The Effects of Rural Tourism on Rural Collective Action: A Socio-Ecological Systems Perspective

Abstract

Rural tourism has emerged as an efficient strategy for rural revitalization while having various impacts on rural governance. Previous studies predominantly focused on the social implications of rural tourism and its impact on institutional arrangements while neglecting the influence of rural tourism on collective action in rural governance. This study employed a social–ecological system (SES) framework to investigate the influence of rural tourism on rural collective action, utilizing survey data from 22 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government), 178 villages, and 3282 rural households across China. The findings revealed that rural tourism exerted a positive influence on collective action, primarily through labor force reflow mechanisms. Specifically, the leadership of village cadres had a moderating role in enhancing this positive correlation. Further analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in tourism governance effects: non-plain regions and villages with medium to low economic development levels exhibited substantial improvements in collective action, whereas plain areas and economically advanced villages may manifest potentially negative impacts. Theoretically, this study contributes to elucidating tourism-driven self-governance mechanisms by applying the SES framework, thereby transcending the traditional dualistic debate between state-market and development-governance paradigms. Practically, we propose institutional designs that embed collective action mechanisms into the coupled synergistic development of rural tourism and community governance, thereby activating endogenous motivations for rural self-governance.

1. Introduction

‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ presents a critical challenge to humanity, posing severe threats to the sustainable development of populations, resources, and the environment. Effective collective action serves as the pivotal solution to this dilemma, with collective action theory forming the intellectual cornerstone of public affairs governance [1,2,3]. Early theoretical frameworks predominantly adopted a ‘state-or-market’ dichotomy to resolve collective action failures, relying either on state intervention to reconcile the conflict between individual rationality and collective rationality, or privatizing the commons through market mechanisms. Ostrom proposed a third paradigm of self-governance [4,5], demonstrating that institutional arrangements crafted by resource users themselves can effectively align individual and collective rationality, thereby overcoming collective action dilemmas. In this study, rural collective action refers to the process in which villagers, who share interdependent relationships, engage in negotiations on action issues related to public affairs that they collectively face and implement institutional arrangements to ensure the provision of public goods, thereby advancing the common interests [6].

Since the 1960s, rural areas have been experiencing a decline in young people, human capital, and social networks, making collective action increasingly difficult globally. The rapid development of rural tourism provides an alternative approach and potential for activating the socio-economic development of rural areas. Since rural areas transformed from productivism to post-productivism in the last century, rural tourism has become a significant approach for socio-economic regeneration in rural areas [7]. After decades of development, there remains no unified definition of rural tourism. Bramwell and Lane (1994) regard rural tourism as a tourist experience that occurs in the countryside, encompassing activities involving farming, nature, adventure, sports, health, education, art, and heritage [8]. Pedford (1996) further expanded the concept of rural tourism to incorporate the living history of the countryside, including rural customs and folklore, local and family traditions, values, beliefs, and shared heritage [9]. Edward Inskeep (2004) considers rural tourism as a form of tourism based on agricultural landscapes and farm experiences [10]. Based on different definitions and classification criteria, rural tourism encompasses a complex range of types, including cultural heritage tourism, ecotourism, agricultural leisure tourism, folk experience tourism, and various other forms. In this study, rural tourism refers to a form of tourism integrating a series of leisure, sightseeing, experiential, and activity-based components; it centers on core attractions such as the natural scenery, agricultural landscapes, and cultural traditions/folk customs of the countryside. It uses rural communities as the primary activity sites and has rural villagers and village collectives as its core operators.

In recent years, rural tourism has experienced rapid development, emerging as a vital instrument for rural revitalization [11,12]. On the one hand, rural tourism serves as an efficient means to stimulate rural economic development. Previous studies demonstrated that rural tourism has a positive impact on rural economic development, contributing to employment generation, income enhancement, increased agricultural added value, and poverty alleviation [13,14,15,16]. On the other hand, rural tourism enhances the richness and distinctiveness of rural destinations, thereby amplifying their appeal to urban visitors. Furthermore, it creates opportunities for the revitalization and extension of local communities’ lifestyles and cultural imagery [17,18,19].

However, amidst the rapid flow of urban–rural elements, rural tourism has simultaneously presented significant governance challenges to rural communities [20]. The influx of external populations, while injecting new vitality into villages, has disrupted villagers’ endogenous lifestyles and traditional livelihood patterns, creating both opportunities and complexities for rural governance and collective action [21,22]. Previous research predominantly explored solutions from perspectives such as institutional design or rural collaborative governance [23,24,25,26]. The reason for this lies precisely in the tendency within current studies to focus on the impact of rural tourism on rural governance to simplify tourism into a tourism commodity [27], while neglecting the complexity of the rural tourism destination itself as a social–ecological system. This neglect results in a lack of mechanistic exploration into how governance logics can be reshaped through social processes.

In particular, rural tourism in China has experienced rapid development. As early as the 1990s, China witnessed the emergence of agritourism featuring farmhouse meals and viewing rural landscapes (nongjiale rural tourism); however, its large-scale development did not commence until around 2015. The 2015 Central Document No. 1 stated that we should “promote the integrated development of primary, secondary, and tertiary industries in rural areas… actively develop agriculture’s multiple functions, and tap into its value for rural ecological leisure, tourism, sightseeing, culture, and education.” Under such policy guidance, China’s rural tourism experienced large-scale development. By the end of 2023, there were 1399 nationally designated key rural tourism villages and 198 nationally designated key rural tourism towns (townships) in China, with over 60,000 administrative villages participating in rural tourism operations. Among these tourism-oriented villages, only a very small proportion operate primarily as cultural heritage tourism sites and are managed with the aim of developing tourist attractions. In most villages, the operating modes remain community-based tourism. This means that aside from a portion of agricultural and natural resources being converted into rural tourism resources, the village still remains a space for the villagers’ production and daily life, retaining strong settlement attributes [28,29,30].

Therefore, understanding the relationships between rural tourism and collective action from a complex systems perspective is critical for enhancing rural governance efficacy and advancing sustainable rural development. Against this backdrop, this study aimed to address two primary research questions: (1) Can rural tourism enhance the level of collective action in rural communities? (2) What mechanisms does rural tourism use to facilitate such collective action?

In the subsequent section of this paper, a systematic review of the literature on rural tourism, collective action, and rural governance is presented. Then, based on the theoretical foundation of socio-ecological systems (SESs), the relationships between rural tourism, collective action, return migrants, and leadership are analyzed with consideration of the proposed hypotheses. Section 4 introduces the methodology used in this study, including data sources and variable selection. The empirical results are then presented and discussed. Finally, the key findings, theoretical contributions, practical implications, and limitations are summarized.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Research on Collective Action

Previous studies explored how to organize collective action for the governance of common-pool resources, identifying the key factors and mechanisms. Wang and Shu used the IAD-SES framework to summary the key determinants of collective action across different natural geographical conditions, socio-economic attributes, and institutional rules [31]. Natural geographical conditions include topography, market opportunity, and resource scarcity. The governance of public goods is often closely related to natural geographic features, and collective action in public goods governance is inevitably influenced by natural geographic features. For instance, a rugged topography typically leads to issues such as dispersed populations and inconvenient transportation, consequently resulting in lower interdependence among group members and difficulties in overcoming free-rider problems in the autonomous provision of public goods [32]. Market opportunity is determined by the distance from a market, specifically the physical distance between the location of collective action and economic or political centers. When closer to market opportunities, the anticipated benefits can incentivize participation in collective action [33]. Resource users tend to engage in collective action when resources are moderately scarce [33].

Regarding institutional rules, the impact of social rewards, monitoring, and sanctions on collective action has been widely explored. Social rewards, including material benefits, professional awards, and spiritual honors, positively incentivize collective action. When group members are more attracted to the norms and social incentives provided by the collective, they are more likely to contribute time, money, and psychological commitment and engage in internal collective action [34]. A key reason for members choosing to free-ride is the imperfect supervision mechanism. As group size increases, transaction costs (communication, decision-making, supervision, etc.) rise disproportionately. In large organizations, social incentives like a sense of solidarity and shame become weak and unreliable, and effective supervision is challenging [35]. Research shows, for example, that a well-functioning democratic system plays a positive role in monitoring and sanctioning within collective action, significantly influencing the supply of public goods and the management of common-pool resources [36].

Socio-economic attributes are crucial in collective action research, with many studies examining the effects of demographic characteristics, group characteristics, labor migration, income, social capital, leadership, and heterogeneity. Demographic characteristics matter as the essence of collective action lies in human interaction, with factors like gender, education, income, and status directly shaping actors’ perceptions and values [37]. The size of a group also affects collective action patterns by altering social interaction and coordination costs. A key reason for collective action dilemmas is the free-rider problem caused by large scales, so small-scale groups often achieve collective action more easily [38]. As a productive activity, collective action requires resource investment for output. Social capital is the accumulation of behaviors and norms in a group that facilitate mutual support among members, such as familiarity and trust [39]. Scholars believe mutual trust and communication among members can effectively promote cooperation and achieve collective action, and economic–social networks among members can enhance the ability for collective action [40]. Within a village, socio-economic differences or heterogeneity can significantly and multifacetedly impact collective action [41].

Labor migration significantly impacts collective action. Ostrom argued that labor migration reduces farmers’ reliance on agricultural resources and their engagement in rural public affairs [42]. Wang et al. indicated that large-scale labor out-migration is a critical determinant of the declining collective action capacity in rural China [43]. Thomas Rudel suggested that labor migration and non-agricultural income increase group heterogeneity, weaken social ties, reduce leadership, and lower dependence on public resources, thereby reducing the likelihood of collective action [44].

Furthermore, research has confirmed that leadership is key to overcoming collective action challenges. Leaders or entrepreneurs who can clearly outline various organizational methods for improving joint output are often crucial initial motivators in collective action. For example, studies indicate that more “influential people” in a community significantly improved collective action, such as promoting water-fee collection and participation in farmers’ organization elections and meetings [33,45].

2.2. Research on Rural Tourism

As defined earlier, rural tourism in this study refers to a form of tourism centered on the natural landscapes, agricultural scenery, and cultural folklore of the countryside as its core attractions, with rural communities serving as the primary activity venues, and with rural villagers and village collectives acting as the core stakeholders. It encompasses an integrated series of leisure, sightseeing, experiential, and recreational activities. Beyond the economic and cultural impacts previously discussed, this section examines the influence of rural tourism on local natural and cultural resources, agriculture, and rural communities.

First, rural tourism facilitates the revaluation of diverse natural, agricultural, and cultural resources in rural areas [46]. The countryside constitutes a source of traditional culture and an important carrier of agricultural civilization. Distinctive rural landscapes, diverse local customs and folk traditions, evocative indigenous cultures, varied residential architecture and farming implements, and unique folk festivals are all deemed essential components of rural tourism [47]. Unlike modern urban landscapes, these elements provide visitors with scenery and experiences distinct from those found in cities, satisfying their imagination of a pastoral rural life.

Second, rural tourism serves as a crucial pathway for enhancing agricultural value-added and promoting multifunctional rural transition. Since the 1970s, challenges confronting agriculture, such as depressed commodity prices and rising input costs, have significantly eroded farm incomes for smallholders in the United States, Europe, and globally [48]. The declining capacity of agriculture to generate sufficient income has driven many farmers to seek new income sources and the diversification of agricultural foundations [49]. Within this context, rural tourism has emerged as a significant impetus for increasing income among “previously marginalized groups” in less developed rural regions and for fostering harmonious societies [50]. For instance, in Europe, rural tourism is widely encouraged, promoted, and relied upon as a useful instrument for addressing the social and economic challenges faced by rural areas associated with the decline of traditional agricultural industries [51]. In Japan, the integrated development of agriculture with manufacturing and tourism has exerted a positive influence on the upgrading of the agricultural sector, contributing to enhanced sustainability of the rural economy [52].

Third, rural tourism represents a means of reshaping rural community development. Being community-based, rural tourism contributes to enhancing village income and improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, thereby bolstering rural community resilience, as evidenced in Addinsall et al.’s study of the South Pacific region [53].

2.3. Relationships Between Rural Tourism, Collective Action, and Rural Governance

The interactive relationship between rural tourism and rural governance has emerged as a critical research focus. First, research has examined the institutional arrangements of rural tourism governance, encompassing institutional design, dynamic governance mechanisms, collaborative governance frameworks, adaptive governance approaches, and operational governance systems [12,24,25,54]. Second, studies have investigated the perceptions and agency of diverse stakeholders in rural tourism development, analyzing the motivations, conflicts, and collaborative mechanisms among governmental entities, tourists, and tourism enterprises [15,55].

While existing studies have significantly enriched the understanding of how rural tourism influence rural development, the factors that influence collective actions and the relationships between rural tourism, collective action, and rural governance need further investigation and exploration. First, the previous research predominantly focused on the impact of rural tourism on rural governance, and lack in-depth mechanistic analyses of its influence on collective action. Second, while prior studies have acknowledged the effects of labor outmigration and leadership on collective action, there remains a lack of exploration regarding how rural collective action functions within the context of rural tourism. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the mechanisms through which rural tourism affects collective action, thereby offering insights for achieving rural self-governance.

3. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis

3.1. Theoretical Foundation

Over the past half-century, academic studies have conducted extensive research on the formation of effective collective action, resulting in the development of three generations of collective action theories [56]. This study primarily drew upon theoretical advancements from the second generation of collective action theory. A key contribution of the second-generation collective action theory lies in establishing a systematic diagnostic framework for collective action. Currently, the most widely adopted analytical frameworks for diagnosing human collective action are the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and the Social–Ecological System (SES) framework [57]. The IAD framework addresses the fundamental question of how objective institutional environments—including natural geographical conditions, socio-economic attributes, and general institutional rules—interact to shape the action situations confronting collective actors. It further examines how actors respond to the incentive structures defined by these action situations, ultimately generating institutional outcomes and performance [58,59].

As our understanding of human–environment interactions continues to deepen, the exploration of human collective action increasingly requires the integration of both social contexts and natural ecological environments as critical factors in analytical frameworks. This intellectual progression led Elinor Ostrom and her collaborators to enhance the original IAD framework, ultimately developing it into the Social–Ecological System (SES) framework. The SES framework introduces a new paradigm of ‘social–ecological system analysis’ for social science research, aiming to achieve more precise descriptions and systematic diagnoses of human societies through an enhanced common conceptual language. This advancement facilitates the accumulation of systematic knowledge from interdisciplinary research findings. The SES framework constitutes a general analytical framework comprising variables at multiple hierarchical levels (Figure 1). Its first-tier structure consists of four subsystems: Resource Units, Resource Systems, Governance Systems, and Actors, which collectively influence interaction processes and outcomes. Simultaneously, all interactive processes and outcomes among the variables are moderated by two environmental subsystems representing broader contexts: the Social, Economic, and Political Settings and Related Ecosystems.

As the research advanced, this framework has been progressively applied to the specific context of rural tourism. In the background of rural tourism, the SES resource subsystem comprises public resources like natural, built, and cultural rural tourism resources, which are limited and potentially non-renewable [60]. The social subsystem includes actors such as tourists [61], tourism companies [62], and local residents who participating in rural tourism [63]. These local residents, living in rural areas and using rural tourism resources, are the core of the social subsystem. Thus, their interaction with the resource system determines the SES’s robustness. Most existing studies employed qualitative analysis to examine SESs as an analytical framework. They explored the system resilience and adaptability of ecological and social systems in tourism contexts [64,65,66]. Su et al. applied this framework to investigate rural tourism competitiveness and sustainability [67]. However, empirical research on how rural tourism affects collective action in rural tourism settings remains scarce. Based on these studies, the SES framework was used to quantitatively diagnose the underlying mechanisms of how rural tourism influences collective action in complex social–ecological systems. In this study, rural tourism can be viewed as the social, economic, and political context of rural socio-ecological systems. The rapid development of rural tourism has triggered impacts on actors (e.g., labor force return and leadership dynamics), which in turn drive changes in focal action situations within the system, ultimately affecting the outcome of collective actions. Moreover, resource units, resource systems, and governance systems—such as the natural environmental conditions, socio-economic attributes of villages and households, and institutional context—differentially influence the interactions between actors within the system.

Figure 1. Socio-ecological system (SES) framework. Source: McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014 [68].

Figure 1. Socio-ecological system (SES) framework. Source: McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014 [68].

3.2. Research Hypothesis

3.2.1. The Impact of Rural Tourism and Rural Collective Action

In the context of China’s rapid urbanization and industrialization process, rural areas have undergone a huge recession alongside a decrease in the capacity for collective action [69]. As a composite service industry integrating multifunctional consumption domains encompassing dining, accommodation, transportation, sightseeing, shopping, and entertainment, rural tourism has substantial driving effects on economies in the initial stages of rural revitalization, particularly in developing nations [70]. Following the development of rural tourism, villagers engaged in both traditional agricultural labor and non-agricultural labor experience an increase in economic income [71]. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, only after participants satisfy their basic needs are they likely to pursue higher-level demands, such as rejecting free-riding and contributing to collective action. The rise in individual and village collective incomes brought about by rural tourism boost villagers’ willingness to engage in rural collective action and enhance their capacity for resource allocation in public affairs [72]. Peng et al. also confirmed in their research that a higher village per capita income and collective income reduce the burden on villagers, making collective action easier to achieve [73]. For some villagers not directly participating in rural tourism, the potential expectation of benefits may also strengthen their willingness to participate.

Based on this theoretical framework, this study proposed Hypothesis 1.

H1: 

Rural tourism has positive effects on rural collective action.

3.2.2. The Mediating Effect of Return Migration in Rural Tourism on Collective Actions

Wang et al. claimed [43] that large-scale labor outmigration is a critical determinant of declining collective action capacity in rural China. Rural tourism, functioning not merely as a composite industry but also as a labor-intensive service sector, exhibits a strong absorptive capacity for rural labor forces due to its low barriers to entry and substantial employment potential. This characteristic facilitates the return migration of rural workers and attracts external entrepreneurs. Consequently, the mechanisms through which rural tourism enhances farmers’ collective action capacity manifest in three primary dimensions: First, the tourism industry generates employment opportunities that reverse labor outflows while attracting external operators, thereby revitalizing rural economies. Adopting tourism as a core livelihood strategy intensifies farmers’ dependency on local resources, which in turn amplifies their willingness to engage in collective initiatives. Second, labor return migration facilitates the accumulation of social capital. Empirical studies have demonstrated that returning elites catalyze rural industrial development by infusing external capital, human resources, technological expertise, and innovative concepts, thereby reactivating social capital accumulation in rural contexts. Concurrently, the re-establishment of trust-based interpersonal networks, credible commitments, and mutual monitoring mechanisms accompanying labor repatriation foster the implementation of collective action and comprehensive community participation [4]. Third, return migration reinforces villagers’ sense of belonging and place identity, critical precursors to collective mobilization. The scholarly consensus is that a sense of community catalyzes the formation of collective action [74,75]. As returning migrants reestablish roots, their enhanced place attachment and identity reconstruction stimulate participation in communal services, ultimately strengthening the rural collective action capacity.

Thus, this study posited that rural tourism development stimulates both return migration and external population agglomeration, with the latter further reinforcing collective action mechanisms. Based on this theoretical framework, this study proposed Hypothesis 2.

H2: 

Return migration mediates the relationship between rural tourism development and rural collective action.

3.2.3. The Moderating Effect of Leadership in Rural Tourism on Collective Action

Olson posited that the emergence of collective action dilemmas stems from conflicts arising from individuals’ pursuit of self-interest maximization and high organizational costs, which hinder collective efforts to advance common interests [1]. Larger groups face greater challenges in achieving consensus due to increased information requirements and higher costs in negotiating, implementing, and monitoring agreements. Rural tourism constitutes a complex process involving multiple stakeholders. The influx of external capital, information, and human resources often induces free-riding behavior, which can potentially lead to the Tragedy of the Commons. Glowacki and Rueden [76] demonstrated that leadership plays a critical role in enhancing collective action through goal-setting, logistical coordination, effort monitoring, conflict resolution, and reward–punishment mechanisms.

Leadership exerts an influence on collective action in rural tourism primarily through three mechanisms. First, leadership facilitates the conversion of social capital into tangible benefits, thereby sustaining rural community operations and promoting collective action. Effective leaders leverage positional authority, opportunity recognition, social skills, and knowledge to provide resources, information, and legitimacy for collective action. This leadership approach fosters trust, reduces organizational costs, and enhances decision-making efficiency [77,78,79]. For instance, in Liu’s study [80], village cadres stipulated that villagers who did not participate in fundraising would not be allowed to bury their deceased elders in the village. Meanwhile, the villagers who donated actively or in larger amounts would have their names engraved on the bridge pedestal as a form of honorary incentive. In this way, social capital was transformed into actual financial support to promote the provision of public goods. In rural tourism development, village cadres serve as crucial intermediaries connecting internal and external stakeholders. They coordinate government and social resources to facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration in tourism initiatives. Second, leadership contributes to balancing resource allocation between private and public interests in rural tourism [79]. While tourism operations are often dominated by specific groups (e.g., returning elites or developers), leadership mechanisms can mitigate exclusionary practices by establishing binding constraints on the participants. This governance approach helps resolve intergroup conflicts and prevents free-riding behaviors among villagers and external participants. Third, leadership promotes institutional innovation in rural tourism governance while reducing administrative costs. Village cadres can implement communication mechanisms and design equitable benefit-sharing systems to address economic heterogeneity within the rural collective [81]. Such institutional arrangements ensure a broader distribution of tourism development benefits and enhance collective welfare.

In summary, leadership capacity among village cadres enhances the positive impact of rural tourism development on collective action. Thus, this study proposed Hypothesis 3.

H3: 

Leadership has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between rural tourism development and rural collective action.

4. Data Sources, Variable Selection, and Methods

4.1. Data Sources

The data for this study were sourced from the 2024 Rural Summer Survey Project conducted by the Chinese Institute for Rural Studies (CIRS) at Tsinghua University. The survey involved research teams and members from multiple universities across the nation. The investigation was structured at two levels: the village level and household level. Village-level questionnaires were completed through interviews with 1–2 key village committee officials, while household-level data were collected via interviews with farmers. The survey content covered basic information about households and villages, village economies, rural tourism development, village governance, living environments, public leadership, and other related aspects.

The sampling followed a four-tier framework (province, county/city, township, and village), with villages as the primary sampling units. Approximately 20 households were randomly selected per village, resulting in a total sample of 22 provinces (including autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government), 178 villages, and 3744 household questionnaires. To examine the impact of rural tourism on farmers’ collective action, village-level and household-level data were matched. After excluding incomplete or invalid responses, the final dataset comprised 3282 valid household questionnaires from 178 villages across 22 provinces in China (autonomous regions/municipalities).

4.2. Variable Selection

(1)

Dependent Variables

In international academia, there are two approaches to conceptualizing collective action: the outcome-based approach, which measures collective action capacity through the results of collective endeavors, such as Bardhan’s use of the maintenance status of irrigation infrastructure to gauge the strength of rural irrigation collective action [82], and the process-based approach, which assesses the collective action capacity through the process of collective activities, such as Fujiie et al.’s use of the number of successfully organized collective actions (e.g., collective lobbying) to measure rural collective action capabilities [83]. This study adopted an outcome-based approach, following the methodologies of Araral [84], Su et al. [6], and Wang et al. [43], utilizing irrigation infrastructure maintenance to evaluate rural collective action. The rationale is as follows.

First, irrigation infrastructure was chosen to embody the collective action attributes of public goods. The construction and maintenance of irrigation facilities reflect the evolving roles of farmers in rural collective action, serving as a microcosm of rural public affairs governance. Rural irrigation systems are typically shared infrastructure used by numerous farming households, requiring mutual collaboration and joint investment of time, effort, and resources for their upkeep. Whether it is modern irrigation facilities serving both irrigation and domestic water needs or traditional ones primarily serving aesthetic functions, they all constitute indispensable components of agricultural production and rural tourism development. This means that in different types of rural tourism development scenarios (such as rural agriculture tourism or rural cultural heritage tourism), irrigation facility maintenance can serve as a representative factor for observing and analyzing the impact of rural tourism on rural collective action.

Second, irrigation facility maintenance can fully reflect the characteristics and changes in rural collective action and rural tourism’s influence on it can be measured. As rural public infrastructure, the outcomes of irrigation facility maintenance exhibit clear public goods attributes: all villagers benefit, and one villager’s benefit does not diminish the benefits available to others. This public nature makes irrigation facility maintenance an ideal indicator for gauging the impact of rural tourism on rural collective action, as it can comprehensively reflect changes in the villagers’ collective action capabilities when dealing with public affairs. Within rural collective action, factors such as willingness to cooperate, organizational coordination capacity, and benefit distribution are crucial. Against the backdrop of rural tourism development, whether tourism income alters villagers’ dependence on agricultural production influences the priority of irrigation facility maintenance, thereby directly affecting their willingness to cooperate. Moreover, rural tourism development introduces new organizational models and management experience to the countryside. These new models may become integrated into the organizational coordination processes of irrigation facility maintenance, potentially enhancing or altering its organizational efficiency and collaborative methods. Benefit distribution issues are particularly prominent in irrigation facility maintenance, for instance: how funds for maintenance are raised (whether pro-rated based on land area, water usage volume, or other criteria) and how labor contributions to maintenance work are reasonably compensated. Furthermore, the development of rural tourism introduces new stakeholders (such as tourists, tourism enterprises, etc.), further complicating the pre-existing dynamics of benefit distribution and, to some extent, influencing the benefit distribution mechanisms related to irrigation facility maintenance.

Accordingly, this study selected ‘the overall maintenance status of the village’s irrigation infrastructure (e.g., canals/wells) over the past three years’ as the dependent variable to measure rural collective action (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent).

(2)

Core Independent Variables

In previous research, tourism development levels were predominantly measured using two indicators: tourist numbers and revenue [23,85,86,87,88]. Notably, China’s Central Government emphasized in its 2025 Central Document No. 1 the need to ‘advance the deep integration of rural culture and tourism,’ positioning rural tourism as the core engine for rural revitalization. The ‘enterprise–cooperative–farmer’ model enables farmers to share benefits through guaranteed dividends, shareholding participation, and other mechanisms. Consequently, leveraging rural tourism to drive common prosperity in rural areas and among farmers represents a critical consideration in national policy design. Moreover, the lack of village-level statistical data for rural tourists hinders objective assessments of its actual development status. Thus, this study employed village collective tourism revenue as a proxy for rural tourism development levels, selecting the ‘annual income of village tourism in 2023 (ten thousand CNY)’ as the core dependent variable.

(3)

Mediating Variables

In 2015, the General Office of the State Council issued the Opinions on Supporting Return Entrepreneurship of Migrant Workers and Other Groups, which emphasized the need to support return entrepreneurship among migrant workers, university graduates, demobilized military personnel, and other populations. The policy aimed to revitalize rural industries through mass entrepreneurship and innovation, thereby stimulating employment and increasing incomes in rural areas. This study selected ‘whether the interviewee is a return migrant’ (1 = Yes, 0 = No) as the mediating variable.

(4)

Moderating Variables

The development of rural tourism often involves issues such as land transfer, income distribution, and commercialization of cultural resources, which can easily lead to conflicts between villagers’ individual interests and collective interests [12]. Consequently, resource allocation, benefit sharing, and conflict resolution become critical challenges for collective action in rural tourism. As core actors in rural governance, village cadres act as intermediary coordinators. Their ability to safeguard the villagers’ interests during policy implementation—for example, by ensuring fair dividend distribution and protecting the rights of groups not directly involved in tourism (e.g., marginalized households)—significantly influences villagers’ willingness to engage in collective action. Therefore, this study adopted village cadres’ leadership as a moderating variable. Specifically, we operationalize it using the survey item ‘village leaders have effectively safeguarded the interests of the villagers’ (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree) from the household questionnaires.

(5)

Instrumental Variables

A valid instrumental variable must satisfy three criteria: first, it must be correlated with the independent variable; second, it must be unrelated to the dependent variable (i.e., its influence should not be affected by other confounding factors); and third, it should affect the dependent variable solely through its impact on the independent variable, without directly influencing the dependent variable [89]. This study selected ‘rural tourism development in other villages within the same county’ as the instrumental variable. The development of rural tourism in neighboring villages reflects the overall environmental context and trends in rural tourism within the county, which correlates with local rural tourism development while avoiding direct effects on village collective action, thus satisfying the requirements for an instrumental variable.

(6)

Control Variables

Based on the IAD-SES analytical framework, the formation of rural collective action capacity is shaped by the interplay of multiple subsystems, including the socioeconomic–political context, resource system, resource units, governance system, actors, and related ecosystems. As demonstrated in prior research [31], these influencing factors can be categorized into three dimensions: natural conditions, socio-economic attributes, and general institutional rules. The natural conditions encompass the village’s topography, location, and water resources. The economic and social attribute variables were selected at the village and household levels, including the level of village economic development, village category, village residential concentration, multiple administrative roles of the village party secretary, village collective economic organization situation, village hollowing degree at the village level, and age and gender of labor force of households at the household level.

Table 1. Variable definitions and descriptive statistics.

Variable	Description and Definition	Mean	SD
Dependent Variables
Rural Collective Action	Overall maintenance condition of the irrigation infrastructure (canals/digging wells) in the past three years: 1 = Very poor; 2 = Relatively poor; 3 = Average; 4 = Relatively good; 5 = Excellent	3.783	0.892
Core Independent Variables
Rural Tourism Development	Annual income of village tourism (ten thousand CNY)	28.68	153.81
Mediating Variables
Return Migrants	Whether the interviewee is a return migrant: Yes = 1; No = 0	0.169	0.375
Moderating Variables
Leadership	Village leaders have effectively safeguarded the interests of the villagers: 1 = Completely disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Average; 4 = Agree; 5 = Completely agree	3.868	0.882
Instrumental Variable
Tourism Development in Other Villages in the County	Annual tourism income of other villages in the county (excluding this village) (ten thousand CNY)	0.594	0.181
Control Variables
Natural Conditions
Village Topography	Geographical location with plain of the village: Yes = 1; No = 0	0.291	0.454
Village Location	Distance between the village committee’s office and the county government’s location (KM)	26.339	23.278
Village Water Resources	Abundance of natural conditions of water resources in this village: Very good = 1; Good = 2; Average = 3; Poor = 4; Very poor = 5	3.941	0.969
Economic and Social Attributes of Villages
Level of Village Economic Development	The level of economic development of this village relative to the county/city: Upper level = 1; Upper-middle level = 2; Medium level = 3; Lower-middle level = 4; Lower level = 5	2.741	0.911
Village Category	Is the village located in the urban suburbs? Yes = 1; No = 0	0.373	0.484
Village Residential Concentration	Does the village have a centralized residential area? Yes = 1; No = 0	0.631	0.483
Multiple Administrative Roles of the Village Party Secretary	Does the village party secretary concurrently hold the position of village chief? Yes = 1; No = 0	0.908	0.300
Village Collective Economic Organization Situation	Has a collective economic organization been established? Yes = 1; No = 0	0.934	0.249
Village Hollowing Degree	(Village registered population—village permanent resident population)/village registered population	0.404	0.219
Economic and Social Attributes of Households
Age	Age of interviewee	52.879	14.278
Gender	Gender of interviewee: Male = 1; Female = 0	0.645	0.479
Labor Force of Households	Family labor force population	2.539	1.261
Institutional Rules
Water Disputes	Water disputes rarely occur in our village: Strongly disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly agree = 5	4.547	0.800
Establishment of Supervisory Committee	Has the village established a villager supervisory committee? Yes = 1; No = 0	0.957	0.203

presents the selected variables and the results of the descriptive statistical analysis.

5. Empirical Results

5.1. Baseline Regression

To comprehensively examine the impact of rural tourism on collective action, this study employed the OLS regression model using Stata 17.0 software. As shown in

Table 2. Baseline regression results of rural tourism on collective action.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Core Independent Variables
Rural Tourism Development	0.051 ***	0.018 *	0.028 ***	0.035 ***
	(0.010)	(0.010)	(0.010)	(0.010)
Natural Conditions
Village Topography		−0.241 ***	−0.192 ***	−0.211 ***
		(0.042)	(0.041)	(0.040)
Village Location		−0.005 ***	−0.007 ***	−0.006 ***
		(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)
Village Water Resources		0.288 ***	0.312 ***	0.269 ***
		(0.016)	(0.016)	(0.016)
Economic and Social Attributes
Level of Village Economic Development			0.100 ***	0.092 ***
			(0.017)	(0.017)
Village Category			−0.225 ***	−0.197 ***
			(0.032)	(0.031)
Village Residential Concentration			−0.192 ***	−0.195 ***
			(0.033)	(0.032)
Multiple Administrative Roles of the Village Party Secretary			−0.844 ***	−0.977 ***
			(0.075)	(0.074)
Village Collective Economic Organization Situation			−0.481 ***	−0.572 ***
			(0.052)	(0.051)
Village Hollowing Degree			0.109 *	0.066
			(0.061)	(0.063)
Age			0.002 *	0.002 **
			(0.001)	(0.001)
Gender			−0.021	−0.022
			(0.028)	(0.027)
Labor Force of Households			0.034 ***	0.032 ***
			(0.011)	(0.011)
InstitutionalRules
Water Disputes				0.252 ***
				(0.019)
Establishment of Supervisory Committee				0.126 *
				(0.076)
Constant	3.391 ***	2.297 ***	2.724 ***	1.818 ***
	(0.046)	(0.074)	(0.120)	(0.142)
Regional Dummy Variables	Control	Control	Control	Control
Observations	3282	3282	3282	3282
Adjusted R2	0.146	0.225	0.300	0.336

Notes: ① *, **, and *** denote statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively; ② values in parentheses are the standard errors.

, Model 1 only included the rural tourism variable, illustrating the relationship between rural tourism and collective action in rural areas. The results revealed that the coefficient for rural tourism development was positive and statistically significant, indicating that rural tourism development had a positive impact on rural collective action. Models 2, 3, and 4 sequentially introduce three sets of control variables, natural geographical characteristics, socio-economic attributes, and institutional rules, to demonstrate the influence of rural tourism on collective action. The results showed that across all models, the coefficient for rural tourism development remained positive and statistically significant, confirming that rural tourism promoted collective action.

To address the potential endogeneity issues arising from omitted variables and reverse causality, this study employed instrumental variables for further verification to eliminate the impact of endogeneity on the experimental results.

Table 3. Regression results of the endogeneity test on rural tourism and village collective action.

Variables	First Stage	Second Stage
	Coefficient Standard Error	Coefficient Standard Error
Tourism Development in Other Villages in County	0.948 ***    0.000
Rural Tourism Development		0.034 ***      0.013
Control Variables	Control	Control
Constant	0.003       0.002	0.818 ***      0.117
Adjusted R2		0.335

Notes: *** denote statistical significance at the 1% level.

presents the results of the endogeneity test. In the first stage, the instrumental variable ‘rural tourism development in other villages within the county’ was regressed on ‘rural tourism development’. The results showed statistical significance at the 1% level, indicating a strong linear relationship between the instrumental variable and the endogenous explanatory variable, confirming the validity of the instrument. In the second stage, the fitted values of ‘rural tourism development’ obtained from the first-stage regression replaced the original endogenous explanatory variable. The results revealed a coefficient of 0.034 for rural tourism development, which is statistically significant at the 1% level. This confirmed the absence of endogeneity issues in the model and demonstrated a positive and significant impact of rural tourism development on village collective action, supporting Hypothesis 1.

To ensure the robustness of the findings, this study conducted sensitivity analyses through model substitution and dependent variable replacement (

Table 4. Robustness test results.

Variable	Model 5	Model 6
	Rural Collective Action	Rural Collective Action
Rural Tourism Development	0.091 ***	0.336 ***
	(0.016)	(0.035)
Constant		1.649 ***
		(0.141)
Control Variables	Control	Control
Regional Dummy Variables	Control	Control
Observations	3282	3282
Wald	1390.38
Adjusted R2		0.352

Notes: ① *** denote statistical significance at the 1% level; ② values in parentheses are the standard errors.

), further validating the promoting effect of rural tourism on collective action. In Model 5, we replaced the OLS model with an ordered probit (Oprobit) model. The results remain statistically significant at the 1% level, confirming the robustness of the findings. In Model 6, we modified the explanatory variable by replacing the original continuous measure with a binary indicator of ‘is there is rural tourism in the village?’ (1 = Yes; 0 = No). The coefficient retained statistical significance at the 1% level, demonstrating consistent and reliable results across alternative specifications.

5.2. Analysis of the Mediating Role of Return Migrants

Based on the results of the baseline regression, endogeneity tests, and robustness tests presented in the previous sections, rural tourism had a significant promoting effect on rural collective action. We also conducted an empirical analysis on the mechanisms through which rural tourism facilitates collective action.

Table 5. Results of mediating effects of return migrants.

Variable	Return Migrants	Collective Action
	Model 7	Model 8
Rural Tourism Development	0.016 ***	0.033 ***
	(0.005)	(0.010)
Return Migrants		0.101 ***
		(0.035)
Control Variables	Controlled	Controlled
Fixed Effects	Yes	Yes
Province Constant	0.314 ***	1.786 ***
	(0.071)	(0.142)
Observations	3282	3282
Adjusted R2	0.066	0.337

Notes: ① *** denote statistical significance at the 1% level; ② value in parentheses are the standard errors.

shows the mediating effect of return migrants in the relationship between rural tourism and collective action. In Model 7, the coefficient for rural tourism was 0.016, which is significant at the 1% level, indicating that rural tourism development had a significant impact on the return of migrants. In Model 8, after controlling for return labor, the coefficient for return migration was 0.101 (also significant at the 1% level), aligning directionally with the rural tourism coefficient, which confirmed the presence of mediating effects. The adjusted R² of Model 8 reached 0.337, showing substantial improvement compared to Model 7, suggesting that the inclusion of the return migrant variables enhanced the model’s explanatory power for village collective action, further verifying the mediating role of labor return migration. Therefore, the study concluded that rural tourism can promote rural collective action by attracting return migrants, thereby confirming Hypothesis 2.

As a nascent industrial form, rural tourism attracts return migrants who reinvest capital accumulated in urban areas into their villages. Compared to farmers persistently engaged in agricultural livelihoods, return migrants typically possess higher income levels and accumulated capital. Their repatriated capital proves conducive to entrepreneurial activities [90]. This provides the material foundations for collective actions, such as infrastructure maintenance and the improvement of public activity spaces [46]. Simultaneously, return migrants bring human capital accumulated through urban employment and education, including management experience, professional skills, and knowledge [20]. These human capital elements help optimize the organization and implementation of village collective actions, thereby enhancing their efficiency.

5.3. Analysis of the Moderating Role of Leadership

Table 6. Results of the moderating effect of leadership.

Variable	Model 9
	Collective Action
Rural Tourism Development	−0.053
	(0.038)
Leadership	0.047 ***
	(0.017)
Rural Tourism Development × Leadership	0.021 **
	(0.009)
Constant	1.634 ***
	(0.155)
Control Variables	Control
Regional Dummy Variables	Control
Observations	3282
Adjusted R2	0.340

Notes: ① **, and *** denote statistical significance at the 5%, and 1% levels; ② values in parentheses are the standard errors.

presents the results of the moderating effect of village cadres’ leadership on the relationship between rural tourism development and collective action. The regression coefficient of the interaction term in Model 9 was 0.021, which passes the significance test at the 5% level. This suggests that village cadres’ leadership had a significant positive moderating effect on the relationship between rural tourism development and collective action. Specifically, when leadership capacity was weak, rural tourism development may not have a significant impact or may even suppress collective action. However, when leadership capacity was strong, the positive effect of rural tourism was activated, and the two factors synergistically enhanced collective action. These findings provide support for Hypothesis 3.

As previously discussed, while tourism introduces substantial external capital, human resources, information flows, and technological inputs that stimulate rural economic growth, it concurrently poses latent risks of implicit exploitation of rural socio-cultural resources [91]. These may manifest as excessive extraction of communal resources and the emergence of free-riding behaviors. Effective leadership from village cadres serves to regulate multi-stakeholder conduct through institutionalized mechanisms, including rule-making and incentive structuring, thereby clarifying responsibility allocation and reducing coordination costs in collective action processes.

5.4. Heterogeneity Analysis

Given that rural tourism had a positive effect on collective action, and the mediating role of return migrants and the moderating role of leadership was confirmed, this study conducted a heterogeneity analysis based on multidimensional characteristics.

Table 7. Heterogeneity analysis.

Variable	Geographical Location of Villages		Level of Village Economic Development
	Without Plains	With Plains	Low	Middle	High
Rural Tourism Development	0.108 ***	−0.125 ***	0.059 ***	0.101 ***	−0.614 ***
	(0.012)	(0.026)	(0.015)	(0.014)	(0.031)
Constant	2.251 ***	−1.692 ***	1.898 ***	1.569 ***	−4.385 ***
	(0.157)	(0.430)	(0.284)	(0.152)	(0.569)
Control Variables	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Regional Dummy Variables	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	2327	955	1245	1472	565
Adjusted R2	0.344	0.641	0.523	0.549	0.881

Notes: ① *** denote statistical significance at the 1% level; ② values in parentheses are the standard errors.

shows the results. In non-plain areas, rural tourism had a statistically significant positive impact on collective action at the 1% level, while in plain areas, it had a statistically significant negative impact at the same level. Regarding the economic development level of the villages, in economically underdeveloped villages, rural tourism had a positive impact on collective action at the 1% level. However, in economically developed villages, the coefficient was negative and significant at the 1% level, indicating that rural tourism there inhibited collective action.

This phenomenon may be attributed to the following factors. First, villages in different geographical locations possess varying resource endowments and advantages. Non-plain areas (e.g., mountainous or hilly regions) often feature complex terrain and limited transportation and experience weaker impacts from urbanization and modernization, and retain more intact natural landscapes and cultural heritage. Compared to plain areas, these regions have richer tourism resource foundations, and villagers exhibit higher dependence on tourism resources, facilitating the emergence of collective action. In contrast, plain areas, characterized by open terrain and convenient transportation, develop earlier and establish diversified industrial foundations (e.g., agriculture and manufacturing). Rural tourism in such areas may conflict with traditional industries, leading to resource competition or disputes over the distribution of benefits.

Second, villages in different geographical locations exhibit significant differences in social capital. Non-plain areas are generally remote, with more traditional social structures. For instance, some villages retain informal organizations such as clan-based governance systems, which are more conducive to fostering collective action. Meanwhile, plain areas are more influenced by urbanization, modernization, and marketization, leading to higher individualization. Villagers in these areas rely less on rural resources, face lower individual costs compared to collective social costs, and thus exhibit a weaker collective action capacity.

Third, villages with varying levels of economic development are at different stages of growth and exhibit distinct institutional inertia. In less developed villages lacking industrial foundations, rural tourism provides new economic opportunities. Achieving resource integration and economic value transformation in such contexts depends heavily on internal collective action. Conversely, economically advanced villages already possess stable industrial bases and development models. Introducing rural tourism may disrupt the existing interest structures, causing resistance to collective action among villagers.

6. Discussion

Over the past few decades in China’s rural development history, the capacity for rural self-governance has undergone a progressive decline. A primary contributing factor is the continuous erosion of the village collective income, which has even led to losses despite sustained market-oriented reforms. Rural governing entities, constrained by insufficient economic resources, have demonstrated weakened governance capacities. Furthermore, exacerbated by population outflow, villagers’ sense of belonging and communal identity have gradually diminished, rendering rural communities structurally fragmented to some extent. Since the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy in 2017, rural development and poverty alleviation have become national priorities. Within this policy context, rural tourism has emerged as a crucial instrument for achieving rural revitalization in numerous villages. However, during its initial developmental phase, rural tourism prioritized regional economic growth, employment generation, and a reduction in absolute poverty. This efficiency-oriented approach inevitably entailed potential equity compromises, consequently posing challenges to rural social development and governance. This also triggered the debate over whether rural tourism development primarily serves as a crucial means for promoting endogenous rural development or functions as a form of invisible disciplining and exploitation of rural areas by urban culture [91]. From an efficiency perspective, rural tourism is a significant instrument for rural development, as the flow of urban–rural elements it facilitates effectively stimulates economic growth in rural regions [14,92]. However, from an equity perspective, the work available to villagers participating in rural tourism is predominantly low-skilled and temporary, falling considerably short of genuinely fostering endogenous economic development within the village [93]. These debates primarily stem from analyzing the impact of rural tourism on rural development and governance through the lens of endogenous versus exogenous development [94]. From an exogenous perspective, tourism activities represent an externally driven, market-dominated development model. Conversely, an endogenous perspective emphasizes an internally driven, community-led development model. Utilizing the Social–Ecological System (SES) framework, this study revealed that rural tourism, acting as an external perturbation, reshapes rural governance structures and collective action capacities through its interaction with internal factors such as talent return and leadership. This analysis transcends the endogenous/exogenous development dichotomy, offering a novel perspective on how Chinese villages can achieve effective self-governance amid marketization processes.

We contend that rural tourism should not be a priori conceptualized as inherently either endogenous or exploitative. Instead, it should be analyzed as a relational process embedded within specific local socio-political and institutional contexts. Its outcomes—whether fostering equitable endogenous development, facilitating extractive dynamics, or enabling adaptive collective governance— critically depend on how the external driver of tourism is negotiated, channeled, and transformed by internal actors (leaders, returnees, and villagers) and the institutional capacities (for collective action, conflict resolution, and benefit distribution). This shift in perspective highlights the crucial role of local agency, institutional mediation, and context-specific interactions in shaping the trajectory and socio-economic impacts of rural tourism development.

Furthermore, this study extends the contextual scope of collective action research and reveals a pivotal mechanism: rural tourism revitalizes collective action by attracting return migrants, thereby infusing novel dynamism and resources. This finding resonates profoundly with scholarship examining rural labor return migration and rural development [95,96]. It establishes a deep theoretical alignment with the research trajectory on labor return migration as a driver of rural development. While the extant literature predominantly emphasizes the structurally debilitating effects of labor out-flow on rural collective action capacity, this study builds upon this consensus to provide a significant countervailing perspective and empirical complement: actively induced or opportunity-driven return migration can function as a catalytic factor and enabling mechanism for activating and reinforcing collective action. Returnees contribute not only externally accumulated human capital, material capital, and financial capital, but more critically, introduce new knowledge, skills, social networks, and market awareness. These elements collectively constitute crucial novel forms of social capital and heterogeneous resources that are essential for fostering collective action. This study substantiated the significant positive impact of rural tourism on collective action and further identified the critical role of return migration in enhancing collective action capacity and achieving rural self-governance. Consequently, it offers an alternative pathway for advancing urban–rural integration and regional coordinated development [97].

7. Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations

7.1. Conclusions

This study utilized survey data from 22 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government), 178 villages, and 3282 farmers in China, to explore the role and internal mechanism of rural tourism in promoting rural collective action. The findings were as follows: First, rural tourism exerts a significant positive impact on rural collective action. Second, rural tourism fosters collective action by stimulating return migrants. Third, the leadership of village cadres plays a positive moderating role in the relationship between rural tourism and collective action. When leadership is weak, rural tourism may have no significant effect or even inhibit collective action. Fourth, the impact of rural tourism on collective action exhibits significant heterogeneity. In non-plain areas and villages with lower-middle economic development levels, rural tourism effectively promotes collective action. Conversely, in areas with plain landscapes and economically developed villages, rural tourism may negatively impact collective action.

7.2. Theoretical Implications

At the theoretical level, this study introduced the Social–Ecological System (SES) analytical framework to reveal how rural tourism facilitates rural governance through self-governance mechanisms, thereby transcending the traditional binary debates between state-market and development-governance approaches in the existing literature. The application of the SES framework shifts the understanding of the rural tourism–governance relationship from instrumental rationality to system rationality, emphasizing that governance efficacy stems from the dynamic equilibrium between the various elements within the social–ecological system. Centered on collective action, self-governance does not exclude state or market participation; instead, it focuses on transforming external resources into endogenous rural dynamics, ultimately achieving synergistic coordination between economic development and social governance.

7.3. Political Implications

From a policy perspective, the enduring impetus for rural revitalization lies in the coordination of economic growth and governance innovation. Integrating collective action into rural tourism development and community governance through institutional design can both activate villagers’ endogenous motivation and prevent governance fragmentation. To achieve this, three interconnected strategies are proposed.

First, improving the operational governance of rural tourism requires striking a balance between economic and governance priorities through collaborative institutional frameworks. Governments should establish regulations and provide public services, such as transportation upgrades and oversight of the tourism market, while market forces—through professional tourism firms or village-led businesses—enhance service quality. Simultaneously, villagers must actively engage in decision-making and oversight to align economic gains with the orderly management of public affairs.

Second, refining farmer-linked mechanisms strengthens village cohesion by expanding rural employment opportunities and fostering cultural identity. Establishing tourism cooperatives or agricultural–industrial alliances allows farmers to contribute land, labor, or capital as shares, ensuring equitable profit distribution and curbing external capital exploitation. Concurrently, organizing cultural activities such as folk festivals and historical exhibitions nurtures villagers’ emotional ties to their hometowns, encouraging proactive participation in tourism development and reinforcing the sense of rootedness among returning migrants.

Third, enhancing the leadership of village cadres is critical to governance efficiency. As pivotal organizers of collective action, cadres must strike a balance between accountability to higher authorities and service to villagers. By employing deliberative democracy to resolve conflicts and create a tourism-friendly environment, they can ensure smooth public affairs management, thereby sustaining endogenous rural development. Together, these measures form an integrated pathway to harmonize economic vitality, social cohesion, and governance efficacy in rural revitalization.

7.4. Limitations

This study also has some limitations. Firstly, due to the limitations of the data and samples, we were unable to conduct more detailed research. For instance, our measurement of leadership relied on the single indicator “Village leaders have effectively safeguarded the interests of the villagers,” without differentiating between specific types or dimensions of leadership. This precludes confirmation of the precise mechanisms underlying leadership’s moderating effect. Second, this study employed cross-sectional data from 2023, which inherently prevents capturing the dynamic evolution of tourism’s impact on collective action.

In future research, we propose conducting longitudinal surveys in selected representative provinces. This approach will enable observation of the long-term interplay between rural tourism, return migration, leadership, and collective action, thereby facilitating analyses of the dynamic mechanisms through which tourism influences collective action. Concurrently, future studies should refine the quantification of indicators such as leadership to deepen the exploration of their role in rural tourism and governance. Finally, we will investigate the deeper socio-cultural mechanisms driving the observed heterogeneity, utilizing in-depth case studies to investigate factors such as agrarian traditions and lineage structures.