typical traditional villages	33.7 min	16.4 min	25.1 min	3	1
B-1 Atypical traditional villages	62.4 min	47.6 min	55.0 min	0	0
B-2 Atypical traditional villages	31.7 min	13.5 min	22.6 min	1	1

and Figure 6):

⁜

Typical traditional villages demonstrate excellent external connectivity, with mean travel times of 33.7 min to the high-speed rail station and 25.1 min to the county center.

⁜

B-2 type atypical villages surpass even typical villages in terms of locational proximity, averaging 31.7 min and 13.5 min, respectively, highlighting their locational compactness and continued viability for residential functions.

⁜

In contrast, B-1 type villages face significant geographic isolation, with travel times approaching 60 min, underscoring their marginal status and restricted development potential.

⁜

Further analysis using Gaode Map API data indicates that typical villages benefit from superior transport infrastructure, such as parking areas and bus stops, facilitating higher tourism carrying capacity and resident mobility. Conversely, infrastructure deficits in atypical villages, particularly in type B-1, amplify spatial disconnection, exacerbate population decline, and pose major constraints on revitalization efforts.

3.2.2. Analysis of Ancient Buildings

In terms of tangible cultural heritage, typical traditional villages are far superior (see

Table 7. Analysis of the mean values of the indicators of ancient buildings.

Types of Traditional Villages	Number of Traditional Buildings	Conventional Building Density	Average Land Area (ha)
Typical traditional villages	160	85%	25.07 ha
B-1 Atypical traditional villages	28	80%	14.37 ha
B-2 Atypical traditional villages	31	50%	14.71 ha

and Figure 7):

⁜

Typical villages average 25.07 hectares in land area and have approximately 160 preserved traditional buildings, far exceeding the roughly 30 buildings typically found in B-type villages.

⁜

B-1 villages, although limited in quantity, possess high building density and a more cohesive spatial structure. However, many are in a state of “static preservation”, where traditional architecture lacks functional use and maintenance, resulting in accelerated deterioration.

⁜

B-2 villages have lower densities of traditional structures, a phenomenon attributed to new rural construction policies and residential reconstruction, which have modernized village landscapes and diluted historical continuity. This spatial transformation indicates a weakening of cultural identity and a shift toward modern forms that risk severing ties with the past.

⁜

In summary, although B1 and B2 villages face different challenges and opportunities, they each have their own needs in terms of the protection and revitalization of tangible cultural heritage. Therefore, while the buildings in B1 villages are in a state of static preservation and require the integration of appropriate functions for utilization and revitalization, B2 villages, though more adaptable, urgently need cultural intervention to protect their remaining historical spatial heritage, making them a priority for transformative conservation and adaptive development.

3.2.3. Analysis of the Life of the Population

The economic and social vitality of villages also shows obvious patterns (see

Table 8. Analysis of resident life means.

Types of Traditional Villages	Per Capita Income Level	Number of Public Service Facilities	Amount of Intangible Culture
Typical traditional villages	CNY 10,057.87	2.75	4
B-1 Atypical traditional villages	CNY 9119.31	0.38	3.54
B-2 Atypical traditional villages	CNY 9223.29	1.65	2.82

and Figure 8):

⁜

Typical villages reported the highest average annual per capita incomes, indicating stronger endogenous development capabilities.

⁜

Public service provision is more comprehensive in typical villages, with over three facilities per village on average. Type B-2 villages slightly outperform B-1 villages in this regard, but overall, they still experience infrastructural inadequacies, especially in healthcare, education, and cultural activity spaces.

With regard to intangible cultural heritage (ICH), although the number of ICH items does not vary significantly among the categories, preservation quality and transmission integrity do:

⁜

Typical and B-1 villages retain a greater degree of cultural continuity and display higher levels of heritage safeguarding.

⁜

In contrast, B-2 villages face rapid erosion of intangible cultural assets due to modernization pressures and weakened cultural transmission mechanisms, placing them at greater risk of cultural rupture and identity loss.

3.2.4. Analysis of Tourism Facilities

Disparities in tourism support systems are evident across all village types (see

Table 9. Mean value analysis of tourism facilities.

Types of Traditional Villages	Average Number of Meals	Average Number of Accommodations	Average Annual Number of Articles in Mainstream Media
Typical traditional villages	45	96	306
B-1 Atypical traditional villages	2.6	0.7	0.4
B-2 Atypical traditional villages	14	11	3

and Figure 9):

⁜

Typical traditional villages exhibit robust and integrated tourism systems, with comprehensive accommodation, catering, and high levels of digital and media visibility. These villages benefit from established market-oriented promotion strategies and institutional support.

⁜

Type B-1 villages present severe tourism underdevelopment. Many villages suffer from tourism invisibility, which is manifested as extremely low or no media exposure and a lack of accommodation and catering facilities. Constrained by limited exposure and a weak tourism economy, these villages are at risk of functional decline and cultural marginalization.

⁜

Type B-2 villages, while modestly equipped with basic tourism supporting facilities, primarily serve local residents and lack systematic development strategies. Their marketing is largely dependent on local government platforms, and autonomous branding efforts remain weak.

4. Discussion

This study adopts the perspective of human–environment coupling theory to identify and diagnose risks in atypical traditional villages in southern Anhui, breaking away from previous research that predominantly focused on typical traditional villages and emphasized architectural style and cultural value. Unlike existing literature that tends to focus on one aspect of traditional villages, this study places the interactive characteristics of the human–environment relationship at the core of the analysis. It reveals the differences in functionality and structure of atypical traditional villages under the context of rapid urbanization, and constructs a multi-dimensional comprehensive evaluation system that includes indicators such as transportation accessibility, living environment, protection of ancient buildings, and tourism development. This evaluation system not only provides a systematic depiction of village spatial characteristics and risk status, but also offers a more actionable classification framework and intervention path for atypical traditional villages.

Compared to existing research, this study places greater emphasis on the dynamic interaction between human–environment relationships and their impact on village development risks, filling the gap in traditional village research where such interactive effects were previously overlooked. It provides a new perspective for theoretical research. Furthermore, the differentiated development and risk management strategies proposed in this study directly address the practical needs of grassroots governance and policy-making, offering actionable pathways for the sustainable transformation of traditional villages. By analyzing the human–environment interaction, this study introduces a classification method for traditional villages, providing a new classification perspective for their protection and development, and offering theoretical support and guidance for related practices.

4.1. Development Strategy for Type B-1 Atypical Traditional Villages

For B-1 type atypical traditional villages (such as Zhuxi Village and Lanhu Village), their primary characteristics include severe population outflow, insufficient residential vitality, and lagging infrastructure. However, they also possess a high proportion of traditional buildings and well-preserved historical relics, demonstrating potential for cultural reuse and revitalization. Therefore, development strategies should focus on four key areas: the village’s foundational conditions, residents’ livelihoods, historical resources, and tourism development, proposing systematic and actionable countermeasures (see Figure 10a).

Regarding the village’s foundational landscape, efforts should be grounded in improving the living environment and ecological restoration. First, implement comprehensive village-wide aesthetic improvements by clearing cluttered structures and disorderly spaces to restore the integrity of traditional layouts. Second, address infrastructure deficiencies such as paved roads, water supply and drainage systems, and electrical networks to enhance daily convenience. Third, optimize the use of homestead sites and vacant land to guide the redevelopment of idle resources. Fourth, strengthen ecological restoration of surrounding mountains and water systems to ensure the sustainability of the overall village environment.

Regarding residents’ livelihoods, the focus lies on improving living conditions and enhancing development momentum. First, gradually upgrade outdated housing and basic living facilities to ensure residential safety and comfort. Second, improve public healthcare, education, and elderly care services to elevate residents’ fundamental well-being. Third, use policy incentives to attract young people to return and start businesses, alleviating the hollowing out of the village population. Fourth, leverage the village’s strengths to develop distinctive agriculture, create local employment opportunities, and strengthen residents’ attachment to the village’s development.

Regarding historical resources, strategies should focus on parallel preservation and revitalization. First, establish archives for the village’s ancient buildings and historical relics to create a sustainable preservation database. Second, classify and restore ancient structures based on their value to avoid one-size-fits-all renovations. Third, implement an “adoption system” to attract social participation in cultural heritage protection, reducing the burden of sole government investment. Fourth, explore appropriate revitalization while respecting authenticity, transforming historic buildings into public cultural spaces or homestays to enhance cultural resource utilization.

Regarding tourism development, adhere to the principle of “low-impact development and gradual cultivation”. First, integrate village culture and natural landscapes to explore light tourism projects like rural homestays and farming experiences. Second, design “cultural trails” linking spatial nodes such as ancient buildings, ancestral halls, and water systems to create cohesive visitor experiences. Third, train villagers as tour guides to enable direct community benefits from tourism services. Fourth, cultivate locally distinctive cultural and creative products to achieve deep integration between culture and industry.

4.2. Development Strategy for Type B-2 Atypical Traditional Villages

The primary characteristics of B-2 type Atypical villages lie in their stable resident populations, well-maintained ecological environments, and relatively well-developed public service facilities, endowing them with strong daily residential functionality. However, these villages exhibit limited tourism development, lacking systematic tourism services and supporting facilities, resulting in insufficient overall appeal. Additionally, some traditional buildings suffer from deterioration and diminished architectural character, urgently requiring restoration and cultural revitalization measures to enhance the display and preservation of historical and cultural resources. Therefore, development strategies for such villages should be implemented across four dimensions: the village’s foundational conditions, residents’ livelihoods, historical resources, and tourism development (see Figure 10b).

Regarding the village’s foundational landscape, spatial quality should be progressively enhanced based on ecological advantages and livable environments. First, implement micro-upgrades to the overall village layout, preserving the continuity of pastoral textures and traditional spatial structures. Second, improve infrastructure such as roads, drainage, and sewage treatment to further enhance living convenience. Third, optimize the village’s human environment through greening initiatives and public space design. Fourth, guide intensive land use to prevent disorderly construction from damaging the overall landscape.

Regarding residents’ livelihoods, the focus is on maintaining stability while promoting measured development. First, encourage the industrialization of locally distinctive agricultural products to boost farmers’ incomes. Second, enhance public services like education, healthcare, and elderly care to safeguard residents’ well-being. Third, foster resident participation in village governance and cultural activities to strengthen community cohesion. Fourth, moderately incorporate tourism needs into living facility construction, reserving space for future development.

Concerning historical resources, strengthen protective measures while emphasizing cultural revitalization. First, conduct surveys of traditional architecture to establish a graded and categorized protection registry. Second, implement precise restoration of damaged ancient structures to ensure the continuity of architectural character. Third, guide the enrichment of cultural functions through exhibitions, folk custom experiences, and other means to enhance identification among residents and tourists. Fourth, integrate village historical resources with education and research programs to expand cultural dissemination channels.

Regarding tourism development, adopt a small-scale, differentiated approach to gradually cultivate distinctive features. First, develop low-intensity tourism formats like rural leisure and experiential tours based on ecological environments and folk culture. Second, create “one village, one specialty” cultural tourism themes to enhance distinctiveness. Third, build small-scale tourism facilities such as visitor stations and guidance systems to meet basic needs. Fourth, explore “community participation” tourism models to directly benefit villagers and strengthen sustainability.

4.3. Limitations and Further Research

This study proposes a macrolevel identification framework for atypical traditional villages and provides differentiated development strategies based on a typological diagnosis. However, several limitations remain.

First, at the data level, Point of Interest (POI) data may contain potential biases. For instance, open platforms like AutoNavi Maps may have incomplete coverage of rural tourism facilities in remote areas, potentially affecting the accuracy of village functional identification. Second, field surveys face temporal and spatial limitations. Factors like seasonal variations make it difficult for resident activity data to comprehensively reflect year-round behavioral patterns, thereby restricting deeper insights into village spatial usage. Furthermore, this study analyzes Yixian County as a case example; its conclusions should be applied cautiously to other regions, and their applicability requires further validation.

Beyond these data and methodological constraints, the study has not systematically incorporated dynamic factors like population mobility and policy interventions, which often play crucial roles in the formation and evolution of village types. Future research should integrate dynamic monitoring data to deepen the analysis of various driving mechanisms.

To address these shortcomings, future research should conduct micro-scale spatial analyses to further explore architectural types, usage behaviors, and pattern evolution in different types of villages. Additionally, the research should be integrated with design practices to develop actionable renovation toolkits. We recommend introducing behavioral research methods to measure how spatial transformations affect the perceptual and emotional responses of residents and tourists. Through this shift in methodology, the focus of the research will expand from “type identification” to “spatial experience design”, providing deeper insights and practical guidance for the sustainable conservation and adaptive reuse of atypical traditional villages.

5. Conclusions

Against the backdrop of ongoing urbanization and the comprehensive rural revitalization strategy, traditional villages face numerous challenges. Compared to typical traditional villages, atypical traditional villages have long been underestimated and marginalized due to insufficient research attention, ambiguous identification criteria, and unclear development pathways. This has resulted in their cultural value and spatial potential not receiving the attention they deserve. This study focuses on the southern Anhui region, selecting 40 traditional villages as samples. An identification index system encompassing dimensions such as geographical location, cultural resources, tourism infrastructure, and facility conditions was constructed. The natural breakpoint method and cluster analysis were employed to classify village types. The results suggest that the sample includes a diverse distribution of village types, with typical traditional villages, B-1 type atypical villages, and B-2 type atypical villages each representing distinct proportions of the sample, reflecting the varying stages of development and characteristics across these village categories.

Based on this, the study proposes differentiated development pathways: For B-1 villages, while ensuring the preservation of existing ancient buildings, explore low-cost methods to enhance transportation accessibility, such as extending rural bus routes and establishing shared mobility networks. Simultaneously, introduce cultural tourism formats to promote “preservation through utilization”. B2-type villages should prioritize the restoration of traditional buildings and cultural empowerment, gradually improving tourism facilities to transform from a purely residential type to a balanced residential-tourism type, while typical traditional villages can promote regional collaborative development through their demonstration effect.

This study not only proposes an operational and replicable method for identifying and classifying atypical villages but also reveals, through specific metrics, the differences in building stock, transportation conditions, and development potential among various village types. Theoretically, it expands the typological framework for traditional village research. Practically, it provides reliable quantitative evidence and decision-making references for local governments to formulate differentiated conservation strategies, optimize public resource allocation, and promote regional coordinated development.