Understanding Perceptions of Tourism Impact on Quality of Life in Traditional Earthen–Wooden Villages: Insights from Residents and Tourists in Meishan

Abstract

This study focuses on four traditional earthen–wooden villages in Hunan Province, exploring the multifaceted impacts of tourism development on the quality of life from the perspectives of both residents and tourists. Utilizing structural equation modeling, this research examines how macro-level cultural resources, meso-level spatial characteristics, and micro-level traditional architecture influence the development of cultural tourism and its subsequent effects on quality of life. The findings indicate that while cultural resources and spatial characteristics positively contribute to the quality of cultural tourism development, traditional architecture presents a complex challenge. Specifically, traditional architecture negatively impacts quality of life due to maintenance demands and modernization pressures, yet it also enhances cultural tourism through its intrinsic heritage value. Spatial characteristics are identified as the most significant positive factor, indirectly enhancing both tourism quality and overall life satisfaction by enriching the cultural landscape. Additionally, the study uncovers significant differences in how residents and tourists perceive the impacts of tourism. Tourists generally seek enriching and authentic experiences, while residents are more directly affected by the socio-economic and environmental changes brought by tourism. This divergence highlights the need for balanced and targeted management strategies that address the distinct needs and perceptions of both groups at various stages of tourism development. By addressing these dynamic factors, this study offers valuable insights for policymakers and administrators aiming to balance heritage preservation with sustainable economic growth in traditional earthen–wooden villages. The research also underscores the critical role of community engagement and adaptive strategies in fostering resilient and thriving rural communities in the 21st century.

1. Introduction

Traditional earthen–wooden villages refer to traditional architectural complexes constructed using natural materials such as wood and earth. This study focuses on the Meishan area, a region with a high concentration of ethnic minorities, where the local architecture is rich in regional characteristics. The traditional construction techniques and the integration of natural materials are key features of Meishan’s architectural heritage. The traditional buildings in this area can be broadly classified into two types. The first type is traditional wooden structures, which leverage the advantages of traditional Chinese wooden construction techniques. The second type involves the use of rammed earth bricks and walls, made from a mixture of yellow earth, sand, lime, and other natural materials. These structures appear to emerge from the ground, harmoniously blending with the surrounding environment and complementing the main buildings, creating a sense of tranquility. Traditional earthen–wooden villages represent a critical aspect of a region’s heritage and identity, increasingly becoming focal points in tourism development. These villages, as repositories of cultural heritage [1], play a vital role in sustaining regional identities and economies. However, despite their growing significance, existing research often fails to capture the full spectrum of tourism’s impact on these communities, particularly across different stages of development. As tourism development evolves, these villages transition from secluded, self-sufficient entities to dynamic centers of economic and cultural tourism [2,3]. This shift, primarily driven by the expanding tourism industry, revitalizes communities but also introduces significant challenges. On the one hand, tourism development brings new economic opportunities, job creation, enhanced local infrastructure, and platforms for cultural exchange [4]. On the other hand, the influx of tourists and associated commercialization can lead to environmental degradation [5], the erosion of traditional values [6], and alterations to the cultural and social fabric [7]. To address these challenges, this study is grounded in a framework of sustainable development, aligning particularly with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as Goal 11, which aims to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, and Goal 8, which promotes sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. The integration of these goals highlights the importance of balancing tourism development with the preservation of cultural heritage and the well-being of local communities. In addition, Sustainable Development Theory provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing how tourism can contribute to both economic growth and cultural preservation while ensuring environmental sustainability. This theory is particularly relevant in the context of traditional earthen–wooden villages, where the challenge lies in developing tourism that enhances local economies without compromising the cultural and environmental integrity of these communities. Rural tourism destinations that have developed based on traditional village tourism have been warmly welcomed by the public. However, without scientific and rational protection and development, the local natural and cultural landscapes will inevitably be damaged. In the Meishan area, tourism development based on traditional villages faces the dilemma between preservation and development. This study focuses on the dispersed layout, strong regional characteristics, and uneven development of traditional villages in the Meishan area, aiming to explore innovative approaches to tourism development in these villages. The goal is to provide reasonable and scientifically sound recommendations for the sustainable development of tourism in these traditional villages.

The impact of tourism on the traditional earthen–wooden villages varies significantly across different stages of tourism development. Previous research primarily focused on the social or economic impacts during single phases of tourism development [2,4,8,9]. However, as tourism evolves, its impacts become multifaceted, affecting various aspects of village life, including land use and environmental sustainability. Studies have shown that during peak development phases, challenges such as resource strain [10], environmental impact [11], and cultural commodification [12,13] become more pronounced. Despite these findings, there is still a significant gap in understanding how these challenges evolve over time and how they uniquely affect traditional earthen–wooden villages compared with other types of rural communities. For traditional earthen–wooden villages, this could mean a shift in social dynamics and a potential compromise on cultural authenticity. For instance, Suvi (2021) discusses the plans of architectural scholars to establish a ‘Chinese Traditional Village’ in a Dong autonomous district in Guizhou province, highlighting the social dynamics involved in the planning process [14]. Ren and Wu (2024), analyze the structural composition of village communities and aim to create a linkage mechanism that connects various elements within the construction framework. They explore the interaction between resource patterns, social structures, and economic forms of villages over five different periods, providing a comprehensive understanding of rural community development in the face of changing circumstances [15]. Furthermore, some literatures suggest the dynamic nature of tourism development, emphasizing the need for sustainable practices that align with long-term community welfare and environmental sustainability [16,17,18,19]. However, for different tourism development stages, especially for traditional earthen–wooden villages, the impact of tourism on the well-being of community residents has yet to be explored. Research on the factors influencing high-quality tourism development from different spatial scales and theoretical perspectives is currently a hot topic. Unfortunately, there is still a limited amount of literature on this subject, and it remains in the early stages of exploration. As the tourism development of traditional villages continues to deepen, the challenges faced by development are becoming increasingly complex, and the demand from consumers is growing more diverse. This necessitates that traditional villages continually adapt to changes in the market and environment, making adjustments based on the characteristics of their development stages, and constantly exploring the needs of the new era. In the context of the United Nations’ SDGs, this study seeks to explore how sustainable tourism practices can be developed to support the long-term well-being of traditional earthen–wooden villages. By addressing both the economic benefits and the preservation of cultural and environmental resources, this study aims to contribute to the broader goals of sustainable development.

Moreover, Sustainable Development Theory underscores the importance of community involvement in tourism development. Understanding the distinct perspectives and experiences of tourists and residents is crucial for creating balanced tourism strategies that meet the needs of all stakeholders. Previous research has typically homogenized user groups [20,21], overlooking the differences in public welfare perceptions and impact mechanisms among different demographics. This lack of differentiation in the literature limits our understanding of the specific needs and challenges faced by each group. Recent studies have begun to address these differences, making targeted management recommendations [22,23,24,25,26]. However, more comprehensive research is needed to explore how these divergent perspectives can be reconciled to promote sustainable tourism that benefits both tourists and residents. For instance, Soszynski et al. (2018) employed cartographic spatial analysis and semi-structured interviews with community residents to investigate 17 tourist villages in the Leczna-Wlodawa Lake District of eastern Poland. Their findings indicate that the spatial integration of local residents and second home users generally benefits both groups [25]. In traditional earthen–wooden villages, tourists primarily seek enriching experiences, with satisfaction hinging on the authenticity and quality of the cultural and natural environments [27]. Conversely, residents face the direct consequences of tourism, ranging from improved economic prospects to potential disruptions to their socio-cultural landscape. Their multifaceted roles are instrumental in the reception, management, and distribution of benefits from rural tourism activities [28]. Thus, understanding and addressing the distinct needs and perceptions of these two groups is crucial. However, how to balance the impact of tourism development with the well-being of different groups needs to be studied urgently. These studies contribute positively to enriching and improving the research on traditional village tourism development from a multi-stakeholder perspective, yet related research remains relatively weak. The trend of tourism development in traditional villages is evident. Unlike typical tourist destinations, traditional villages are not only tourism sites but also living areas for residents. Therefore, the stakeholders involved in the tourism development of traditional villages are more diverse and complex, making it easier for spatial conflicts of interest and issues related to the allocation of production and living space resources to arise among multiple parties. On the one hand, residents, as the primary users of the village space, custodians of cultural heritage, and key stakeholders in the preservation of traditional villages, play a crucial role in tourism development. However, their concerns are often overlooked during the development process. Residents frequently face threats such as the encroachment of space by external tourists and the disruption of ecological patterns, as well as conflicts of interest with government entities and external investors. On the other hand, tourists, as the main service recipients in rural tourism, play a critical role in the success of rural tourism development. Enhancing tourist satisfaction is essential for increasing the competitiveness of rural tourism. Therefore, understanding the demands of both residents and tourists and proposing targeted solutions can help alleviate conflicts between these key stakeholders in the tourism development of traditional villages, thereby supporting the sustainable development of these villages.

Given these gaps in the current research, this study takes the four traditional earthen–wooden villages in Meishan as an example and aims to explore the influencing factors on the quality of life at different stages of tourism development, from both tourists’ and residents’ perspectives. This research seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What is the quality of life of users (residents and tourists) in traditional earthen–wooden villages?; (2) What are the influencing factors affecting users’ quality of life?; and (3) What are the differences and consistencies in these factors for tourists and residents at different tourism development stages?

The significance of this study lies in its comprehensive examination of the dynamic impacts of tourism development on traditional earthen–wooden villages, specifically addressing the quality of life from both tourists’ and residents’ perspectives. By focusing on four traditional earthen–wooden villages in Meishan, the research aims to elucidate the multifaceted factors influencing quality of life across different stages of tourism development. This approach fills a gap in the existing literature, which often overlooks the diverse impacts on different user groups, thereby providing insights for more balanced and targeted tourism management strategies. Additionally, this study incorporates considerations of land use and environmental sustainability, offering new perspectives and practical recommendations for the sustainable development of cultural tourism in traditional earthen–wooden villages. These insights are not only crucial for policymaking and administration but also for fostering sustainable development in mountainous regions, which are often characterized by unique environmental and socio-economic challenges.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Conceptual Development of the Framework

Traditional earthen–wooden villages’ material and cultural resources, representing their foundational attributes, play a crucial role in directly influencing the quality of life of their residents and visitors. As the cultural and tourism industries evolve, these foundational conditions undergo various changes [4,10,11,13,29], which in turn indirectly shape the living experiences and satisfaction levels of villagers and tourists [30,31]. These primary evaluators bring diverse interests and environmental perceptions, adding complexity to the study of satisfaction with living conditions in these rural settings [32,33,34]. The frame structure of this study is detailed in Figure 1.

Human Settlement Environment in Rural Areas: Rural human settlements are the bedrock of rural residents’ lives, profoundly impacting their physical and mental well-being [1]. Enhancements in these settlements can significantly boost rural residents’ satisfaction with their living conditions. The factors influencing the human settlement environment, identified through comprehensive literature reviews and keyword searches, include natural and architectural environments as well as individual responses to living satisfaction [11,19,35]. Critical factors such as infrastructure quality, public services, health conditions, employment opportunities, and social participation play pivotal roles [36,37]. In alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), this study emphasizes the importance of improving these human settlements in a way that is inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Concurrently, the harmonious development of rural culture and the material environment significantly influences the quality of human settlements. This necessitates a balanced integration of ‘soft’ (cultural) and ‘hard’ (material) elements for overall improvement [38].

Integration of Material and Cultural Components: The material and cultural components of Meishan traditional earthen–wooden villages need to be systematically integrated. This research adopts the classification methods used in urban–rural health element comparisons, categorizing material and cultural resource indicators into three dimensions: micro (traditional architecture), meso (settlement spatial characteristics), and macro (cultural resources). This approach allows for a comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted influences on the quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages. This comprehensive analysis is guided by Sustainable Development Theory, which advocates for the responsible management of natural and cultural resources to ensure that economic growth does not compromise the environmental and cultural integrity of these communities.

Traditional Earthen–Wooden Villages as Cultural and Ecological Havens: Traditional earthen–wooden villages serve as exemplary spatial vessels of traditional Chinese culture, encapsulating millennia of agricultural civilization rich in historical, cultural [39], and ecological resources [40]. These material cultural components form the foundation for rural experiences, with factors such as “tourism infrastructure,” “tourist attractions,” and “tourist experiences” playing pivotal roles in enhancing the tourism experience [37,41,42]. By aligning with SDG Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), which emphasizes sustainable economic growth and productive employment, this research highlights the potential of cultural and ecological tourism to create jobs and promote inclusive growth while maintaining cultural heritage. These elements are essential in attracting tourists and satisfying their pursuit of idyllic rural landscapes and traditional ecological lifestyles.

Transformation and Challenges in Traditional Earthen–Wooden Villages: The traditional culture [43], social relationships [44], and value systems [45] in these villages undergo significant transformations under the influence of the tourism industry. This evolution reconstructs the village’s social and cultural characteristics [46], allowing the rural essence to extend, evolve, or undergo modifications. However, as highlighted by Sustainable Development Theory, this transformation must be managed carefully to avoid negative outcomes such as environmental degradation and cultural homogenization, which can erode the very resources that make these villages unique. As the tourism industry matures, challenges such as inefficiencies, irrational development, and environmental homogenization emerge, impacting the competitiveness of rural tourism [47,48]. These evolutionary processes subtly influence the material and cultural circumstances of rural areas, becoming novel factors that affect villagers’ satisfaction with their living quality.

Research Framework and Hypotheses: Based on the above literature research, this study develops a research framework (Figure 2) that segments the human settlement environment of traditional earthen–wooden villages into three core constituents: micro-features (traditional architecture), meso-features (settlement spatial characteristics), and macro-features (cultural resources). By employing the structural equation model, this research empirically analyzes the interaction mechanisms between village human settlement characteristics, cultural tourism development quality, and quality of life. This approach is in line with the principles of sustainable development, aiming to provide strategic recommendations that enhance the quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages while promoting long-term environmental and cultural sustainability. Furthermore, it investigates the mechanism of subjective perception differences among various subjects, providing strategic recommendations to enhance the quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages and facilitate the realization of China’s new urbanization and “rural revitalization” strategy.

Existing research [49,50,51,52] indicates that a village’s basic conditions directly impact the quality of life of its residents, either directly or indirectly via the cultural tourism development quality. Consequently, this research focuses on the human settlement environment within villages. Drawing on the existing literature [1,2,9,19,22,25,44,49], this environment is categorized into three dimensions: traditional architecture (micro features), settlement spatial characteristics (meso features), and cultural resources (macro features). By exploring the interplay between these dimensions, the quality of cultural tourism development, and the overall quality of life, this study aligns with the goals of sustainable development, contributing to a deeper understanding of how to balance economic growth with the preservation of cultural and environmental resources in traditional rural settings.

Latent Variables and Hypotheses: This model incorporates five latent variables: traditional architecture, settlement spatial characteristics, cultural resources, cultural tourism development quality, and quality of life. The structural equation model serves as a tool to examine the interrelationships among these variables, utilizing a combination of path analysis, mediation effect analysis, and multi-group analysis to provide a comprehensive depiction of their mutual influences and correlations. This research puts forth the following hypotheses:

(1)

The impact of the village’s human settlement environment on cultural tourism development quality (H1)

Hypothesis H1-1.

Traditional architecture will have a positive impact on cultural tourism development quality.

Previous research [1,2,49] indicates that traditional architecture plays a critical role in enhancing cultural tourism experiences by attracting visitors and providing a tangible link to cultural heritage. The preservation and presentation of traditional architecture are therefore expected to contribute positively to the quality of cultural tourism development.

Hypothesis H1-2.

Settlement spatial characteristics will have a positive impact on cultural tourism development quality.

Previous research [11,19,35] suggests that well-organized and aesthetically pleasing settlement spatial characteristics can enhance visitor satisfaction and contribute to the overall appeal of a tourist destination, leading to higher tourism development quality.

Hypothesis H1-3.

Cultural resources will have a negative impact on cultural tourism development quality.

Some studies [30,31] argue that the overemphasis on cultural resources, particularly in the form of commercialization or commodification, may detract from the authenticity of the tourism experience, thereby negatively impacting tourism development quality.

(2)

The impact of the village’s human settlement environment on quality of life (H2)

Hypothesis H2-1.

Traditional architecture will have a direct positive impact on quality of life.

Traditional architecture contributes to a sense of identity and continuity for residents, as highlighted in [1,22,44]. Its preservation and integration into daily life are expected to enhance the residents’ quality of life.

Hypothesis H2-2.

Settlement spatial characteristics will have a direct positive impact on quality of life.

Well-designed settlement spatial characteristics are linked to improved physical and mental well-being, as they enhance accessibility, safety, and community interaction [36,37].

Hypothesis H2-3.

Cultural resources will have a direct negative impact on quality of life.

While cultural resources are valuable, excessive focus on them for tourism can lead to crowding, noise, and a loss of privacy for residents, potentially reducing their quality of life [30,31].

(3)

The impact of cultural tourism development quality on quality of life (H3)

Hypothesis H3-1.

Cultural tourism development quality will have a positive impact on quality of life.

High-quality cultural tourism development can improve local infrastructure, create jobs, and increase income, all of which contribute positively to the quality of life for residents [19,42].

(4)

Different groups perceive villages differently (H4)

Hypothesis H4-1.

There are significant differences in the perceptions of the village between residents and tourists.

Previous studies [25,27] have shown that tourists and residents often have different expectations and experiences of the same environment, leading to differing perceptions of the village.

(5)

The different degrees of cultural tourism development integration between villages will cause differences in public perception (H5)

Hypothesis H5-1.

There are significant differences in the public perception of villages with different degrees of cultural tourism development integration.

Research [48,52] indicates that the level of integration between cultural tourism development and the local community can significantly affect how both locals and tourists perceive the village environment.

By examining these hypotheses, this research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how the human settlement environment, cultural tourism development quality, and quality of life interact in traditional earthen–wooden villages. The findings will offer valuable insights for policymakers and administrators, helping to enhance the quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages and support sustainable tourism development.

2.2. Study Area

Meishan, situated in the heart of Hunan Province, encompasses the regions of Anhua County and Xinhua County (Figure 3). It has cultivated a distinctive and reciprocally influential cultural sphere within the Jingchu culture. Considering aspects of architecture, space, culture, and tourism, the Meishan region shares an intimate relationship with its unique natural environment. Architecturally, the Meishan area is a region with a high concentration of ethnic minorities, and its local architecture is rich in regional characteristics. Most of the traditional dwellings in this area belong to the “Chuandou-style” stilted houses. This architectural style is light and slender, with deep overhanging eaves, giving it a feminine elegance and grace compared with the solid and heavy structures typical of northern architecture. Additionally, non-typical stilted dwellings are the most common form of traditional housing in this area. When viewed from the side, the “Chuandou-style” structure is very distinct. The primary difference between Meishan’s traditional stilted houses and those in western Hunan (Xiangxi) lies in the first floors of the houses. In Meishan, the first floor is a mostly enclosed indoor space, influenced by Central Plains culture, whereas in Xiangxi, the first floor of stilted houses is an open space, elevated to store goods or keep livestock. The overall layout of the buildings tends to extend horizontally, adapting to the natural terrain, either along the mountains or following the direction of rivers. The reasons for this layout are twofold: first, the diverse topography of Xinhua County, which includes mountains, hills, basins, and rivers, making land a valuable resource; second, the influence of “feng shui” principles, which emphasize a layout that backs against the mountains and faces the water, embracing the yin and holding the yang. Culturally, Meishan culture represents an ancient cultural paradigm in central Hunan, permeating all facets of traditional village life, and marking a deep imprint of Meishan culture in space and a high degree of recognition of Meishan cultural images. Regarding cultural tourism development quality, numerous traditional earthen–wooden villages, backed by national traditional village construction policies and highlighting regional culture, have fostered cultural and tourism industries. However, the developmental level is inconsistent due to differing development policies, forms, and underlying conditions in each village.

2.3. Traditional Earthen–Wooden Villages Selection at Different Tourism Development Stages

The region encompasses 19 traditional earthen–wooden villages (Figure 3 and Figure 4), including 14 in Anhua County and 5 in Xinhua County. Through comprehensive data analysis and comparison, these 19 villages are stratified into four categories predicated on the degree of integration of Meishan culture with cultural and tourism development (

Table 1. Classification of Traditional Earthen–Wooden Villages in Meishan.

Village Type	Name
Villages with integrated cultural and tourism development	Zhenglong Village	Meishan Village	Shangxi Village	Xiatuan Village	Da’an Village	Huangshaping Old Street
Villages with disjointed cultural and tourism development	Gaocheng Village	Maluxi Village	Tangjiaguan Village	Dongshi Community	Louxia Village
Villages with distinctive tourism development	Huanghuaxi Village	Shuangyan Village	Tianzishan Village	Langtang Community	Jiulongchi Village
Undeveloped villages	Jinhui Village	Jiangjun Village	Xintan Village

). The first category comprises integrated cultural and tourism development villages, such as Zhenglong Village, Meishan Village, Shangxi Village, Xiatuan Village, Da’an Village, and Huangshaping Old Street. The second category includes villages with disjointed cultural and tourism development, such as Gaocheng Village, Maluxi Village, Tangjiaguan Village, Dongshi Community, and Louxia Village. The third category constitutes villages with distinctive tourism development, such as Huanghuaxi Village, Shuangyan Village, Tianzishan Village, Langtang Community, and Jiulongchi Village. The fourth category pertains to undeveloped villages, such as Jinhui Village, Jiangjun Village, and Xintan Village. Based on the specific characteristics of these samples, comparative factors can be employed for evaluation. The villages are assessed regarding traditional architecture, settlement spatial characteristics, cultural resources, and cultural tourism development quality. Based on the current research report and village data provided by the government, it is evident that Zhenglong Village, when compared with other villages within the same grouping, boasts a more abundant repository of traditional cultural resources, a lengthy history of tourism development, and picturesque rural landscapes. It stands out as the quintessential representative embodying the highest degree of cultural and tourism integration within the region. In contrast, Gaocheng Village, among its peers in the same group, leans on tourism companies for the development of cultural and tourism initiatives, introducing various contemporary recreational projects. This has resulted in an escalated degree of disconnection between cultural and tourism aspects. Huanghuaxi Village, by leveraging cultural and tourism resources related to the Ancient Tea Horse Road, endeavors to explore and develop its tourism industry with distinctive characteristics. It exhibits a higher developmental level and more pronounced features compared with its counterparts in the same group. Jiangjun Village, distinguished by its rich traditional architecture and unique cultural resources, typifies an undeveloped village within the same grouping. In summary, four exemplary villages, namely Zhenglong Village, Gaocheng Village, Huanghuaxi Village, and Jiangjun Village, were selected for further study.

Based on the comprehensive scoring results and the underlying conditions (see Supplementary Table S1), Zhenglong Village (Figure 5) stands out among its peers with its rich traditional cultural resources, long history of tourism development, and picturesque rural scenery. It is a typical representative of the highest degree of cultural and tourism integration in the region. In contrast, Gaocheng Village (Figure 6) relies on tourism companies to develop cultural and tourism projects, introducing various modern leisure activities. This has led to an increased disconnection between culture and tourism. Huanghuaxi Village (Figure 7) leverages cultural tourism resources related to the Ancient Tea Horse Road, striving to explore and develop tourism unique to the village. Compared with others in the same group, it demonstrates a higher level of development and more distinct characteristics. Jiangjun Village (Figure 8) is renowned for its rich traditional architecture and unique cultural resources, making it a typical example of an undeveloped village in the same region. In summary, Zhenglong Village, Gaocheng Village, Huanghuaxi Village, and Jiangjun Village were selected as demonstration villages for further study.

2.4. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection by Survey

The selection of variables for this study was primarily informed by the prior literature and encompasses aspects including traditional architecture, settlement spatial characteristics, cultural resources, cultural tourism development quality, and quality of life (

Table 2. Variable Selection and Description.

Latent Variable	Observing Variables	Variable Type and Assignment
Traditional Architecture (TA)	Types of Characteristic Dwellings	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Degree of Detail Richness	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Compatibility of New Materials	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
Settlement Spatial Characteristics (SSC)	Integrity	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Degree of Environmental Harmony	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Convenience of Transportation Environment	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
Cultural Resources (CR)	Vitality	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Uniqueness	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Degree of Fusion Between Old and New Culture	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
Cultural Tourism Development Quality (CTDQ)	Degree of Cultural Tourism Integration	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Situation of Tourism Industry Development	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Pollution Level	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
Quality of Life (LS)	Ecological Environment Satisfaction	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Living Environment Satisfaction	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high
	Social Environment Satisfaction	Ordered variables, 1–5 extremely low to extremely high

). With its unique aesthetic appeal, traditional architecture has been attracting an increasing number of tourists [53] and is strategically utilized as a resource for culture and tourism [54]. The preservation and integrity of architectural elements, including building materials and forms, are crucial for maintaining its attraction as a tourism resource [55,56], although they are susceptible to influences from emerging styles and materials [14]. Settlement spatial characteristics, such as the spatial adaptability of traditional earthen–wooden villages, encapsulate the indigenous ecological wisdom handed down through generations [57]. Key factors shaping these characteristics in Hakka villages include proximity to water, elevation, and vegetation richness [58]. The interplay of these factors offers new insights for planning sustainable cultural tourism development [59]. Cultural resources, embodied in traditional earthen–wooden villages in different regions, encapsulate historical memories and unique cultural elements, attracting many tourists [60,61]. Integrating rural culture and tourism, facilitated by various cultural, artistic, performance, traditional market, and banquet projects, is a new impetus for rural development [62]. From the perspective of cultural tourism development quality, the leisure culture derived from traditional culture is a significant resource. Folk culture and traditional craftsmanship within this context reflect people’s customs and daily habits, stimulating interest in contemporary leisure culture [63]. Lastly, quality of life, as reflected in the well-being of tourists and residents towards traditional earthen–wooden villages, holds significant value for sustainable tourism development in these areas [64]. Services enhancing resident participation and connections, such as cultural resources, natural environment, and festival activities, are also considered [65]. For the specific meanings of the indicators, please refer to Supplementary Table S2.

Specifically, the questionnaire survey of this study is divided into the following parts:

(1)

Sampling Method and Selection of Villages

This study employed a stratified random sampling method to ensure that the sample accurately represents the diversity of the population in the study area. The rationale for selecting the specific villages within the Meishan area is based on their distinctive characteristics as representative traditional earthen–wooden villages with significant cultural and historical value. These villages were chosen because they exhibit varying degrees of tourism development, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of how different stages of tourism impact the quality of life for residents and tourists alike. The selected villages also reflect a range of geographic and cultural attributes, ensuring that the findings can be generalized to other similar rural settings.

To ensure that the sample was representative, the population within the study area was stratified into two primary groups: local residents and tourists. Each stratum’s size was proportional to its size in the overall population, which helped to ensure that both groups were adequately represented. Random sampling was then conducted within each stratum to select participants for the survey. This process involved selecting households or tourists at random within each village, with only one adult per household providing responses to avoid clustering effects.

(2)

Ensuring Representativeness and Addressing Sampling Bias

To address potential seasonal variations and ensure that the sample was representative across different time periods, data collection was conducted over several months, covering both peak (e.g., 2022 Chinese New Year and May Day Golden Week) and off-peak seasons (20 January 2022 to 30 March 2022, and 5 August 2022 to 15 August 2022). This extended sampling period was critical to capturing the full spectrum of resident and tourist experiences, as previous studies have shown significant differences in perceptions during different times of the year due to fluctuating tourist–resident ratios.

Moreover, to maintain the randomness of the sample and avoid biases, the survey was administered in person through face-to-face interviews. Given the constraints of the study area and the characteristics of the target population, online questionnaires were deemed unsuitable. Therefore, researchers visited each selected village multiple times to conduct surveys, ensuring that every participant had an equal chance of being selected. In cases where individuals were not available, replacements were randomly selected from the same stratum to maintain the sample’s randomness.

(3)

Questionnaire Design and Pretesting

The questionnaire design was based on a comprehensive review of the existing literature and well-established scales. It was further refined through consultations with ten experts from governmental tourism departments, academic scholars, and senior tour guides, ensuring that the final instrument was robust and covered all relevant dimensions (The design of the questionnaire is detailed in Supplementary File S1 and the questionnaire is detailed in Supplementary File S2). The questionnaire was then pretested in two phases: initially with five doctoral students familiar with the Meishan area and subsequently with five local drivers engaged in tourism services. These pretests helped to refine the questions, ensuring clarity and relevance to the local context.

In addition, our team, comprising eight members organized into four pairs, conducted a comprehensive survey across 19 villages. Each group had specific responsibilities: the first focused on villages experiencing integrated cultural and tourism development, the second on those with disjointed cultural and tourism development, the third on villages with distinctive tourism development, and the fourth on undeveloped villages. Due to the relatively limited number of villages and research content in the fourth group, additional surveys were collaboratively conducted with groups 1–3. The specific research findings are outlined below. Surveys were carried out in selected villages to gather data on rural tourism development, utilizing questionnaires and structured interviews. Random sampling was employed for questionnaire distribution and household interviews. Residents with a basic literacy level were guided to independently complete the questionnaires, with team members available to clarify any uncertainties. For those unable to complete the questionnaires independently, team members translated, explained the questions, and assisted in form completion based on the residents’ responses, ensuring content validity and authenticity. Surveys were distributed to tourists and local villagers in four selected villages, totaling 871 distributed questionnaires, with 831 retrieved. After screening, each village retained 150 questionnaires from villagers and 50 from tourists, amounting to 800 in total (Due to the nature of this study involving a questionnaire survey, which does not involve human experiments or personal privacy information, no specific ethical approval was sought. Prior to conducting the survey, we ensured that participants provided informed consent, and guaranteed the confidentiality of their personal information). The effective sample questionnaires accounted for 96.27% of the collected ones. Concurrently, for the construction of the research variable system, a panel of 10 experts in related fields (including government tourism departments, professional professors, national senior tour guides, etc.) was consulted, and questionnaires were distributed to them. Each village obtained 10 valid questionnaires, totaling 40, making the effective sample questionnaires 100% of those collected. The background information of the respondents can be found in

Table 3. Table Background Characteristics of Participants.

Object	Total	Category	Option	Number	Percentage
Villager	600	Gender	Woman	352	58.67%
			Man	248	41.33%
		Age	20 years old and below	21	3.50%
			21–30 years old	77	12.83%
			31–40 years old	98	16.33%
			41–50 years old	217	36.17%
			51 years old and above	187	31.17%
		Highest degree	Junior high school and below	258	43%
			High school	181	30.17%
			Junior college	141	23.50%
			Bachelor	17	2.83%
			Master or above	3	0.50%
Tourist	200	Gender	Woman	121	60.50%
			Man	79	39.50%
		Age	20 years old and below	5	2.50%
			21–30 years old	33	16.50%
			31–40 years old	98	49%
			41–50 years old	43	21.50%
			51 years old and above	21	10.50%
		Highest degree	Junior high school and below	3	1.50%
			High school	33	16.50%
			Junior college	61	30.50%
			Bachelor	91	45.50%
			Master or above	12	6%

below.

2.5. Structural Equation Model

This study employs structural equation modeling (SEM) using the software SmartPLS 3.0 to test the hypothesized causal relationships among variables related to the impact of tourism development on the quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages. SEM is particularly suitable for this research due to its ability to model complex relationships among observed and latent variables, while accounting for measurement errors. The sampling method used was stratified random sampling, ensuring adequate representation of both residents and tourists from the selected villages. The final sample size consisted of 800 respondents—600 residents and 200 tourists—chosen based on prior studies in similar contexts to achieve sufficient statistical power. Data were collected over three months through structured questionnaires administered in person, with residents surveyed at their homes or communal areas and tourists at key village tourist spots. This approach ensured a high response rate and captured seasonal variations in tourism activity.

The SEM analysis began with the estimation of path parameters using SmartPLS, followed by iterative adjustments to the model based on the significance of path coefficients and overall model fit. The final model was validated through bootstrapping with 1000 resamples, providing reliable estimates of standard errors and confidence intervals for path coefficients. Additionally, construct reliability and validity were confirmed through Cronbach’s alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). This methodological rigor ensured the robustness and generalizability of the findings, while enhancing the transparency and reproducibility of the research.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

This study used SPSS 26.0 statistical analysis software for the descriptive statistical analysis of variables. The higher the score, the more satisfied the surveyed content; the mean represents the central trend indicator and the standard deviation represents the dispersion trend fluctuation. The results show that among the 800 valid samples (

Table 4. Descriptive Analysis Results.

Indicators	Mean	Standard Deviation	Min	Max	N
Vitality	3.1	1.189	1	5	800
Uniqueness	3.53	1.205	1	5	800
Degree of Fusion Between Old and New Culture	3.77	0.901	2	5	800
Integrity	3.36	1.259	1	5	800
Degree of Environmental Harmony	3.01	1.289	1	5	800
Convenience of Transportation Environment	1.91	0.807	1	3	800
Types of characteristic dwellings	3.5	0.951	2	5	800
Degree of Detail Richness	3.12	1.269	1	5	800
Compatibility of New Materials	2.02	0.864	1	5	800
Degree of Cultural Tourism Integration	3.35	1.438	1	5	800
Situation of Tourism Industry Development	3.47	1.323	1	5	800
Pollution Level	2.98	1.652	1	5	800
Ecological Environment Satisfaction	4.08	0.844	3	5	800
Living Environment Satisfaction	3.68	1.036	2	5	800
Social Environment Satisfaction	3.74	1.034	2	5	800

), the public’s highest evaluation is for Ecological Environment Satisfaction (mean of 4.08), and the lowest evaluations are for Compatibility of New Materials and Convenience of Transportation Environment (means are only 2.02 and 1.91, respectively). The evaluation range for other indicators is generally centered around 3.5. These evaluation results are consistent with the current-status characteristics of natural environment protection, transportation network construction, and traditional building updates existing in traditional earthen–wooden villages, and the evaluation results are reliable. From the perspective of the minimum value, the minimum evaluations of Ecological Environment Satisfaction, Living Environment Satisfaction, and Social Environment Satisfaction are all greater than or equal to 2, which indicates that the public has a high recognition of the traditional village. From the perspective of the standard deviation, the differences in Pollution Level and Degree of Cultural Tourism Integration are large (standard deviation values are 1.652 and 1.438, respectively), indicating that the public has significant cognitive differences in the cultural tourism development quality in various traditional earthen–wooden villages.

3.2. Measurement Model

To ensure the authenticity of the questionnaire survey results and the efficacy of the hypothesis model in representing the anticipated objectives of this study, additional tests were performed to assess the construct validity of the hypothesis model. Convergent validity was evaluated using loading values computed by the PLS algorithm in smartPLS 3.0. The discriminant validity, on the other hand, was gauged through correlation coefficients between variables and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), as detailed in

Table 5. Validity Results of Measurement Model.

Variables	Item	Loading	AVE	Cronbachs α	CR
Cultural resources	Vitality	0.915	0.816	0.887	0.930
	Uniqueness	0.921
	Degree of Fusion Between Old and New Culture	0.873
Settlement spatial characteristics	Integrity	0.918	0.827	0.898	0.941
	Degree of Environmental Harmony	0.921
	Convenience of Transportation Environment	0.887
Traditional architecture	Types of Characteristic Dwellings	0.947	0.898	0.943	0.963
	Degree of Detail Richness	0.958
	Compatibility of New Materials	0.937
Cultural tourism development quality	Degree of Cultural Tourism Integration	0.893	0.820	0.891	0.932
	Situation of Tourism Industry Development	0.899
	Pollution Level	0.926
Quality of life	Ecological Environment Satisfaction	0.796	0.702	0.783	0.873
	Living Environment Satisfaction	0.864
	Social Environment Satisfaction	0.843

.

The findings reveal that all Composite Reliability (CR) values exceed 0.8, and all Cronbach’s α coefficients surpass 0.7. Generally, achieving a CR value and α coefficient of 0.7 or above signifies robust internal consistency reliability. The AVE values for each factor also exceed 0.7. Regarding convergent validity, loading values above 0.7 typically suggest strong convergent validity among indicators. Table 3 demonstrates that all questionnaire scale indicators exceed 0.7, indicating solid convergent validity for the questionnaire’s measurement indicators. Prior research suggests that discriminant validity can be assessed by comparing the size of a latent variable’s AVE value and the square root of the AVE with the correlation coefficients of other latent variables. Specifically, when the AVE value of a latent variable exceeds 0.5, and its square root surpasses the correlation coefficients with other latent variables, this denotes strong discriminant validity. The findings confirm that all latent variables satisfy these conditions, indicating the measurement model’s discriminant validity has also passed the test.

3.3. Factors Affecting Quality of Life Using Structural Equation Model

The structural equation model (SEM) analysis provides detailed insights into the relationships between traditional architecture, settlement spatial characteristics, cultural resources, cultural tourism development quality, and the quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages. Below is a comprehensive breakdown of the SEM analysis results, including the interpretation of path coefficients, their significance, and the implications for each hypothesis (Figure 9).

(1)

Impact of Human Settlement Factors on Cultural Tourism Development Quality (H1)

Traditional Architecture (β = 0.257, p < 0.001): The path coefficient is positive and significant, suggesting that traditional architecture has a significant positive impact on cultural tourism development quality. This supports Hypothesis H1-1, indicating that well-preserved and aesthetically appealing traditional architecture enhances the attractiveness of cultural tourism.

Settlement Spatial Characteristics (β = 0.416, p < 0.001): This coefficient is the largest among the settlement factors, highlighting that spatial characteristics such as layout, environmental harmony, and accessibility are crucial determinants of cultural tourism development quality. Hypothesis H1-2 is strongly supported by this result.

Cultural Resources (β = 0.233, p < 0.001): The positive and significant coefficient suggests that cultural resources, including historical and cultural elements, positively contribute to cultural tourism development quality. This confirms Hypothesis H1-3.

Notably, the settlement spatial characteristics of traditional earthen–wooden villages contribute to approximately 45.92% of the impact on the cultural tourism development quality, surpassing the influence of cultural resources and traditional architecture. This observation suggests that the tourism development of traditional earthen–wooden villages necessitates a heightened emphasis on their settlement spatial characteristics, leading to a considerable impact on cultural tourism development quality.

(2)

Impact of Human Settlement Factors on Quality of Life (H2)

Traditional Architecture (β = −0.386, p < 0.001): Interestingly, the negative path coefficient indicates that traditional architecture negatively impacts the quality of life. This finding implies that while traditional architecture may enhance tourism, it could also introduce challenges (e.g., maintenance burdens, limitations on modern amenities) that reduce residents’ satisfaction. This supports Hypothesis H2-1.

Settlement Spatial Characteristics (β = 0.045, p = 0.180): This coefficient is not significant, suggesting that settlement spatial characteristics do not have a direct impact on quality of life, failing to support Hypothesis H2-2.

Cultural Resources (β = −0.029, p = 0.325): Similarly, the impact of cultural resources on quality of life is not significant, indicating that cultural resources do not directly enhance or diminish the quality of life, which contradicts Hypothesis H2-3.

(3)

Impact of Cultural Tourism Development Quality on Quality of Life (H3)

Cultural Tourism Development Quality (β = 0.494, p < 0.001): The significant positive path coefficient strongly supports Hypothesis H3, demonstrating that a higher quality of cultural tourism development directly enhances quality of life. This finding highlights the central role of tourism development in improving residents’ and tourists’ perceptions of livability.

(4)

Mediation Effects

Indirect Impact of Traditional Architecture on Quality of Life via Cultural Tourism Development Quality (β = 0.115, p < 0.001): Traditional architecture, though directly reducing quality of life, positively impacts it indirectly by improving cultural tourism development quality. This demonstrates the complexity of its role, supporting the mediating effect described in Hypothesis H3.

Indirect Impact of Settlement Spatial Characteristics (β = 0.205, p < 0.001) and Cultural Resources (β = 0.127, p < 0.001): Both factors indirectly enhance quality of life through their positive effects on cultural tourism development quality, further supporting the mediation hypotheses.

3.4. Influencing Effects between Tourists and Residents at Different Tourist Development Stages

The multi-group analysis primarily investigates significant differences amongst various sample group types. Models for this analysis are constructed based on the characteristics of the sample population and the categories of traditional earthen–wooden villages. Figure 10 presents the outcomes of the structural equation multi-group study.

In this research, the effects on various groups, such as residents and tourists, are generally identical, although the magnitude of the impact differs. For instance, residents (β = 0.437 for settlement spatial characteristics to quality of life, p < 0.001) perceive that the spatial characteristics of settlements exert a more substantial positive influence on the cultural tourism development quality in traditional earthen–wooden villages and their own satisfaction with livability. Conversely, tourists opine that cultural resources and traditional architecture hold a more pronounced positive impact on the cultural tourism development quality in traditional earthen–wooden villages and the residents’ satisfaction with livability. This confirms Hypothesis H4-1, indicating that different groups have varying perceptions of what enhances quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages. Moreover, the only difference in impact between groups is that the cultural tourism development quality has had a significant negative impact on residents’ quality of life, while having a significant positive impact on tourists’ quality of life.

Secondly, given the variations in human settlement and the cultural tourism development quality among different traditional earthen–wooden villages, public perceptions and satisfaction levels with livability may be affected. Therefore, this study undertook a multi-group analysis across four primary categories of selected traditional earthen–wooden villages. The findings indicate that traditional architecture significantly enhances the quality of life in Zhenglong Village; cultural resources significantly improve the cultural tourism development quality in Gaocheng Village; and cultural resources, traditional architecture, and cultural tourism development quality significantly enhance the quality of life. In Huanghuaxi Village, cultural resources and settlement spatial characteristics significantly increase the quality of life. Lastly, in Jiangjun Village, settlement spatial characteristics significantly enhance the cultural tourism development quality. This supports Hypothesis H5-1, emphasizing that the level of tourism development integration varies across different traditional villages.

The analysis above suggests that the effects of human settlement, cultural tourism development quality, and quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages vary according to the specific group. Furthermore, these impacts on the public appear to be more pronounced due to the inherent differences among traditional earthen–wooden villages, which corroborates the impact results derived from the unique conditions of each traditional village.

Based on the analysis results, three hypotheses failed to pass the test of the eight hypotheses examined in this research, while the remaining five were confirmed, as detailed in

Table 6. Latent Variable Effect Analysis.

No.	Hypothesis Validation	Result
H1-1	Traditional architecture will have a positive impact on cultural tourism development quality.	Supported
H1-2	Settlement spatial characteristics will have a positive impact on cultural tourism development quality.	Supported
H1-3	Cultural resources will have a positive impact on cultural tourism development quality.	Supported
H2-1	Traditional architecture will have a direct positive impact on quality of life.	Not Supported
H2-2	Settlement spatial characteristics will have a direct positive impact on quality of life.	Not Supported
H2-3	Cultural resources will have a direct positive impact on quality of life.	Not Supported
H3-1	Cultural tourism development quality will have a positive impact on quality of life.	Supported
H4-1	Residents and tourists have significantly different perceptions of the village.	Supported
H5-1	The public perceives significant differences in villages with varying degrees of integration in cultural and tourism development.	Supported

. These findings further elucidate the mechanisms influencing public quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages, highlighting the critical role of cultural tourism development quality as an intermediary variable. Apart from traditional architecture, other environmental factors influence the quality of life predominantly through cultural tourism development quality. Consequently, enhancing public quality of life necessitates prioritizing traditional architectural conditions.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Influencing Mechanism of the Quality of Life in Traditional Earthen–Wooden Villages

The results of this study underscore the significant role of settlement spatial characteristics in the tourism development of traditional earthen–wooden villages. This influence can be inferred in two primary ways. Firstly, appropriate settlement spatial characteristics enhance the landscape quality and overall aesthetics of traditional earthen–wooden villages, thereby attracting more tourists [58]. The spatial arrangement of buildings, open spaces, and pathways can create visually appealing environments that draw visitors seeking authentic cultural and scenic experiences. Additionally, these spatial characteristics influence the convenience of transportation and infrastructure development [66], directly enhancing the tourism experience and visitor satisfaction. Well-designed spatial layouts can facilitate easier navigation and access to key attractions, services, and amenities, contributing to a more enjoyable and seamless tourist experience.

Secondly, settlement spatial characteristics are intrinsically linked to the perceived value and cultural heritage of traditional earthen–wooden villages. Villages with distinctive spatial layouts often possess unique historical and cultural backgrounds, as well as traditional architectural features that enhance recognition and cultural value among tourists [67]. These characteristics not only attract tourists but also imbue the villages with a sense of identity and continuity, which can improve the tourism situation by fostering a deeper appreciation and engagement with the cultural heritage.

Beyond settlement spatial characteristics, cultural resources and traditional architecture also contribute positively to the quality of cultural tourism development, albeit to a lesser extent. This suggests that while these elements are significant, their impact is somewhat mediated by other factors such as modern infrastructure and amenities. Cultural resources and traditional architecture remain crucial for the cultural tourism development quality and overall quality of life, as they provide the foundational elements that define the unique character and appeal of traditional earthen–wooden villages. These findings are consistent with the existing literature and practical observations. Prior studies have demonstrated that the cultural resources and traditional architecture of traditional earthen–wooden villages are pivotal in promoting tourism development, with settlement spatial characteristics playing a critical role in attracting tourists and driving potential growth [68]. Successful traditional village tourism destinations often feature rich cultural resources, appealing settlement spatial characteristics [69,70,71], and exquisite traditional architecture [72,73], thereby corroborating the reliability of these research findings.

This study also highlights the adverse impact of traditional architecture on public quality of life. This may stem from the discrepancy between the features and quality of traditional architecture and the contemporary public’s comfort and living needs. Traditional architecture, while culturally and historically significant, may lack modern amenities and efficiencies, leading to issues such as low energy efficiency, irrational spatial layouts, and insufficient facilities, which can reduce overall quality of life [74]. Residents may find that traditional buildings do not meet their functional expectations for comfort, convenience, and space [75]. For instance, modern living standards often demand higher energy efficiency, better insulation, and more ergonomic spatial designs, which traditional structures may not provide. These findings align with existing academic studies that highlight similar challenges in integrating traditional architecture with modern living requirements. In real-world scenarios, some traditional earthen–wooden villages may not adequately consider residents’ needs during tourism development, focusing instead on preserving architectural authenticity at the expense of livability. This oversight can lead to negative impacts on quality of life, as residents struggle with outdated infrastructure and lack of modern conveniences.

Despite the direct challenges posed by traditional architecture, cultural resources, settlement spatial characteristics, and traditional architecture collectively exert an indirect positive influence on public quality of life through the quality of cultural tourism development. This finding is supported by prior research emphasizing the significance of cultural resources in rural tourism development [76,77,78,79]. As essential elements of the human settlement environment in traditional earthen–wooden villages, cultural resources can enhance the quality of cultural tourism development, thereby improving public quality of life by attracting tourists, boosting the village’s reputation, and fostering economic growth. Optimal settlement spatial characteristics further contribute to better living conditions by providing residents with accessible transportation and public amenities [80,81]. These characteristics support a higher standard of living by ensuring that essential services and infrastructure are within easy reach, thereby enhancing overall satisfaction. Traditional architecture, as a distinct cultural hallmark, offers unique cultural experiences and a sense of identity. The historical and cultural connections that tourists establish with traditional architecture can augment their affection and satisfaction with the location [82]. Additionally, studies within the sustainable livelihood framework [83] have explored the impact of tourism on rural residents’ subjective well-being, affirming that the tourism context positively influences rural residents’ subjective well-being. These studies corroborate the conclusions of this research, highlighting the multifaceted benefits of integrating cultural tourism development with quality-of-life improvements in traditional earthen–wooden villages.

Given these insights, it is imperative to adopt a holistic approach to the development and management of traditional earthen–wooden villages. Policymakers and administrators should prioritize the integration of modern amenities with traditional architectural features to enhance livability without compromising cultural heritage. Infrastructure development should be carefully planned to preserve the unique spatial characteristics that attract tourists while ensuring that residents’ needs for modern conveniences and efficient services are met. Furthermore, promoting cultural tourism development requires a balanced strategy that leverages cultural resources to enhance the visitor experience while safeguarding the socio-cultural fabric of the villages. Sustainable tourism practices should be encouraged to mitigate potential negative impacts, such as environmental degradation and cultural commodification, ensuring that the benefits of tourism are equitably distributed among residents and that the cultural and natural environments are preserved for future generations. In conclusion, this study underscores the complex interplay between traditional architecture, settlement spatial characteristics, cultural resources, and quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages. By understanding these dynamics, stakeholders can devise strategies that enhance the quality of life for residents while fostering sustainable tourism development, ultimately contributing to the broader goals of rural revitalization and sustainable development.

4.2. The Importance of User Group and Tourism Developments Stages in Traditional Earthen–Wooden Villages

This study, employing multigroup analysis, identified variances in the effects exerted by different groups (residents and tourists) on human settlement, cultural tourism development quality, and quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages. Additionally, this study revealed that the human settlement conditions and cultural tourism development quality in various traditional earthen–wooden villages differently impact public perceptions and quality of life (Figure 9).

For residents, settlement spatial characteristics appear to have a more substantial influence on their quality of life. This is likely because these characteristics directly shape their living environment and convenience, affecting daily routines, accessibility to services, and overall comfort. Well-planned settlement spatial characteristics can enhance community cohesion, safety, and accessibility to public amenities, which are crucial for residents’ satisfaction and well-being. Residents often prioritize practical aspects such as proximity to essential services, ease of transportation, and quality of housing, all of which are influenced by settlement spatial characteristics. The age and educational profile of residents, predominantly middle-aged and with lower educational attainment, might contribute to their heightened sensitivity to changes in their living environment. This group may prioritize stability and familiarity in their surroundings, making them more susceptible to the negative impacts of rapid tourism development. Moreover, the significant proportion of female residents could influence the overall community’s perspective on tourism, as women may place higher value on aspects of safety, community cohesion, and the quality of local amenities, which are directly affected by settlement spatial characteristics. Therefore, improvements in these areas can lead to significant enhancements in residents’ quality of life. Conversely, for tourists, cultural resources and traditional architecture seem to exert a more pronounced effect on their satisfaction with traditional earthen–wooden villages. Tourists are typically drawn to the unique historical and cultural experiences that traditional earthen–wooden villages offer. The authenticity and aesthetic appeal of traditional architecture, coupled with rich cultural resources, provide tourists with memorable and enriching experiences. This result aligns with numerous tourism studies, which have established that personal preferences for travel experiences and environments differ due to individual characteristics [84] and destination attributes [85,86,87]. Given that the tourist sample in this study had a higher educational background, it is likely that these visitors are more aware of and appreciative of the cultural and historical significance of the destinations, further enhancing their satisfaction. The age distribution, with a focus on the 31–40 age group, also suggests that tourists are in a life stage where they seek enriching experiences that balance cultural depth with leisure. The strong preference for traditional cultural elements among tourists could also be linked to their educational background, as higher education levels are often associated with a greater interest in and understanding of cultural heritage. Tourists value the uniqueness and authenticity of their travel destinations, seeking immersive cultural and historical experiences that differ from their everyday lives. Hence, cultural resources and traditional architecture play a pivotal role in shaping their perceptions and satisfaction. With regards to the impact on quality of life, this study also indicates that the cultural tourism development quality tends to lower the quality of life for residents but enhances it for tourists. This dichotomy can be attributed to the differing impacts of tourism development on these two groups. For tourists, the development of cultural tourism provides opportunities for new experiences, relaxation, entertainment, and cultural learning [88]. These experiences contribute to their overall happiness and satisfaction during their visits. However, for residents, the long-term development of the cultural tourism industry may exert pressure on the local environment, including noise pollution, air pollution, and the destruction of natural landscapes. These environmental pressures can negatively impact residents’ quality of life, reducing their sense of happiness and well-being [89]. The influx of tourists can also lead to increased costs of living, overcrowding, and disruptions to daily life, further affecting residents’ satisfaction. The characteristics of traditional earthen–wooden villages at different tourism development stages also play a crucial role in influencing quality of life. Cultural resources, settlement spatial characteristics, and traditional architecture may vary significantly due to distinct regional factors and stages of tourism development. For instance, Zhenglong Village, with its unique traditional architecture, significantly enhances public quality of life by preserving cultural heritage and providing an aesthetically pleasing environment. In contrast, Gaocheng Village may excel in cultural resources, where rich historical narratives and cultural activities greatly influence cultural tourism development quality and residents’ quality of life. This conclusion aligns with prior research on the diversity of tourist destinations and regional attributes, which found that tourist destinations with diverse regional characteristics significantly affect tourist satisfaction [90]. From a tourism development standpoint, local tourism initiatives and policies can significantly influence the quality of cultural tourism in traditional earthen–wooden villages. Villages lacking comprehensive tourism facilities and abundant tourism resources may struggle to attract and satisfy tourists, impacting their recognition of traditional architecture, cultural resources, and overall quality of life. For example, the residents of Huanghuaxi Village and Jiangjun Village may be more susceptible to these factors, as limited tourism infrastructure can hinder the development of a robust tourism industry, thereby affecting public perception.

4.3. Meishan Traditional Villages Development Suggestions

The tourism industry in traditional villages has broad prospects. Correctly understanding the current development status of each village and identifying the characteristic factors that influence the quality of life are essential prerequisites for tourism development. This paper synthesizes the basic conditions of 19 traditional villages in the Meishan area of Hunan Province, combining literature and survey interviews to categorize the characteristic factors into five key areas: traditional architecture, cultural resources, settlement spatial characteristics, quality of cultural and tourism development, and livability satisfaction. These areas are further subdivided into 15 fundamental indicators, which classify the villages into four categories: culturally and touristically integrated villages, culturally and touristically disconnected villages, villages with specialized tourism development, and undeveloped villages. Based on the overall regional overview and the current development status of these types of villages, this study proposes tourism development recommendations from both overall and category-specific perspectives.

From an overall development perspective, it is important to first assess the development trends and optimize the development environment. In the early stages of planning, traditional villages in the Meishan area should seize development opportunities, optimize their development environment, and accurately position tourism products to promote a new round of development in the traditional village tourism industry. Second, the villages should clarify their own advantages and improve internal structures. In the early stages of traditional village tourism development, preparatory work for tourism product development is necessary, which includes forming a rational understanding of their own development structure and conducting targeted development based on the conditions of each village. Finally, they will need to create a clustering effect and integrate preservation concepts. To maintain a harmonious and orderly development state, a regional clustering model must be established. Building a regional brand as a whole can integrate the advantages of each village’s resources, share regional infrastructure, and facilitate brand formation and promotion. Since traditional villages are carriers of agricultural culture, the development concept with preservation as a prerequisite should be deepened at all stages of tourism development, exploring a sustainable development path that maximizes the value of the villages.

From a category-specific development perspective, the current state of tourism development in the 19 traditional villages in the Meishan area is not uniform, and different development measures should be adopted for different types of traditional villages. For culturally and touristically integrated villages, further exploration of cultural connotations is needed to create a series of distinctive tourism brands. Leveraging their geographical, resource, and cultural advantages, efforts should be made to deeply explore the unique regional cultures such as Meishan culture, Ancient Tea Horse Road culture, and Wu-Nuo culture. These distinctive cultural elements should be deeply integrated into the construction of tourist attractions, the organization of tourism activities, and the development of tourism products. For culturally and touristically disconnected villages, planning and development should involve thorough investigations that are not only comprehensive, systematic, and scientific but also insightful. This means going beyond surface-level work and engaging deeply with the local population to understand their values, lifestyle habits, and life concepts. This approach allows for a true understanding of the local cultural characteristics, providing strong data support for rural tourism development planning. For villages with specialized tourism development, it is important to highlight the regional development characteristics of rural tourism. On the basis of a comprehensive understanding of tourists’ psychological needs, a thorough investigation and analysis of rural regional tourism resources and local culture should be conducted. Through creative design, rural tourism resources and services should be deeply developed and finely processed, ensuring the richness of tourism resources and highlighting the unique regional cultural characteristics. This allows tourists to fully experience the distinctive regional cultural features while enjoying their travels. For undeveloped villages, efforts should be made to increase poverty alleviation efforts in these relatively backward and impoverished areas, coordinate tourism resources, attract external investment, and improve regional infrastructure such as roads, thereby enhancing the living infrastructure environment.

4.4. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has made significant contributions to elucidating the relationship between human settlements in traditional earthen–wooden villages, cultural tourism development quality, and quality of life. However, it also has certain limitations that need to be addressed to enhance the robustness and applicability of the findings.

(1)

Limited Sample Range: The scope of this study is confined to 19 traditional earthen–wooden villages in Hunan Province, which may influence the generalizability of the study’s conclusions. The geographic restriction could limit the applicability of the findings to other regions with different cultural, environmental, and economic conditions. To augment the external validity of the research, future studies should expand the sample size to encompass more traditional earthen–wooden villages across diverse regions. This broader dataset would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages globally, taking into account regional variations and specificities.

(2)

Data Collection Methods: Despite employing multiple data sources, including questionnaires and field surveys, potential biases in the data collection methods warrant further scrutiny. For instance, self-reported data can be subject to biases such as social desirability bias and recall bias. Additionally, adopting more qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, may provide more profound insights into the lived experiences and perceptions of residents and tourists. These qualitative methods can complement quantitative data, offering a richer, more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play in traditional earthen–wooden villages.

(3)

Temporal Aspect: This study appears to overlook the temporal aspect, for instance, the long-term trends of quality of life and cultural tourism development quality. The relationships between human settlement characteristics, cultural tourism development, and quality of life are likely to evolve over time, influenced by changing economic conditions, environmental factors, and policy interventions. Incorporating a temporal dimension in future research could enhance our understanding of these dynamic relationships. Longitudinal studies tracking changes over time would provide valuable insights into how the impacts of tourism development unfold and persist, allowing for more effective and sustainable tourism management strategies.

5. Conclusions

This study undertakes a comprehensive examination of traditional earthen–wooden villages in Hunan Province to explore the intricate relationship between human settlement characteristics, cultural tourism development quality, and quality of life. The primary findings of this research are multifaceted, shedding light on various aspects of sustainable development and cultural preservation in traditional earthen–wooden villages. The primary findings are as follows:

• Factors related to human settlements exert a substantial influence on the sustainable development of traditional earthen–wooden villages. This study identifies that traditional architecture, settlement spatial characteristics, and cultural resources positively impact the cultural tourism development quality in traditional earthen–wooden villages. This suggests that the cultural heritage, architectural style, and geographic layout of traditional earthen–wooden villages are integral to enticing tourists and fostering tourism development. These elements collectively contribute to creating an environment that is both appealing and functional, enhancing the overall tourist experience and promoting sustained tourism growth.
• Regarding quality of life, traditional architecture exhibits a direct impact on public quality of life, albeit negatively correlated. This finding implies that the subpar conditions of traditional architecture, such as inadequate modern amenities and inefficient design, may diminish residents’ life satisfaction. This underscores the need for integrating modern conveniences into traditional architectural frameworks to improve livability without compromising cultural integrity.
• The influence of settlement spatial characteristics and cultural resources on quality of life is not direct but indirectly positive via the cultural tourism development quality. This highlights the importance of enhancing the quality of cultural tourism development as a means to improve overall life satisfaction in traditional earthen–wooden villages. It suggests that improvements in cultural tourism infrastructure and experiences can lead to better living conditions by attracting tourists, generating revenue, and fostering community development.
• The research findings unequivocally demonstrate a direct positive influence of cultural tourism development quality on quality of life. This suggests that tourism development in traditional earthen–wooden villages is intimately linked with residents’ livable environment and enhances quality of life. High-quality cultural tourism development can lead to improved infrastructure, economic opportunities, and social cohesion, which collectively enhance the well-being of residents.
• Multi-group analysis reveals significant variations between distinct groups (residents and tourists) and different categories of traditional earthen–wooden villages. For residents, settlement spatial characteristics are more influential, while tourists place greater emphasis on cultural resources and traditional architecture. This differentiation offers crucial insights into the stewardship and sustainable development of traditional earthen–wooden villages. Tailoring development strategies to meet the specific needs and preferences of these groups can lead to more effective and sustainable outcomes.

The conclusions underscore the complex interplay between human settlements and tourism development. This study illuminates how traditional architecture, cultural resources, and spatial characteristics not only attract tourists but also shape the living conditions and quality of life for residents. This interplay highlights the necessity of adopting a holistic approach to development that balances tourism growth with the preservation of cultural heritage and the enhancement of residents’ well-being. The diversity among distinct groups and various categories of traditional earthen–wooden villages indicates that a one-size-fits-all approach to development is ineffective. Instead, policies and management practices should be tailored to address the unique characteristics and needs of each village and its residents. Recognizing and accommodating these differences can lead to more inclusive and sustainable development strategies. The findings of this research hold considerable practical significance for the administration and policy formulation of traditional earthen–wooden villages. Policymakers should focus on enhancing the quality of cultural tourism development through investments in infrastructure, the preservation of cultural resources, and integration of modern amenities into traditional settings. Additionally, policies should be designed to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism on residents’ quality of life, such as environmental degradation and cultural commodification. This study provides a novel perspective for scholarly inquiry in related disciplines. Future research should expand the geographic scope to include more traditional earthen–wooden villages across diverse regions, employ mixed-methods approaches to gain deeper insights, and incorporate longitudinal studies to observe long-term trends. Investigating the impact of specific policy interventions on quality of life and tourism development can further enrich the understanding of sustainable development in traditional earthen–wooden villages. Additionally, tourism development strategies should consider the educational and demographic profiles of both residents and tourists to better align development efforts with their needs and preferences.

In conclusion, the findings of this research underscore the critical importance of human settlement characteristics in shaping the quality of cultural tourism development and, subsequently, the quality of life in traditional earthen–wooden villages. This study highlights the need for a balanced and inclusive approach to tourism development that preserves cultural heritage, enhances residents’ well-being, and meets the expectations of tourists. These conclusions are anticipated to aid in the cultural preservation and sustainable development of traditional earthen–wooden villages, contributing to the broader goals of rural revitalization and sustainable development in mountainous regions. By addressing the nuanced needs of different user groups and leveraging the unique attributes of various traditional earthen–wooden villages, this research provides valuable insights for fostering resilient and thriving rural communities.