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.
2.3. 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). 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). 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 below.