Next Article in Journal
Predicted Corrosion Performance of Organofunctional Silane Coated Steel Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: An Overview
Next Article in Special Issue
A Study on Identifying the Spatial Characteristic Factors of Traditional Streets Based on Visitor Perception: Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis and Real-Time Monitoring of the Influence of Wind Load on a High-Altitude Steel Connecting Bridge with Small Spacing
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Inclusive Park Design Based on a Research Process: A Case Study of Thammasat Water Sport Center, Pathum Thani, Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/buildings14061759
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on Publicness Evaluation and Behavioral Characteristics in Traditional Villages—A Case Study of Chongqing Hewan Village

by
Jiang Xiao
1,
Yun Qian
1,*,
Song Chen
1,
Yuanjing Xu
2 and
Baoyong Li
1,3
1
School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2
School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China
3
School of Forestry, College of Gardening and Arts, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(6), 1759; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061759
Submission received: 20 April 2024 / Revised: 5 June 2024 / Accepted: 5 June 2024 / Published: 11 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human-Centric Space Design: Occupant Comfort, Wellbeing, and Post-occupancy Evaluation of Multi-Scale Built Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: Public space is an important carrier for maintaining the cultural values of a village and the production and living customs of the villagers, but the use rights and boundaries are in an unstable and ambiguous state, and it is not a completely open and inclusive public space. The study aims to deepen the understanding of the publicness of public space in traditional villages from the perspective of subjective and objective combination, which reveals the relationship between the space and villagers’ behavior. (2) Methods: The research established an evaluation framework for assessing the “publicness” of public spaces in traditional villages by integrating space syntax and cognitive surveys. This framework facilitates the analysis of the extent and dimensions of publicness, along with corresponding behavioral patterns, and explores the underlying mechanisms influencing publicness. (3) Results: The study reveals significant variations in the publicness of traditional village spaces. High-publicness areas tend to cluster, whereas low-publicness areas are more scattered, and riverfront regions exhibit greater publicness compared to mountain-adjacent ones. Villagers exhibit notable differences in their evaluations of public spaces, and individuals aged 14–18 and those over 66 rate the highest. The utilization rate of high-publicness spaces is significantly high, catering to a diverse array of activities. In spaces with lower publicness, the duration and variety of activities tend to be more constrained, often limited to rapid exchanges or brief respites, exhibiting a narrower scope of activities. (4) Conclusions: The study underscores the variability and complexity of publicness in traditional village spaces, which manifest not only in spatial layouts and types but also in villagers’ usage patterns and behavioral preferences. This may be influenced by objective factors such as spatial accessibility, social interaction, and richness of cultural activities.

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, China’s rural revitalization initiatives have profoundly altered the configuration and functional roles of village communities [1]. Traditionally, village communal areas have served as integral loci for social engagement, leisure pursuits, and daily living, fostering a sense of intimacy and solidarity among the village populace. Multiple scholars have delved into the concept of public space from diverse disciplinary vantage points. Public spaces are areas accessible to all individuals. From the perspective of behavioral psychology, scholars have regarded public spaces as the stages of urban interaction [2,3]. Alexander et al. emphasize the importance of the “center” and “edge” in building public domain [4], which not only serve as spatial landmarks but also as generators of activity. They also note that the privatization of such spaces can erode their inherent “public” character [5].
With the emergence of the Western social and public research field, the concept of “publicness” in political science serves as a tool to measure government activities and values, with research often focusing on spatial public–private relations, urban safety, and related areas [6,7,8]. In public administration, publicness refers to the consensus of public interest achieved through public discussions among community members. In management, it is viewed as the process of orderly organization, while in economics, it functions as a means to balance public and private interests. Sociologists generally emphasize the core values of publicness, which include openness, heterogeneity, and commonality [9]. Western scholars later extended the theory of publicness to urban construction environments, marking the emergence of a new field that includes the dual concepts of “public” and “space”. This theoretical framework emphasizes the distinctions between private and public to define public space, which is a blend of both with varying degrees of publicness [10]. Space privatization often limits social interaction, restricts personal freedom, and excludes certain individuals, thereby weakening the public [11]. Arendt and Habermas, among others, have discussed publicness in terms of the public place, which is characterized by being open to all citizens, allowing free expression of opinions [12,13,14]. Therefore, public areas should not only be open, public, and freely accessible [15] but also provide environments that are conducive to activity, comfort, accessibility, and social interaction. The ambiguity, complexity, and relativity inherent in the contemporary Western conceptualization of publicness offer valuable lessons and inspiration for the governance and theoretical research of the public realm during China’s transition period [16]. It is important to note that publicness is not singular but multi-dimensional.
Existing research indicates that the ideal state of public space should be defined based on four dimensions: ownership, accessibility, management, and inclusiveness. An ideal public space is accessible to everyone and allows spontaneous activities beyond basic social norms, thus fostering social interactions [17]. According to Zhang Cheng et al., rural publicness is demonstrated through five aspects: high accessibility of public places, cooperative participation in collective actions, diverse inclusive spatial concepts, mixed social functions, and the pursuit of shared public values [18].
There have been studies confirming the value of publicness in different settings can be quantified and compared [19]. The level of publicness essentially determines the extent to which an area serves the public. Scholars have proposed various models for evaluating publicness early on, such as the star model [20], the public space index (PSI) [21], and the six-axial model [22]. These models consider a space to be more public when a larger populace perceives it as such, it possesses public functionalities and applications, and maintains robust visual connectivity to the exterior environment. These models laid the foundation for the subsequent evaluation of publicness in urban areas. The publicness evaluation model (PEM) evaluates public spaces owned or managed by the private sector across four dimensions: urban life, physical design, human connection, and management. This model facilitates comparative evaluations of diverse areas or stages of spatial development [23]. The public space experiential quality index (PSEQI) introduces indicators for measuring the quality of urban public space experience, including comfort, inclusiveness, diversity and vitality, image, and likability. This index emphasizes user needs and concerns [24]. Mengyao Pan identifies three indicators for publicness research: the number of participants, choice, and integration. It was found that when spaces with high-choice value paths are connected, the enhancement of accessibility and optionality plays a crucial role in promoting public participation [25]. Xu Leiqing suggests that visibility of function, accessibility, and inclusiveness are the three fundamental dimensions of publicness [26]. Daniel CW Ho explores the impact of publicness and quality on user satisfaction, finding that satisfaction differences are mainly due to the quality of open spaces rather than land ownership per se [27]. Overall, past scholars emphasize the significant roles of management, ownership, accessibility, environment and facilities, and inclusiveness in publicness evaluation. Previous studies have primarily focused on urban public spaces [28,29], with rural areas mainly proposing strategies for constructing publicness [30], lacking an evaluation method specific to rural publicness.
As a critical evaluation tool, space syntax focuses on aspects such as accessibility, connectivity, and choice. It quantifies the distribution of services in public spaces and enhances their vitality and functionality by improving spatial distribution [31,32,33]. The theory of space syntax establishes a measurable relationship between spatial configuration and potential coexistence patterns on an abstract level [34]. It has been widely applied in the layout of urban streets, squares, parks, and communities [35,36,37,38], demonstrating evaluation potential in rural areas as well [39,40]. For instance, Xiaohe Gu using space syntax analysis revealed the best accessibility and permeability in public spaces of a tourist ancient town [41]. Huiyun Yu et al. combined space syntax and cognitive imagery to explore the relationship between spatial form and intrinsic vitality, finding a positive correlation between the integration, intelligibility, and optionality of traditional streetscapes and their vitality and people’s cognition [42]. Utilizing spatial models for describing, analyzing, and interpreting urban morphology not only protects the historical urban heritage fabric but also enhances urban vitality [43]. Pinyue Ouyang, in combining POI data and questionnaire surveys to analyze and evaluate waterfront public places in terms of accessibility, landscape visual quality, and service functions revealed that service spaces reachable by walking provided the highest satisfaction in terms of accessibility, tourists focused more on the landscape around the facilities than green spaces for visual quality, and services such as beverage stores, fitness centers, and small gatherings were more attractive in terms of functional services [44]. Therefore, space syntax offers a distinct advantage in analyzing accessibility and choice, and combining space model analysis with traditional field research enables a comprehensive and precise understanding and evaluation of rural public space [45,46,47].
Therefore, this research aims to delve into the publicness of rural places in Hewan Village, a quintessential traditional village nestled in the mountainous region of southwest China. The study employs a combined approach utilizing the space syntax method and questionnaire surveys including investigating the degree of publicness in public spaces, analyzing differences in individual characteristics on assessments of publicness, and identifying the behavioral activities in various places. The ultimate goal is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the publicness of rural areas and to offer insights to enhance the sustainable planning and design of these areas.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Youyang Tujia and Miaozu Autonomous County are situated in the southeastern part of Chongqing Municipality (108°18′25″ E~109°19′18″ E, 28°19′28″ N~29°24′18″ N) (Figure 1). For this study, Hewan Village within this county was selected as the primary focus. The village’s topography is predominantly characterized by shallow hills, boasting a forest coverage of 42% and an average elevation of 350 m. In 2022, this village was acknowledged as a model for the centralized protection and utilization of traditional villages across the nation by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD) and the Ministry of Finance (MOF). Hewan Village is located in proximity to the AAA scenic spot of Youshui River National Wetland Park. The village exhibits a unique building layout, divided into east and west walled sections arranged in a stepped distribution, encompassing over 150 households and a resident population exceeding 600 individuals, primarily from the Tujia and Miao ethnic groups (Figure 2). As an early developer of tourism, Hewan Village has retained numerous traditional folk activities, such as the Arms-swaying Dance and traditional houses on stilts. It is a well-known traditional protected village in Chongqing. The village’s geographical position, the advanced state of its tourism industry, and its rigorous protection of cultural values make it an exemplary model of traditional villages in southeast Chongqing. Therefore, its study is of significant academic interest. For this research, ten public spaces regularly utilized by villagers were selected as study samples. These include the pier, leisure square, and notable landmark buildings, as well as their surroundings (Figure 3).

2.2. Data Sources

2.2.1. Building and Road Network

The building structures and road networks were identified through aerial photography, which was supplemented by on-site mapping to gather detailed information about the village’s buildings, adjacent rivers, road layout, nodes, and boundary lines. The village’s road network was plotted using AutoCAD 2022, with the complexity of the road system reduced to the most direct routes represented as straight lines. Subsequently, the simplified road network was exported in the DXF format. Further analysis was conducted using Depthmap 10.14 software, where the axial map was created to assess the integration, choice, and depth of the spaces.

2.2.2. Questionnaire

The questionnaire is structured into three sections. The first section collects the respondents’ basic demographic information, including gender, age, education, occupation, and income level. The second section inquires about the current usage of public spaces, covering aspects such as the usage time and the types of activities undertaken. The third section evaluates various indicators, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale where 1 signifies “very dissatisfied”, 2 “less dissatisfied”, 3 “neutral”, 4 “more satisfied”, and 5 “very satisfied”. These indicators encompass landscape facilities, service facilities, recreational environment, sense of comfort, sense of safety, building features, folk cultural activities, spatial attractiveness, openness, boundaries, and participation. The research was conducted in four distinct phases: February, May, July, and October 2023. A total of 193 questionnaires were distributed, and 189 valid responses were recovered, yielding a recovery efficacy rate of approximately 98%. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics 27, with an alpha coefficient of 0.859 and a KMO measure of 0.841, reflecting a significance level of p < 0.05. These results indicate that the questionnaire reliably and validly assesses public space.

2.3. Research Methods

2.3.1. Publicness Evaluation System

The selection of evaluation indicators primarily encompasses three main considerations. Firstly, it included a comprehensive review of existing literature and integrated evaluation indexes of urban publicness with additional relevant indicators suited for traditional villages as first-level indexes. Building on Xu Leiqing’s [26] proposed criteria of accessibility, inclusiveness, and functional visibility, it introduced visibility and iconicity as additional dimensions. Secondly, it incorporated and supplemented high-frequency vocabulary related to traditional village evaluations as secondary indicators. Finally, the indicator system was refined by incorporating feedback from research experts and the general public, ensuring it adequately reflects both professional standards and public needs. Consequently, the final publicness evaluation system was structured into five distinct dimensions: accessibility, visibility, functionality, iconicity, and inclusiveness (Figure 4).
To quantitatively evaluate accessibility and visibility, axis analysis was applied using space syntax to examine the integration, choice, and depth and the questionnaire results were subsequently analyzed. Lastly, the indicators across the five dimensions were normalized and applied in a weighted summation to calculate the overall publicness index for each public space, thereby determining their degree of publicness.

2.3.2. Publicness Evaluation Indicator and Weights

The hierarchical analysis method (AHP) was employed to determine the priority of the criteria through pairwise comparisons [48]. This process involved calculating the weight of each indicator. To enhance the reliability of the results, a panel of 12 experts with extensive practical experience and knowledge in related fields participated in the study. This panel included 8 research scholars and 4 relevant managers. Each expert independently scored and compared the importance of the factors in pairs, as detailed in Table 1.

2.3.3. Space Syntax

Space syntax was first introduced by British researcher Bill Hillier in the 1970s to reflect the natural patterns of human movement and activities [49]. Integration can be seen as a measure of accessibility, with higher integration leading to more concentrated pedestrian flows. The choice indicates the likelihood of paths being traversed, with spaces of higher choice indicating a greater probability of being used. Depth value refers to the minimum number of connections between one space and others. By combining data from Baidu Maps and on-site surveys to create a plan of the roads and buildings in Hewan Village, the processed plan was imported into Depthmap 10.14 software to analyze its accessibility and visibility after being converted into axial lines.

2.3.4. Calculation of the Level of Publicness

  • Normalization of indicator data
To obtain the values of 15 indicators of village public spaces, both space syntax and questionnaires were employed. The data were subsequently normalized to a value range of 0–1, using the formula for:
y j = x j − min ⁡ x j max ⁡ x j − min ⁡ x j
In the formula, y j represents the normalization index, while x j denotes the original data. max( x j ) and min( x j ) refer to the maximum and minimum values of the index, respectively.
2.
Weighted sum
The expert scoring process results in the assignment of an indicator weight, denoted as W, and assigns an indicator score, denoted as A, to each public space. The degree of publicness is subsequently calculated employing the weighted summation method, utilizing the following formula:
S i = ∑ j y j × W j
In the formula, y j represents the normalized value of the jth indicator, and W j denotes the weight assigned to the jth indicator for a given space. The scores of the five dimensions are aggregated and superimposed to derive the total score of publicness for a particular public space, denoted as S i . The degree of publicness is classified into five distinct levels (Table 2).

3. Results

3.1. Evaluation of the Publicness of Public Space in Riverbend Village

The Yaahp tool was utilized to formulate the judgment matrix. The consistency ratio (CR) achieved a value below 0.1, indicating satisfactory consistency, and the weight of each indicator was determined. The results exhibited indicator weights as follows: functionality (0.3417) > accessibility (0.3147) > visibility (0.1779) > inclusiveness (0.1097) > iconicity (0.0560) (Table 3).
Utilizing the weighted sum of each indicator, the publicness value of each public space was calculated (Table 4). The study observed that riverfront public spaces generally exhibited higher publicness scores than near-mountain public spaces. Specifically, Hewan Island, Village Committee, Arms-swaying Hall, and Leisure Square garnered scores between 0.61 and 0.8, classifying them as possessing “high” publicness. The Dock Square, Museum, Fitness Square, and Wandu House scored between 0.41 and 0.6, indicating “moderate” publicness. The Harmony Tree scored 0.24, falling into the “low” category, while the Viewing Platform exhibited “very low” publicness.

3.1.1. Accessibility

From the accessibility dimension, the overall level of accessibility is average, yet spaces that are accessible by vehicles tend to possess a good publicness (Figure 5). Firstly, spaces with superior overall accessibility are concentrated in the riverfront area, including Hewan Island, the Village Committee, the Arms-swaying Hall, and the Leisure Square. These places exhibit a high reachability due to their proximity to roads, enabling direct vehicular access. Regions near the mountains feature a more intricate road network, primarily comprising narrow alleyways accessible only by foot, resulting in a lower level of accessibility. Secondly, the Arms-swaying Hall and the Village Committee exhibit the highest partial accessibility (R = 3). While locations near mountains such as the Fitness Square and area surrounding the Museum demonstrate good partial accessibility, the accessibility of other spaces remains low. Therefore, riverfront public spaces represent the most convenient core usage areas proximal to external transportation, with accessibility diminishing as one approaches the surrounding near-mountain regions.

3.1.2. Visibility

From the perspective of visibility, spaces close to water exhibit a higher degree of visibility (Figure 6). Firstly, the overall choice value of spaces located near the mountains surpasses that of riverside spaces, with the Museum, Fitness Square, and Village Committee boasting the highest choice, whereas Leisure Square and Hewan Island have the lowest. Secondly, the overall depth value of the riverside spaces in the village is relatively low. A lower depth value correlates with a reduced number of spaces that need to be traversed, resulting in higher visibility. Leisure Square, Hewan Island, the Arms-swaying Hall, and the Village Committee have become popular areas for villagers to overlook distant mountains, rest and enjoy the scenery, engage in social interactions, and undertake various activities.

3.1.3. Functionality

In terms of functionality, Hewan Island, owing to its diverse offerings of dining, lodging, and recreational activities, exhibits a superior level of functionality (Figure 7). The Dock Square, Museum, and Fitness Square received average scores above “4.0” for landscape facilities and sense of safety yet fell below “4.0” for service facilities and recreational environment (Table 5). Most spaces possess a high sense of safety, and barring the Dock Square and Hewan Island, the remaining spaces maintain an average sense of comfort, with scores ranging from “3.0” to “4.0”. Overall, Hewan Island attained the highest overall average score for functionality, scoring 4.21, 4.37, 4.0, 4.21, and 3.68 for landscape facilities, service facilities, recreational environment, sense of comfort, and sense of safety, respectively. This suggests that the space provides comprehensive landscape services, including scenic vistas, catering, and sports and recreational amenities, that facilitate public activities and gatherings. Despite its high degree of comfort, it gives a slightly lower sense of safety. Harmony Tree secured the lowest functionality score of 3.38, lacking essential service facilities such as resting seats and lighting, which are insufficient to meet the daily functional needs of villagers.

3.1.4. Iconicity

From the iconicity dimension, it is evident that buildings embodying traditional culture and landmarks exhibit the most pronounced iconicity (Figure 8). The Museum, Hewan Island, and Arms-swaying Hall attained scores of 4.37, 4.21, and 4.37, respectively, in terms of building features, while Hewan Island garnered scores of 4.32 and 4.11 for folk cultural activities and spatial attractiveness (Table 6). The Museum serves as a novel public space, blending traditional village art and historical significance, having been constructed in the wake of tourism development and boasting exquisite construction technology. Hewan Island boasts ample place to accommodate large-scale folk cultural activities within the village, while its building is both distinctive and geographically representative. The Arms-swaying Hall, which documents the village’s history and culture, including the Arms-swaying Dance, incorporates historical elements of Hewan Village into its structure, thereby rendering it the most culturally significant building in the village. Overall, the iconicity of the Dock Square, Wandu House, Harmony Tree, Fitness Square, Viewing Platform, Village Committee, and Leisure Square requires enhancement, as these spaces largely lack cultural activities and spatial attractiveness.

3.1.5. Inclusiveness

Regarding the inclusiveness dimension, particularly Dock Square and Fitness Square, which possess the highest level of inclusiveness (Figure 9), Dock Square achieved scores of 4.47, 4.63, and 4.11 for spatial openness, boundaries, and participation, respectively, resulting in the highest overall inclusiveness score. This type of space is typically expansive and accessible to the public, with no visible obstacles that enable villagers to enter and exit unhindered, unconstrained by factors such as identity or intended usage. In contrast, buildings like the Museum, Village Committee, and Arms-swaying Hall exhibit a lower degree of inclusiveness. Their spatial openness scores stand at 3.47, 3.84, and 3.89, while participation scores are 3.47, 3.63, and 3.53, respectively (Table 7). Overall, these spaces are unobstructed, indicating a focus on enhancing spatial openness and participation to foster a more inclusive environment.

3.2. Analysis of Differences in Evaluation of Personal Characteristics

Table 8 reveals that the factor of age displays the most significant variance in assessments (p < 0.05). Gender, education, career, and income level exhibit less significant differences in the perception of publicness. Villagers aged 14–18 and 66 years and above significantly rate higher than those belonging to other age groups (p < 0.05), with mean ratings exceeding 4.0, and the mean ratings for the remaining age groups fall within the upper-middle range. While the disparities in other aspects are relatively minor, it is observable that villagers with a high school, junior college, or vocational high school education, as well as those who are illiterate or semi-literate, tend to assign higher ratings compared to their counterparts. Villagers engaged in agricultural work and those with an income ranging from CNY 4000 to 5000 also exhibit a higher evaluation of public space.

3.3. Characterization of Behavioral Activities in Public Space

The findings indicate that over 50% of villagers spend no more than 30 min in public spaces, with over 60% engaging in 1–2 types of activities predominantly. In high publicness (Figure 10a), villagers exhibit a higher propensity to linger for “10–20 min” and “20–30 min” at Hewan Island and the Village Committee. Some villagers at Arms-swaying Hall and Leisure Square choose to stay for 1 h or more and 2 h or more, but the majority still concentrate on “20–30 min”. In moderate to lower publicness (Figure 10b) such as Harmony Tree and the Museum, villagers tend to stay for “10–20 min” or less. This suggests that most villagers prefer quick interactions or brief breaks, with only a few opting for longer stays, showing a deeper willingness to engage in recreational activities and social interactions in public spaces.
Furthermore, 36.55% of villagers engage in a single type of activity, indicating a preference towards a singular activity, primarily focused on resting or sightseeing, with a noticeable decrease in villagers participating in two activities. However, as the number of activity types increases, the participation rate declines significantly. For spaces like Hewan Island, Arms-swaying Hall, and Leisure Square, villagers mainly engage in “1–2 types” of activities (Figure 10c). Whereas for places like Dock Square, Harmony Tree, Fitness Square, and the Viewing Platform, activities are predominantly singular (Figure 10d). Therefore, villagers are attracted to only certain activities and may not have the time or energy to engage in more activities.
According to villagers’ behaviors and activities in the spaces (Figure 11), areas like Hewan Island, Wandu House, and Leisure Square offer various activities such as sightseeing, dining, and fitness, attracting a larger crowd, where villagers primarily participate in chess, dining, and sports for entertainment. These spaces exhibit high functionality and accessibility, making it easy for villagers to participate in different activities. Dock Square, Wandu House, and similar areas are frequently used by villagers for relaxing and socializing. The Fitness Square serves as an area for villagers to exercise and play sports. The Harmony Tree and Viewing Platform witness minimal activity frequency, showcasing a high level of singularity in villagers’ activities. In conclusion, high publicness provides a comfortable environment, convenient transportation, diverse activities, and open participation, increasing their attractiveness; whereas lower publicness caters to basic production and daily functions but has lower openness to the public.

4. Discussion

4.1. Objective Elements Affecting the Publicness of Village Public Space

The study revealed that the publicness of public spaces exhibited significant variation, predominantly characterized by a lower degree of publicness. This finding aligns with the observations of Yaylali-Yildiz, who explored the variability in publicness on university campuses [50]. The results of this study may be attributed to a combination of factors, including limited regional accessibility, inadequate social interaction, and a lack of diversity in cultural and social activities [51].
Accessibility represents a significant factor in determining the access of public spaces [52,53]. Enhanced accessibility correlates positively with an increased utilization rate of these spaces, while disconnected road networks tend to diminish the likelihood of resident participation [25]. On the one hand, traditional villages are typically situated in remote, hilly, and mountainous regions, characterized by a high spatial distribution density and a tendency for random distribution patterns [54]. This geographical disposition inherently poses limitations on the accessibility of these villages. Areas that enjoy high accessibility foster greater public participation and promote a sense of local identity. County roads assume a crucial role in rural settlements. To optimize the spatial patterns of county cities and villages, it is imperative to establish a comprehensive transportation network system that effectively strengthens spatial connectivity between towns and villages [55].
The scarcity of social interaction profoundly impacts the formation and sustenance of communality. As social interaction decreases, the communication and connectivity between individuals weaken, impeding the development of shared culture and values, ultimately resulting in the attenuation of communality. A study revealed that respondents exhibited a significantly higher propensity to engage with “others” in public settings compared to private or professional environments [56], indicating the interactive nature of public spaces. The rural social structure, characterized by stable neighborhoods and acquaintance networks, fosters profound emotional reliance and frequent interactions among villagers. Urban residents tend to prioritize interactions with friends and family, rather than neighbors [57]. Conclusively, physical exercise serves as an effective means to augment social interaction [58], as daily open spaces and public facilities offer an ideal platform for residents to engage in interaction, public participation, and place-making [59].
The homogenization of cultural and social activities can have a detrimental impact on space. Public space, as a venue for collective sharing and communication, ought to accommodate and showcase a diversity of cultural and social activities. Typically, villagers engage in daily behavioral activities such as farming, chatting, and walking. However, when these spaces fail to meet the demands of their daily routines, villagers tend to reduce their usage frequency. This phenomenon underscores the constraints imposed by villagers’ behavioral patterns and social interaction structures in utilizing it. The monotony of functional activities impacts spatial inclusiveness, leading to the marginalization of social groups. Environmental comfort can be augmented by increased vegetation, water bodies, and other landscapes [60]. The provision of diverse facilities and larger open spaces enhances the attractiveness [61]. Overall, a comprehensive enhancement of the publicness can be achieved through the optimization of transportation facilities, functional layout, and enhanced planning and management.

4.2. Objective Elements Affecting the Publicness of Village Public Space

It was observed that individuals aged 14–18 years and those aged 66 and above rated villages the highest, which aligns with findings from relevant studies [62]. Age influences one’s reachability distance and interpersonal comfort zone [63].
On one hand, the heightened perception among the elderly can be attributed to a profound sentiment of nostalgia. Elderly individuals who typically reside in rural areas harbor deeper emotions for the countryside and return to their rural homes after residing in towns, cities, and metropolitan areas [64]. As they age, the psychological needs of the elderly become more prominent, leading to increased usage and attachment to spaces [65] that exhibit traditional symbols or evoke memories of past lives to delight and satisfy them, thereby enhancing their perceptual abilities. Factors such as pedestrian infrastructure, safety, amenities, aesthetics, and environmental conditions influence the behavioral activities of older adults [66], which subsequently shape their perception of publicness. While older adults prefer to visit nearby public spaces on foot for physical activity [67], the participation rates in physical activities among this demographic remain low, particularly in less affluent areas [68].
On the other hand, the heightened perception among adolescents is attributed to their increased motivation to engage in outdoor public activities and willingness to establish an identity with their peers. In rural areas, a substantial proportion of the adolescent population comprises left-behind children. When compared to urban children of the same age group, public cultural and recreational facilities in rural regions are typically scarce, resulting in unsatisfied emotional needs, limited physical exercise opportunities, and stunted personal interest development [69]. These recreational spaces are highly appealing to adolescents, as physical activities are instrumental in promoting both physical and mental health among children and adolescents [70]. Such activities facilitate the establishment of a sense of identity among peers and can further enhance well-being and alleviate symptoms of anxiety and depression [71].
Other studies have emphasized that physical characteristics, social factors, and personal traits significantly influence the choice of activity parks among individuals of varying ages. Factors such as time availability, weather conditions, attitudes, and psychological states also play a pivotal role in this choice [72]. The frequent interactions and close social bonds fostered in outdoor environments facilitate the development of stronger communal perceptions among adolescents and the elderly. These insights are crucial for enhancing the communal aspect of traditional village public spaces and enriching villagers’ experiences in utilizing them.

4.3. Mechanisms of Publicness Idiosyncrasies in Rural Public Space

Traditional rural and urban public spaces exhibit distinct differences in terms of ownership, openness, and functionality. In traditional rural areas, the boundaries of public space are often ambiguous, whereas urban public space is delineated with a clear division between public and private domains. Over time, rural public space has evolved into an area primarily used for village-level public activities, including village-built houses and their surrounding environments, constituting a form of “hidden” public space [73]. Social activities centered around the rural courtyard, including the courtyard landscape, are integral to farmers’ community interactions, encompassing exchanges among neighbors regarding courtyard layout, paving patterns, types of potted plants, and horticultural techniques. These interactive courtyard landscape activities serve to enhance villagers’ concern for public affairs and interests, fostering consensus and thereby cultivating a sense of community identity and belonging [74]. However, urban social infrastructures, such as libraries, parks, sports facilities, schools, and community centers, are integral to urban life, providing convenience and serving as venues for socialization and interpersonal connections [75]. These spaces are primarily open to the public, except for privately operated facilities.
The behavioral patterns and characteristics of individuals in rural areas tend to be relatively homogeneous, with villagers typically engaging in planting activities and agricultural labor in spaces such as courtyards, vegetable gardens, piers, and mountain forests. The primary mechanism of rural public space lies in its ability to foster social communication and interaction among villagers, thereby enhancing the cohesion and vitality of rural communities. It serves as a gathering place where villagers can engage in dialogue, communication, and mutual exchange. The utilization of rural public space enables villagers to establish social networks, deepen mutual understanding, and form shared cognitive frameworks and values. Rural public space is not merely a physical entity; it is also a social space. Hence, its primary function lies not in its material form or functional facilities but rather in the social communication and interaction it facilitates. This process is dynamic and ongoing, requiring constant nurturing and reinforcement.
The countryside is currently experiencing spatial transformations, including dismantling, integration, and reconstruction, predominantly influenced by tourism. Regarding space types, the transition from traditional agriculture to commercial tourism services has fostered the emergence of a complex production–living space, which is accompanied by an expansion in ecological areas, culminating in a hybrid production–ecological space [76]. This hybrid space serves a wide array of functional purposes, encompassing labor activities, neighborhood socialization, cultural engagements, and gatherings. Consequently, it provides a conducive environment for community organization, collectivity enhancement, idea exchange, and action implementation [77]. In terms of demographic shifts, the user group composition in tourist villages has transformed from a binary structure consisting of villagers and tourists to a tripartite one encompassing villagers, tourists, and traders [78]. Rural residents have been increasingly influenced by the influx of diverse tourist groups, seasonal visitors, and labor migrants. While they recognize the economic gains associated with tourism, they are also apprehensive about its adverse consequences, particularly overcrowding in public areas [79], conflicts between private and public use, and environmental and building degradation resulting from excessive utilization, all of which have the potential to infringe upon residents’ rights.

5. Conclusions

Utilizing Hewan Village as a case study, this paper establishes a comprehensive publicness evaluation system for public spaces in traditional villages. Employing methodologies such as space syntax and questionnaires, we quantitatively assess the publicness value of these spaces. The findings reveal that a substantial proportion of traditional village public spaces exhibit relatively low publicness, with considerable variations observed. Riverfront spaces exhibit greater publicness compared to those situated near mountainous areas. Spaces accessible by automobiles demonstrate higher levels of publicness. In terms of visibility, spaces located proximate to water bodies exhibit greater visibility. Spaces offering a diverse range of amenities, including catering, lodging, and recreational activities, are found to be more attractive. Among these spaces, traditional cultural landmarks and representative buildings stand out as possessing the most pronounced iconic value. Finally, piazzas exhibit the highest level of inclusiveness. Age exhibits a significant influence on the evaluation of the publicness of public spaces, with individuals aged 14–18 years and those above 66 years demonstrating the highest ratings. Gender, education, career, and income level exert a relatively minor impact on the assessment of publicness. Over half of the villagers utilize the public space for less than 30 min, and over 60% of their activities are predominantly confined to 1–2 types. The frequency of utilization in high-publicness spaces is high, offering a more diverse range of activities, whereas the duration and types of activities in low-publicness spaces tend to be more limited. Spaces that exhibit higher levels of functionality and accessibility, such as Hewan Island and Leisure Square, are preferred by villagers due to their ability to cater to a broader spectrum of needs and interests. Spaces with a more singular purpose, such as the Harmony Tree and Viewing Platform, tend to be used less frequently as their functional diversity is relatively restricted. Traditional villages display notable variations and intricacies, potentially influenced by objective factors such as accessibility constraints, limited social interaction, and the singularity of cultural and social activities. Future efforts to enhance the publicness of rural spaces should not only aim to improve the physical and functional environment but also prioritize the outdoor activity needs of primary user groups, emphasize the management of public space, and balance the conflicts and rights of villagers and tourists amidst tourism development.
The value of this study lies in several key aspects. Firstly, from the perspective of rural development, it examines the potential discrepancy in the perception of publicness between urban and rural areas. This analysis reveals the intricate relationship between human use and spatial configuration in rural settings, thereby emphasizing the indispensability of local natural and cultural elements in the development of rural public spaces. This approach contrasts sharply with the conventional practices of urban space planning. Secondly, this study broadens the understanding of rural public spaces, offering method insights for evaluating its attributes. Lastly, it provides practical guidance for the future planning and design of rural areas, thus contributing to the enhancement of their social and cultural significance.
Despite its contributions, the present study possesses several limitations. Given the scarcity of prior research on publicness in traditional village public spaces, the evaluation factors and their respective weights may require further refinement and adjustment based on the specific circumstances of the villages. The methodology for assessing publicness could be enhanced by incorporating techniques such as big data analysis. The study’s sole focus on Hewan Village may limit its representativeness, as it may not fully capture the spaces across all villages. To address this, the research scope could be broadened, and the indicator weighting factors could be enriched to ensure a more comprehensive assessment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.X., Y.Q., S.C., Y.X. and B.L.; methodology, J.X. and Y.Q.; software, J.X. and Y.Q.; validation, J.X.; formal analysis, J.X.; investigation, J.X. and Y.X.; data curation, J.X.; writing—original draft preparation, J.X.; writing—review and editing, J.X., Y.Q., S.C., Y.X. and B.L.; visualization, J.X.; supervision, Y.Q., S.C., Y.X. and B.L.; project administration, Y.Q.; funding acquisition, Y.Q. and B.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by China Postdoctoral Fund (Grant Number: 2022M710403); National Natural Science Foundation of China project (Grant Number: 32001366).

Institutional Review Board Statement

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Human Study Ethics Committee of Beijing Forestry University on 4/2/2024 (BJFUPSY-2024-017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author due to the involvement of human subjects.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zheng, J.; He, J.; Tang, H. The Vitality of Public Space and the Effects of Environmental Factors in Chinese Suburban Rural Communities Based on Tourists and Residents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 20, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Carr, S.; Francis, M.; Rivlin, L.G.; Stone, A.M. Public Space; PUNLIC Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gehl, J. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1987; ISBN 978-0-442-23011-1. [Google Scholar]
  4. Quinan, J.; Alexander, C. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Leonardo 1981, 14, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nasution, A.D.; Zahrah, W. Public Open Space Privatization and Quality of Life, Case Study Merdeka Square Medan. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 36, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Langstraat, F.; Van Melik, R. Challenging the ‘End of Public Space’: A Comparative Analysis of Publicness in British and Dutch Urban Spaces. J. Urban Des. 2013, 18, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Leclercq, E.; Pojani, D.; Van Bueren, E. Is Public Space Privatization Always Bad for the Public? Mixed Evidence from the United Kingdom. Cities 2020, 100, 102649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Van Melik, R.; Van Aalst, I.; Van Weesep, J. Fear and Fantasy in the Public Domain: The Development of Secured and Themed Urban Space. J. Urban Des. 2007, 12, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jiang, M.; Nakajima, N.; Lu, F. Theoretical Study and Analytical Framework Construction of Public Space Communality. International Urban Planning 1–14; Tongfang Knowledge Network Technology Co., Ltd.: Beijing, China, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Akkar, M. The Changing ‘Publicness’ of Contemporary Public Spaces: A Case Study of the Grey’s Monument Area, Newcastle upon Tyne. Urban. Des. Int. 2005, 10, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Németh, J.; Schmidt, S. The Privatization of Public Space: Modeling and Measuring Publicness. Environ. Plann. B 2011, 38, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lofland, L.H. Social Life in the Public Realm: A Review. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 1989, 17, 453–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Scaff, L.A. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. By Jürgen Habermas. Translated by Thomas Burger. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989. 301p. $35.00.—The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate. By Jürgen Habermas. Edited and Translated by Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989. 270p. $22.50. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1990, 84, 967–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arendt, H.; Canovan, M. The Human Condition, 2nd ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhang, Z.; Tang, X.; Wang, Y. Evaluation of the Intergenerational Equity of Public Open Space in Old Communities: A Case Study of Caoyang New Village in Shanghai. Land 2023, 12, 1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, Y.M. Interpretation of the Public Characteristics of Western Urban Public Space from the Perspective of “Spatial Restoration”. Mod. Urban Stud. 2023, 6, 82–88+96. [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, J.; Dang, A.; Song, Y. Defining the Ideal Public Space: A Perspective from the Publicness. J. Urban Manag. 2022, 11, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, C.; Liu, Z.Y. The publicness dilemma of rural public space and its remodeling. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2019, 2, 1–7+163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ekdi, F.P.; Çıracı, H. Really Public? Evaluating the Publicness of Public Spaces in Istanbul by Means of Fuzzy Logic Modelling. J. Urban Des. 2015, 20, 658–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Varna, G.; Tiesdell, S. Assessing the Publicness of Public Space:The Star Model of Publicness. J. Urban Des. 2010, 15, 575–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mehta, V. Evaluating Public Space. J. Urban Des. 2014, 19, 53–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mantey, D. The ‘Publicness’ of Suburban Gathering Places: The Example of Podkowa Leśna (Warsaw Urban Region, Poland). Cities 2017, 60, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lopes, M.; Santos Cruz, S.; Pinho, P. Revisiting Publicness in Assessment of Contemporary Urban Spaces. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 2019, 145, 04019013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zamanifard, H.; Alizadeh, T.; Bosman, C.; Coiacetto, E. Measuring Experiential Qualities of Urban Public Spaces: Users’ Perspective. J. Urban Des. 2019, 24, 340–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pan, M.; Shen, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Zhou, Q.; Li, Y. Reshaping Publicness: Research on Correlation between Public Participation and Spatial Form in Urban Space Based on Space Syntax—A Case Study on Nanjing Xinjiekou. Buildings 2022, 12, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Xu, L.Q.; Yan, Y. A Review of Publicness Assessment Models for Public Spaces. New Archit. 2016, 1, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ho, D.C.; Lai, L.W.; Wang, A. The Effects of ‘Publicness’ and Quality of Publicly Accessible Open Space upon User Satisfaction. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2021, 48, 861–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liang, S.; Gao, W.X. Research on the evaluation of publicness of urban public open space in Nanshan District, Shenzhen. Planner 2019, 35, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, Y.; Chen, J. Research on evaluation of publicness of foreign urban spaces and its reference and inspiration for China. J. Urban Plan. 2016, 6, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zheng, Q.J. The space of rituals and the construction of rural publicness: A survey based on Hakka villages in Gannan, Jiangxi. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2019, 19, 37–48+157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fan, W.; Zhang, J.; Shan, B.; Liu, Y. Evaluating the Impact of Road Network Configuration on Hotel Layout Based on Big Data, GIS and Space Syntax—Evidence from Shanghai. Curr. Issues Tour. 2024, 27, 787–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, Y.; Liu, Q.; Hang, T.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Cao, L. Integrating Restorative Perception into Urban Street Planning: A Framework Using Street View Images, Deep Learning, and Space Syntax. Cities 2024, 147, 104791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, L.; Jin, Q.; Fu, F. Research on Urban Street Network Structure Based on Spatial Syntax and POI Data. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mohamed, A.A.; van der Laag Yamu, C. Space Syntax Has Come of Age: A Bibliometric Review from 1976 to 2023. J. Plan. Lit. 2024, 39, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Qanazi, S.; Hijazi, I.H.; Shahrour, I.; Meouche, R.E. Exploring Urban Service Location Suitability: Mapping Social Behavior Dynamics with Space Syntax Theory. Land 2024, 13, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Traunmuller, I.C.; Keller, I.I.; Senol, F. Application of Space Syntax in Neighbourhood Park Research: An Investigation of Multiple Socio-Spatial Attributes of Park Use. Local Environ. 2023, 28, 529–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ye, Y.; Richards, D.; Lu, Y.; Song, X.; Zhuang, Y.; Zeng, W.; Zhong, T. Measuring Daily Accessed Street Greenery: A Human-Scale Approach for Informing Better Urban Planning Practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 191, 103434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fahri, M.; Rahmadyani, H. Study of the Correlation between Road Connectivity Values towards Walkability on Jendral Sudirman Street, Pangkalpinang Using the Space Syntax Method. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1267, 012083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xu, H.; Zhao, H.S.; Liu, F. A preliminary study on the syntax of spatial morphology of traditional villages--The example of Hejia-Wujia Village, Jiangshan, Gucheng Town, Nanjing. Mod. Urban Res. 2016, 1, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang, N.; Jiang, X.; Huang, J.C.; Liu, H. Research on Spatial Tourism Planning of Traditional Villages Based on Syntactic Analysis--The Case of Xixiangping Village, Linzhou City, Henan Province. Geogr. Res. Dev. 2019, 38, 111–115. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gu, X. The Innovative Use of Spatial Syntax in Spatial Design of Tourism Landscape. Appl. Math. Nonlinear Sci. 2024, 9, 20241287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yu, H.; Samsudin, N.A.; Chen, F. Spatial Form Cognition of Historical Streets in Hongcun Village through a Space Syntax Approach. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1274, 012024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lyu, Y.; Abd Malek, M.I.; Ja’afar, N.H.; Sima, Y.; Han, Z.; Liu, Z. Unveiling the Potential of Space Syntax Approach for Revitalizing Historic Urban Areas: A Case Study of Yushan Historic District, China. Front. Archit. Res. 2023, 12, 1144–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ouyang, P.; Wu, X. Analysis and Evaluation of the Service Capacity of a Waterfront Public Space Using Point-of-Interest Data Combined with Questionnaire Surveys. Land 2023, 12, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Qi, L.; Liang, W.; Xi, M. The Public Space Pattern Research of Guangfu Traditional Villages Based on Spatial Syntax: A Case Study of Huangpu Village in Guangzhou City, China. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 267, 062033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, X.; Liu, X. Quantitative Analysis of Urban Spatial Morphology Based on GIS Regionalization and Spatial Syntax. J. Indian. Soc. Remote Sens. 2023, 51, 1855–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Qin, X.; Du, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, L. Spatial Evolution Analysis and Spatial Optimization Strategy of Rural Tourism Based on Spatial Syntax Model—A Case Study of Matao Village in Shandong Province, China. Land 2023, 12, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lee, S. Determination of Priority Weights under Multiattribute Decision-Making Situations: AHP versus Fuzzy AHP. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 05014015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hillier, B.; Hanson, J. The Social Logic of Space; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yaylali-Yildiz, B.; Spierings, B.; Çil, E. The Spatial Configuration and Publicness of the University Campus: Interaction, Discovery, and Display on De Uithof in Utrecht. Urban. Des. Int. 2022, 27, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, Y.Y. Influencing factors on the amount of activity in public space of urban communities. J. Shenzhen Univ. (Sci. Technol. Ed.) 2016, 33, 180–187. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sun, Y.; Yuan, Y. External Connectivity Evaluation of Community Open Spaces for Older Adults. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2023, 31, 576–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yu, B.; Sun, W.; Wu, J. Analysis of Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Recreational Attraction for POS in Urban Communities: A Case Study of Shanghai. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, B.; Wang, J.; Jin, Y. Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Traditional Villages and Influence Factors Thereof in Hilly and Gully Areas of Northern Shaanxi. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, Z.; Liu, Y.; Feng, W.; Li, Y.; Li, L. Study on Spatial Tropism Distribution of Rural Settlements in the Loess Hilly and Gully Region Based on Natural Factors and Traffic Accessibility. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 93, 441–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Roth, A.R.; Peng, S. Streams of Interactions: Social Connectedness in Daily Life. Soc. Netw. 2024, 78, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Félix, L.; Organista, M. Understanding the Neighborhoods’ in-between Spaces on Spatial Perception, Social Interaction, and Security. Front. Archit. Res. 2024, 13, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kan, B.; Xie, Y. Impact of Sports Participation on Life Satisfaction among Internal Migrants in China: The Chain Mediating Effect of Social Interaction and Self-Efficacy. Acta Psychol. 2024, 243, 104139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, T.; Chai, Y. Daily Life Circle Reconstruction: A Scheme for Sustainable Development in Urban China. Habitat Int. 2015, 50, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, Z.; Li, J.; Xi, T. A Review of Thermal Comfort Evaluation and Improvement in Urban Outdoor Spaces. Buildings 2023, 13, 3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, S.; Yung, E.H.K.; Sun, Y. Effects of Open Space Accessibility and Quality on Older Adults’ Visit: Planning towards Equal Right to the City. Cities 2022, 125, 103611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, X.; Ju, S.; Wang, W.; Su, H.; Wang, L. Intergenerational and Gender Differences in Satisfaction of Farmers with Rural Public Space: Insights from Traditional Village in Northwest China. Appl. Geogr. 2022, 146, 102770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Iachini, T.; Coello, Y.; Frassinetti, F.; Senese, V.P.; Galante, F.; Ruggiero, G. Peripersonal and Interpersonal Space in Virtual and Real Environments: Effects of Gender and Age. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ma, L.; Liu, S.; Tao, T.; Gong, M.; Bai, J. Spatial Reconstruction of Rural Settlements Based on Livability and Population Flow. Habitat Int. 2022, 126, 102614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Place Attachment Enhances Psychological Need Satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 359–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Moran, M.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Hercky-Linnewiel, R.; Cerin, E.; Deforche, B.; Plaut, P. Understanding the Relationships between the Physical Environment and Physical Activity in Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Garrett, J.K.; White, M.P.; Huang, J.; Ng, S.; Hui, Z.; Leung, C.; Tse, L.A.; Fung, F.; Elliott, L.R.; Depledge, M.H.; et al. Urban Blue Space and Health and Wellbeing in Hong Kong: Results from a Survey of Older Adults. Health Place 2019, 55, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. McPhee, J.S.; French, D.P.; Jackson, D.; Nazroo, J.; Pendleton, N.; Degens, H. Physical Activity in Older Age: Perspectives for Healthy Ageing and Frailty. Biogerontology 2016, 17, 567–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jiang, Y.; Yan, K.X.; Pan, Z. Research on rural landscape transformation based on the environmental needs of left-behind children. Rural. Sci. Technol. 2018, 36, 18–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.E.; Borghese, M.M.; Carson, V.; Chaput, J.-P.; Janssen, I.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Pate, R.R.; Connor Gorber, S.; Kho, M.E.; et al. Systematic Review of the Relationships between Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Health Indicators in School-Aged Children and Youth. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41, S197–S239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. McMahon, E.M.; Corcoran, P.; O’Regan, G.; Keeley, H.; Cannon, M.; Carli, V.; Wasserman, C.; Hadlaczky, G.; Sarchiapone, M.; Apter, A.; et al. Physical Activity in European Adolescents and Associations with Anxiety, Depression and Well-Being. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 2017, 26, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Aliyas, Z. A Qualitative Study of Park-Based Physical Activity among Adults. J. Public Health 2020, 28, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lu, J.S.; Jiang, M.; Su, Y.; Jiang, Z.W. Hidden public spaces in contemporary villages: A case based on Hunan. J. Archit. 2016, 8, 59–65. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kou, H.Y.; Wei, C.L. Private yards to public landscapes--publicness of rural courtyard landscapes and the construction of livable communities. Chin. Gard. 2022, 38, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Latham, A.; Layton, J. Social Infrastructure and the Public Life of Cities: Studying Urban Sociality and Public Spaces. Geogr. Compass 2019, 13, e12444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nie, C.; Liu, Z.; Yang, L.; Wang, L. Evaluation of Spatial Reconstruction and Driving Factors of Tourism-Based Countryside. Land 2022, 11, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Felipe Sobczynski, G.; Tschöke Santana, D.; Rechia, S. Sustainable Village Project: The Importance of Leisure and Public Space for Collective Organization. Leis. Stud. 2023, 42, 397–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wang, X.; Zhu, R.; Che, B. Spatial Optimization of Tourist-Oriented Villages by Space Syntax Based on Population Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Villa, M. Local Ambivalence to Diverse Mobilities—The Case of a Norwegian Rural Village. Sociol. Rural. 2019, 59, 701–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 14 01759 g001
Figure 1. Location map of Hewan Village, Chongqing, China.
Figure 1. Location map of Hewan Village, Chongqing, China.
Buildings 14 01759 g001
Buildings 14 01759 g002
Figure 2. Aerial view of the village.
Figure 2. Aerial view of the village.
Buildings 14 01759 g002
Buildings 14 01759 g003
Figure 3. Study Area.
Figure 3. Study Area.
Buildings 14 01759 g003
Buildings 14 01759 g004
Figure 4. Evaluation system of publicness.
Figure 4. Evaluation system of publicness.
Buildings 14 01759 g004
Buildings 14 01759 g005
Figure 5. Accessibility analysis of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Figure 5. Accessibility analysis of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Buildings 14 01759 g005
Buildings 14 01759 g006
Figure 6. Visibility analysis of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Figure 6. Visibility analysis of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Buildings 14 01759 g006
Buildings 14 01759 g007
Figure 7. A Functionality evaluation of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Figure 7. A Functionality evaluation of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Buildings 14 01759 g007
Buildings 14 01759 g008
Figure 8. An Iconicity evaluation of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Figure 8. An Iconicity evaluation of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Buildings 14 01759 g008
Buildings 14 01759 g009
Figure 9. An Inclusiveness evaluation of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Figure 9. An Inclusiveness evaluation of public spaces in Hewan Village.
Buildings 14 01759 g009
Buildings 14 01759 g010
Figure 10. Percentage of usage time and type of activity in public spaces: (a) Usage time of high publicness; (b) Usage time of moderate and lower publicness; (c) Types of activities in high publicness; (d) Types of activities in moderate and lower publicness.
Figure 10. Percentage of usage time and type of activity in public spaces: (a) Usage time of high publicness; (b) Usage time of moderate and lower publicness; (c) Types of activities in high publicness; (d) Types of activities in moderate and lower publicness.
Buildings 14 01759 g010
Buildings 14 01759 g011
Figure 11. Villagers’ Behavior and Activities in Public Spaces.
Figure 11. Villagers’ Behavior and Activities in Public Spaces.
Buildings 14 01759 g011
Table 1. Evaluation index system of public space publicness in traditional village.
Table 1. Evaluation index system of public space publicness in traditional village.
DimensionIndexIndicator Decomposition
AccessibilityOverall accessibilityOverall road accessibility to the village.
Partial accessibilityPartial road accessibility to the village.
VisibilityRoad choicePossibility of the road being crossed.
Spatial depthMinimum number of connections to go through to reach space.
FunctionalityLandscape facilitiesPlants, signage, lighting, and other facilities.
Service facilitiesConfiguration of facilities such as stores, restaurants, sports, rest, etc.
Recreational environmentConditions for outdoor recreation activities.
Sense of comfortComfort level in the spatial environment.
Sense of safetyUsers’ perceptions of psychological safety.
IconicityBuilding featuresHistorical value of surrounding cultural buildings.
Folk cultural activitiesContinuation of living customs, traditional folklore.
AttractivenessLevel of attractiveness of villages in terms of representing cultural elements and activities.
InclusivenessSpatial opennessExtent to which villagers and others have free access or use.
Spatial boundariesBoundaries or dividing lines between different spaces or different elements.
Spatial participationFrequency of active participation of villagers in space activities.
Table 2. Degrees of publicness.
Table 2. Degrees of publicness.
Very LowLow ModerateHighVery High
0.0–0.200.20–0.400.41–0.600.61–0.800.81–1.0
Table 3. Indicator weighting of publicness in public space.
Table 3. Indicator weighting of publicness in public space.
DimensionWeightsIndexWeights
Accessibility0.3147Overall accessibility0.2518
Partial accessibility0.0629
Visibility0.1779Road choice0.0356
Spatial depth0.1423
Functionality0.3417Landscape facilities0.0256
Service facilities0.0321
Recreational environment0.0172
Sense of comfort0.0656
Sense of safety0.2012
Iconicity0.0560Building features0.0110
Folk cultural activities0.0276
Spatial attractiveness0.0174
Inclusiveness0.1097Spatial openness0.0129
Spatial boundaries0.0294
Spatial participation0.0674
Table 4. Publicness scores for public spaces.
Table 4. Publicness scores for public spaces.
Hewan IslandArms-Swaying HallLeisure SquareVillage CommitteeDock SquareMuseumFitness SquareWandu HouseHarmony TreeViewing Platform
0.710.710.680.640.570.570.550.480.240.13
Table 5. Mean scores for the evaluation of functionality indicators.
Table 5. Mean scores for the evaluation of functionality indicators.
Public SpaceLandscape FacilitiesService FacilitiesRecreational EnvironmentSense of ComfortSense of Safety
Dock Square4.163.793.634.114.16
Wandu House3.953.893.633.794.16
Harmony Tree3.793.053.213.423.42
Museum4.053.683.893.844.16
Fitness Square4.113.423.583.794.21
Viewing Platform3.843.263.263.743.47
Hewan Island4.214.3744.213.68
Village Committee3.843.683.263.373.84
Arms-swaying Hall3.953.213.423.263.74
Leisure Square3.833.563.833.54.17
Table 6. Mean scores for the evaluation of the iconic indicators.
Table 6. Mean scores for the evaluation of the iconic indicators.
Public SpaceBuilding FeaturesFolk Cultural ActivitiesSpatial Attractiveness
Dock Square3.163.533.42
Wandu House3.583.473.42
Harmony Tree3.263.423.42
Museum4.373.683.42
Fitness Square3.423.263.11
Viewing Platform3.843.113.32
Hewan Island4.214.324.11
Village Committee3.533.473.53
Arms-swaying Hall4.373.953.89
Leisure Square3.613.223.17
Table 7. Mean scores for the evaluation of inclusiveness indicators.
Table 7. Mean scores for the evaluation of inclusiveness indicators.
Public SpaceSpatial OpennessSpatial BoundariesSpatial Participation
Dock Square4.474.634.11
Wandu House4.114.423.74
Harmony Tree4.424.373.53
Museum3.474.213.47
Fitness Square4.214.474.05
Viewing Platform4.164.423.42
Hewan Island4.324.633.79
Village Committee3.8443.63
Arms-swaying Hall3.894.163.53
Leisure Square4.284.223.72
Table 8. Differences in evaluation scores across personal characteristics.
Table 8. Differences in evaluation scores across personal characteristics.
Personal CharacteristicsCategorizationAverage Value ± Standard Deviationtp
gendermale3.80 ± 0.740.2250.822
women3.78 ± 0.62
age Fp
14–18 years4.04 ± 0.622.320.035 *
19–25 years3.66 ± 0.66
26–35 years3.73 ± 0.70
36–45 years3.72 ± 0.63
46–55 years3.88 ± 0.58
56–65 years3.54 ± 0.78
66 years and over4.06 ± 0.60
educational levelilliterate/semi-literate3.85 ± 0.700.7120.64
primary school3.74 ± 0.75
junior high school3.72 ± 0.61
high school/vocational secondary school/vocational high school3.96 ± 0.66
junior college3.68 ± 0.93
bachelor’s degree3.67 ± 0.53
master’s degree or above3.65 ± 0.73
careerfarmer3.83 ± 0.680.2350.918
individual operation3.71 ± 0.53
migrant worker3.75 ± 0.72
student3.77 ± 0.64
other3.62 ± 0.66
income levelLess than CNY 10003.86 ± 0.632.1640.075
CNY 1000–20003.63 ± 0.86
CNY 2000–40003.83 ± 0.67
CNY 4000–50004.03 ± 0.54
CNY 5000 and above3.56 ± 0.59
* p less than 0.05, significantly different.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xiao, J.; Qian, Y.; Chen, S.; Xu, Y.; Li, B. Research on Publicness Evaluation and Behavioral Characteristics in Traditional Villages—A Case Study of Chongqing Hewan Village. Buildings 2024, 14, 1759. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061759

AMA Style

Xiao J, Qian Y, Chen S, Xu Y, Li B. Research on Publicness Evaluation and Behavioral Characteristics in Traditional Villages—A Case Study of Chongqing Hewan Village. Buildings. 2024; 14(6):1759. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061759

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xiao, Jiang, Yun Qian, Song Chen, Yuanjing Xu, and Baoyong Li. 2024. "Research on Publicness Evaluation and Behavioral Characteristics in Traditional Villages—A Case Study of Chongqing Hewan Village" Buildings 14, no. 6: 1759. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061759

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop