EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2025 , Vol. 16 >Issue 4: 1171 - 1184

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.04.020

Special Column: Ecotourism and Rural Revitalization

Evaluation of Livelihood and Well-being of Residents in Rural Tourist Attractions

  • ZHANG Jiantao , 1 ,
  • GAO Ning 1 ,
  • SUI Haotian 2 ,
  • WANG Yang , 3, *
Expand
  • 1. The School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang 110034, China
  • 2. School of Business Administration Northeastem University, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China
  • 3. College of Economics and Management, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China
*WANG Yang, E-mail:

ZHANG Jiantao, E-mail:

Received date: 2024-11-06

  Accepted date: 2025-04-30

  Online published: 2025-08-05

Supported by

The Youth Project of Liaoning Provincial Department of Education(JYTQN2023416)

Fold

Abstract

The development of rural tourism not only plays a crucial role in driving the high-quality growth of destination economies but also significantly affects the livelihoods and well-being of residents in these areas. The objective of this study is to evaluate the well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations. With the Rice Dream Space in Shenyang as a case study, this study selects the residents from 18 administrative villages in the street where the scenic area is located as the research subjects. By conducting field surveys, 204 valid questionnaires were collected. Then, the SPSS 26.0 was employed to analyze these questionnaires, aiming to provide an in-depth understanding of the residents’ well-being in the context of rural tourism development. It establishes an indicator system based on four dimensions: Economy, politics, culture, and environment, and employs factor analysis to evaluate the livelihood well-being of residents comprehensively. The findings indicate that the level of livelihood and well-being among residents in rural tourism destinations is relatively high. Among the four dimensions, the cultural aspect received the highest average evaluation, while the economic component had the lowest. Based on the specific context of the research area, this study also offers countermeasures and suggestions aimed at enhancing the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations.

Key words： rural tourism; residents in rural tourist attractions; livelihood and well-being

Cite this article

ZHANG Jiantao , GAO Ning , SUI Haotian , WANG Yang . Evaluation of Livelihood and Well-being of Residents in Rural Tourist Attractions[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2025 , 16(4) : 1171 -1184 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.04.020

1 Introduction

China’s national policy discourse has consistently prioritized citizen well-being as a core developmental objective, with successive political assemblies framing livelihood enhancement and subjective welfare maximization as fundamental gov-ernance imperatives. Ensuring population-wide fulfillment constitutes both the foundational ethos and operational focus of the state’s institutional framework. The 14-th Five-Year Plan period (2021-2025) explicitly targets “measurable advances in public welfare” as a primary socioeconomic benchmark, emphasizing quality-of-life improvements through structural social investments. This policy orientation reflects the broader theoretical proposition that comprehensive welfare enhancement serves as a necessary condition for sustainable national rejuvenation in contemporary development paradigms.
With the entry into a new era, the main contradiction in society has transformed into the contradiction between the people’s growing need for a better life and unbalanced or insufficient development (Xi, 2017). In 2013, Chinese government stated that “developing tourism and leisure is related to people’s well-being.” Enhancing people’s well-being is the inherent logic of tourism development and a direct reflection of people’s happiness in life (Delany-Crowe et al., 2019). As the pinnacle of the “Five Great Happiness Industries”, the tourism industry has gradually expanded its social functions and influence. It not only promotes the prosperity of destination economies but also plays an increasingly significant role in meeting the spiritual and cultural needs of local residents and improving their well-being (Wu and Zeng, 2024). The era of national tourism is upon us, and rural tourism, as a driving force in the tourism industry, primarily excavates its characteristic resources, integrates local ecological assets and ethnic culture, and creates a unique rural tourism industry chain, forming a distinctive development model for rural tourism. It has become an important avenue for residents to relax and vacation, as well as a significant means of benefiting livelihoods and enhancing well-being (Zhang and Cheng, 2019; Jin, 2023).
In recent years, scholars both domestically and internationally have focused their research on people’s well-being, primarily examining influencing factors and formation mechanisms, measurement and evaluation methods, and pathways for improving well-being levels, with most studies placing greater emphasis on economic factors. However, there is relatively little research that objectively and comprehensively evaluates people’s livelihood and well-being from the perspective of residents in rural tourism destinations using empirical analysis methods and analyzes the influencing factors. The “Rice Dream Space” scenic area in Shenyang is known as the hometown of rice field paintings in China. In developing rural tourism projects, it has built substantial infrastructure and provided more employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for destination residents. New formats such as specialty shops, rural tourism homestays, restaurants, picking gardens, leisure farms, and rural camping have emerged, greatly enriching the livelihood choices of destination residents and leading to effective income growth through these activities (Wang and Sha, 2022). Therefore, this study begins from the perspective of residents in rural tourism destinations, selecting the “Rice Dream Space” scenic area as the field investigation site. It chooses destination residents from 18 administrative villages in the area as interviewees and employs SPSS 26.0 to evaluate the livelihood well-being of these residents. The goal is to construct a scientific evaluation index system for the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations through relevant research, propose targeted improvement pathways based on summary and analysis, further enrich the relevant research on livelihood and well-being, and achieve mutual benefit and a win-win situation between scenic area development and rural tourism destination residents.

2 Literature review

2.1 Domestic research progress

Xing (2006) constructed an evaluation index system for the happiness index of Chinese residents, which mainly consists of 10 indicators, such as mental health, growth and development, and target value. Fan and Zhang (2012) considered three dimensions when constructing an evaluation index system for people’s livelihood and well-being: social security, living environment, and income and expenditure. Qin (2015) conducted a comprehensive evaluation of people’s well-being from the perspective of life, including health, work, education, and other aspects, while exploring the connotation and relationship between well-being, welfare, and social welfare. Li and Zhang (2013) found that scholars, while constructing an evaluation system for people's well-being, also quantitatively evaluate it and consider five dimensions: individual health status, level of security, standard of living, right to freedom and choice, and social connections. Scholars such as Sheng (2017), Ma et al. (2021) believe that the five development concepts of “innovation, coordination, green, openness, and sharing” align with people’s livelihoods and national conditions. Consequently, an evaluation index system is constructed to deepen the understanding of people’s livelihoods, with improving livelihoods being a key dimension in the study of high-quality development in China. Wang et al. (2018) developed a national welfare evaluation system that includes seven dimensions, such as social security, income, and consumption, for objectively measuring people’s well-being. Xue and Zhi (2020) analyzed the relationship between ecological environment protection and people’s well-being from the perspectives of ecosystem services, returning farmland to forests, and ecological migration. Huang and Ren (2020) conducted deeper research on the Human Development Index (HDI) and built a China Human Development Index (CHDI) system that is more adaptable to China’s national conditions and current development status, incorporating five dimensions: individual life span, individual income, livelihood improvement, knowledge acquisition, and sustainable development. Xu et al. (2020) analyzed the connotation of a better and happier life for the Chinese people in the context of new era development, and based on this, constructed a livelihood well-being evaluation index system that includes five dimensions: health, income, employment, housing, medical care, and education. Lin (2020) found that when summarizing the evaluation index system for farmers’ well-being, many scholars primarily consider five dimensions: individual health, personal safety, basic living material conditions, social relationships, and the right to freedom and choice.
From the perspective of residents in tourist destinations, Li et al. (2009) proposed that the evaluation index system for residents’ happiness primarily consists of three dimensions: material, interpersonal, and spiritual indices, based on the connotation of destination residents’ happiness. Jing and Luo (2013) developed a happiness index measurement model for destination residents, considering the potential impact of rural tourism on communities, which includes four dimensions: economy, democratic power, social culture, and environment. Chen et al. (2023) established an evaluation index system for the high-quality development of rural tourism from the perspective of residents’ happiness, focusing on three dimensions: economy, society, and environment. Ma and Sun (2024) referenced the comprehensive public service system outlined in the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan, combined with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory and related research, to construct an evaluation index system for the livelihood and well-being of residents in tourist destinations, encompassing eight dimensions: family environment, quality of life, spiritual culture, employment quality, social security, ecological environment, public safety, and infrastructure transportation. An and Zhong (2023) conducted a study on the evaluation of residents’ livelihood and well-being in the context of national park establishment, analyzing health and economic benefits from two perspectives. Li and Yang (2023) created an evaluation index system for the livelihood and well-being of destination residents, based on three dimensions: Basic needs, safety and health needs, and spiritual needs, grounded in the actual situation and data availability of the research area.

2.2 Research progress abroad

Veenhoven (2000) constructed a well-being evaluation framework based on eight dimensions: health, wealth, education, work, and political environment. Cummins et al. (2003), in their study of the Australian Unified Happiness Index, proposed that residents’ well-being should encompass seven dimensions: Safety, future safety, health, interpersonal relationships, life satisfaction, personal achievement, and community connections. Haq (2009) argues that the well-being index of residents in various European countries includes multiple dimensions such as individual optimism, satisfaction, positive emotions, and negative emotions. Van Ootegem and Spillemaeckers (2010) conducted a quantitative analysis of well-being from the perspectives of human health and education. Summers et al. (2012) integrated human needs theory to categorize the evaluation dimensions of objective well-being into four aspects: basic needs, social needs, economic needs, and environmental needs, while subjective well-being includes aspects such as happiness and satisfaction. The OECD (2013) designed 11 dimensions for measuring well-being, including income and housing, as part of the BLI. Bhutan’s GNH index comprises four dimensions: Socio-economic development, culture, environment, and good governance. The Australian AUWBI index constructs a subjective well-being evaluation that combines satisfaction across seven areas of life, including health, living standards, and life achievements. Zorondo-Rodriguez et al. (2016) introduced innovations in the dimensions of well-being by studying the relationship between capital and individual subjective well-being from both natural and economic perspectives. Hansen et al. (2020) explored the role of automation and digitization in dairy farming through four dimensions: Psychological health, income, job satisfaction, and family work-life balance, while also examining residents’ sense of happiness.
Based on a review of relevant literature both domestically and internationally, it is evident that different countries and institutions adopt varying dimensions for evaluating people’s livelihoods and well-being. Domestic scholars typically explore objective perspectives, including politics, economy, society, ecology, healthcare, and educational resources, and have developed similar dimensional indicators (Tan and Wu, 2014). In contrast, foreign scholars concentrate on analyzing and assessing residents’ well-being from multiple perspectives and indicator systems rooted in theory, primarily focusing on dimensions such as satisfaction, health, demand, economy, environment, and society. While foreign scholars may classify dimensions for evaluating well-being differently, individual health and income remain crucial components of well-being research. Despite the relatively abundant research on the evaluation dimensions of livelihoods and well-being, few scholars have approached this topic from the subjective perspective of individual happiness. Additionally, there are limited studies that measure people’s livelihoods and well-being using multiple dimensions such as economy, politics, culture, and environment, indicating a gap that this research can address.
Currently, there are relatively few studies on the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations, both in domestic and international literature. Most existing research is primarily theoretical in nature. This paper evaluates the well-being of rural tourism destination residents from the perspective of their livelihoods, addressing gaps in the current research regarding content and ideas.

3 Construction of an evaluation system for the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations

Based on the current development status of scenic spots and the characteristics of residents in rural tourism destinations, this study selects evaluation indicators from four dimensions: Economy, politics, culture, and environment. These indicators are grounded in the definition of livelihood well-being and rural tourism destinations, and are informed by the research findings of domestic and foreign scholars on the evaluation dimensions of livelihood well-being.
(1) Selection of economic dimension indicators
The development of the economy not only enhances material conditions and improves daily life but also positively influences other dimensions of life satisfaction and happiness (Bai and Wu, 2017), thereby benefiting residents’ overall well-being to some extent. An increase in employment opportunities provides destination residents with more job options beyond agricultural work. Economic income is a key factor that constrains both the material and spiritual lives of residents, with the level of household income directly impacting the quality of life for those in the destination. Previous studies have indicated that household income is positively correlated with residents’ well-being; only with a continuous increase in income can residents’ well-being levels improve. Additionally, consumption levels can indirectly reflect the quality of life and living standards of destination residents. The situation of industrial growth can also indicate other sources of income and participation in rural tourism among residents. Thus, these indicators have been selected as the economic dimension indicators.
(2) Selection of political dimension indicators
Respecting the wishes of destination residents and safeguarding their basic political rights can effectively empower rural residents. The higher the degree of political participation, the greater the social identity that destination residents may gain, which enhances their livelihood and well-being (Bai and Wu, 2017). Increased opportunities for destination residents to participate in decision-making demonstrate that they are the primary stakeholders in new rural construction and rural revitalization, helping to narrow the urban-rural gap. Equal political rights for residents are an inherent requirement for building a harmonious society and an inevitable choice for development. Actively expressing personal political demands is an effective way for residents to achieve political equality. The openness and democracy of tourism policies can encourage the active participation of destination residents in rural tourism development, reflecting the political transparency and credibility of the community (village) (Liu et al., 2023). Therefore, the indicators mentioned above are selected as indicators of the political dimension.
(3) Selection of cultural dimension indicators
Ethnic culture is the cornerstone of cultural confidence, which is for a crucial factor in ensuring people's well-being and enhancing residents’ sense of belonging and identity. While meeting the basic material needs of residents is a prerequisite for improving their quality of life, their spiritual needs have gradually increased in recent years (Gao and Wang, 2012). Strong cultural values foster emotional connections between residents and their place of residence, thereby enhancing their overall well-being. The cultural literacy of residents can significantly impact the development of both the local economy and culture, serving as an essential foundation for building a socialist new countryside. It promotes the comprehensive development of residents and fosters harmonious interpersonal relationships in tourism. The openness of residents’ ideological perspectives indicates that staying current with contemporary ideas aids in promoting rural economic revitalization. Increased local cultural activities can strengthen moral and cultural construction while enriching residents’ leisure lives, ultimately improving their cultural literacy and spirit. The growth of tourism supports the protection, inheritance, and promotion of local Xibe culture, further enhancing the cultural confidence of residents. Therefore, these indicators are selected as key components of the political dimension.
(4) Selection of environmental dimension indicators
The environmental dimension draws on relevant indicators of ecological civilization construction, with the sustainable development of natural resources serving as a direct source of human well-being (Xue and Zhi, 2020). The environment is not only a crucial factor affecting the quality of life for residents (Zhang and Li, 2021), but it also significantly impacts the development of the tourism industry (Gao and Wang, 2012). The construction and improvement of infrastructure provide essential conditions for rural tourism and economic development, while also greatly enhancing the lives and travel experiences of destination residents, thereby improving their quality of life and happiness. Increasing environmental protection awareness among destination residents benefits the improvement of their living environment and promotes the development of rural tourism. A healthy ecological environment is a fundamental requirement for ensuring the well-being and physical and mental health of both residents and tourists, serving as a universal welfare benefit for people’s livelihoods. A sanitary environment is directly linked to the quality of the living environment and is crucial for enhancing people’s well-being. In the concept of Gross National Happiness, a good environment plays a vital role in overall human well-being and is a key objective of building an ecological civilization in the new era. It positively influences residents’ sense of gain, happiness, and security, thereby continuously enhancing people’s well-being (Ma and Hu, 2024). Therefore, the indicators mentioned above are selected as the environmental dimension indicators. The specific evaluation index system for the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Evaluation index system for livelihood and welfare of residents in rural tourism destination
Item Dimension Index Symbol Indicator attributes Source
Livelihood and well-being of
residents in rural
tourism destinations		 Economic Employment opportunities y1 + Chen et al. (2023);
Ma and Sun (2024)
Family income y2 +
Consumption level y3 +
Industry driven y4 +
Politic Participate in decision-making y5 + Veenhoven (2000);
Gao and Wang (2012)
Political rights y6 +
Political demands y7 +
Policy disclosure y8 +
Culture Cultural literacy y9 + Zhu et al. (2023);
Ma and Sun (2024)
Ideas and concepts y10 +
Cultural activity y11 +
Xibe culture y12 +
Environment Infrastructure y13 + Jing and Luo (2013);
Chen et al. (2023)
Environmental awareness y14 +
Ecological environment y15 +
Sanitary environment y16 +

4 Evaluation of the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations

4.1 Survey questionnaire design

This study mainly employs questionnaire survey to assess the livelihoods and well-being of residents in the Rice Dream Space scenic area in Shenyang and to explore the factors influencing these aspects. The survey questionnaire is organized into two main sections, which provide detailed information on the subject.
The first part focuses on the individual characteristics of residents in rural tourism destinations. It investigates basic information, including village location, gender, ethnicity, age, health status, whether they are local residents, and length of residence. The second part evaluates residents’ livelihood and well-being in rural tourism destinations. This study constructs an evaluation index system, assessing livelihood and well-being from four dimensions: economy, politics, culture, and environment. The second part employs the Likert scale method, allowing interviewed residents to express their evaluations based on their true feelings. This scale offers five options ranging from 1 to 5, with the degree of agreement increasing as follows: 1 represents “strongly disagree”, 2 represents “disagree”, 3 represents “commonly”, 4 represents “agree”, and 5 represents “strongly agree”.

4.2 Sample selection and data sources

4.2.1 Sample selection

(1) Selection of investigation location
The survey location selected for this study is the Rice Dream Space Scenic Area in Shenyang, known as the “hometown of Chinese rice field paintings”. The establishment and development of this scenic area have enhanced local infrastructure, strengthened economic development, and, to some extent, revitalized Xibe culture. We are committed to building our own distinctive brand and strive to become a “Shenyang sample” that can respond to the national and Liaoning Province’s rural revitalization strategy. Therefore, this study has chosen the Rice Dream Space in Shenyang as a representative site for field investigation.
(2) Selection of research subjects
This study selects residents from 18 administrative villages in Xinglongtai Street, where the Rice Dream Space is located in Shenyang City, as interviewees. These residents are considered the destination residents who may be directly or indirectly affected by the scenic area. The survey randomly selected residents from 2% of the permanent population of each administrative village and distributed a total of 211 questionnaires. The distribution of the number of respondents is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Distribution of interviewees in each administrative village of Xinglongtai street
Administrative village Resident population of the village Number of
interviewees
Shifosi Village 700 14
Shifosi Second Village 1003 20
Mengjiatai Village 757 15
Fangshen Village 748 15
Xiaotun Village 827 17
Lujia Village 236 5
Daheitaizi Village 538 11
Lixin Village 156 3
Xingsheng Village 198 4
Pangutai Village 463 9
Daguliu Village 420 8
Dayingzi Village 595 12
Xinglongtai Village 655 13
Xingxian Village 656 13
Jiubingtai Village 650 13
Xinmin Village 720 14
Xiaoheitaizi Village 707 14
Yantai Village 580 11
Total 10609 211
The permanent population data for each administrative village listed above is provided by Xinglongtai Street Office in Shenbei New District, Shenyang City.

4.2.2 Data sources

(1) Questionnaire distribution
Considering that residents in rural tourism destinations may have difficulty understanding the options or filling out the survey questionnaire due to their cultural background, as well as the large sample size making the survey challenging, this survey sought the assistance of the local government. They helped distribute a paper version of the survey questionnaire to residents during their leisure time. In January 2024, a survey was conducted in 18 administrative villages in Xinglongtai Street, with a total of 211 questionnaires distributed. The average completion time for the questionnaires in each administrative village was approximately 1 to 3 hours.
(2) Data collection and organization
After collecting the questionnaires, enter and organize the data for the survey. During the screening process, questionnaires that are filled out incorrectly, have multiple or missed selections, or are unclear and unrecognizable will be excluded. These questionnaires will be deemed invalid. A total of 211 survey questionnaires were distributed and collected, of which 204 were valid, resulting in a questionnaire effectiveness rate of 96.68%.

4.3 Sample feature analysis

The effective sample size of this survey questionnaire is 204. Descriptive analysis of the samples was conducted using SPSS 26.0, focusing on factors such as gender, ethnicity, age, health status, residency status, and length of residence. See Table 3 for details.
Table 3 Basic information (individual characteristics) of destination residents
Item Classification Sample size Proportion (%)
Gender Male 143 70.10
Female 61 29.90
Ethnic group Han 129 63.24
Xibe 63 30.88
Other 12 5.88
Age
(yr)		 18 and below 28 13.73
19-40 92 45.10
41-60 45 22.06
Over 60 39 19.12
Health Very healthy 88 43.14
Good 63 30.88
Average 42 20.59
Poor 11 5.39
Are you a local resident Yes 168 82.35
No 36 17.65
Residence time (yr) 1-5 14 6.86
6-10 8 3.92
11 and more 182 89.22
Total 204 100
From Table 3, it is evident that the majority of survey respondents are male, with 143 males (70.10%) compared to 61 females (29.90%). The proportion of males is significantly higher than that of females. Among the survey respondents, the Han ethnic group is the most populous, with 129 individuals (63.24%). This is followed by the Xibe ethnic group, which comprises 63 individuals (30.88%). There are very few individuals from other ethnic groups, totalling 12 individuals (5.88%). The largest number of respondents falls within the 19-40 years group, totalling 92 individuals (45.10%). The remaining three age groups are relatively balanced: 45 individuals are in the 41-60 years group (22.06%), 39 individuals are over 60 years old (19.12%), and 28 individuals are aged 18 and under (13.73%). Overall, the age distribution of the survey respondents skews toward the older demographic. Among the respondents, the largest number of individuals who consider themselves very healthy is 88 (43.14%), followed by 63 individuals who rate their health as good (30.88%). The smallest number of individuals report being in poor health, totalling 42 (20.59%). The vast majority of respondents are residents, with 168 individuals (82.35%), while non-local residents number 36 (17.65%). The largest group of respondents has lived locally for 11 years or more, totalling 182 individuals (89.22%). The number of respondents who have lived in the area for 1-5 years and 6-10 years is 14 and 8 individuals, respectively, accounting for 6.86% and 3.92% of the sample size. Overall, the respondents represent a diverse mix of residents from different villages, genders, ethnic groups, ages, health conditions, and lengths of residence, demonstrating a certain degree of randomness and ensuring the representativeness and reliability of the data in this article.

4.4 Reliability and validity testing

4.4.1 Reliability test

Reliability testing refers to the stability, consistency, and dependability of questionnaire results. Cronbach’s α coefficient is one of the most commonly used measures of internal consistency reliability. A higher value indicates greater consistency and stability in the respondents’ results. This study uses SPSS 26.0 statistical analysis software to conduct reliability testing on data related to the evaluation of people’s livelihoods and well-being. The results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4 Reliability test results
Item Cronbach’s α Number of items
Economic 0.882
0.825
0.845		 4
Politic 4
Culture 4
Environment 0.863 4
Total 0.865 16
As shown in Table 4, the reliability coefficient is 0.865>0.8, indicating high reliability of the scale. The survey questionnaire has passed the reliability test, and the analyzed results are scientifically reliable.

4.4.2 Validity testing

Validity testing refers to the validation of questionnaire effectiveness in accurately measuring the intended constructs. The KMO test and Bartlett's sphericity test are performed on the evaluation data; the greater the conformity between the measurement results and the content being examined, the higher the validity. This study utilizes SPSS 26.0 for validity testing, and the results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5 KMO and Bartlett’s test
Item Value
KMO value 0.858
Bartlett’s sphericity test Approximate chi-square 1578.584
df 120
As shown in Table 5, the KMO value is 0.858>0.8, the Bartlett’s sphericity test value is 1578.584, and the signific-ant value is less than 0.05, indicating that the data has structural validity and high validity. It has passed the sphericity test, the significance test, and the questionnaire items are suitable for this study.

4.4.3 Factor analysis

Factor analysis is a statistical technique that elucidates the interplay between various variables through a limited number of underlying factors. This process involves extracting common factors from the variables and then rotating the loading matrix to derive the analysis results. Before embarking on factor analysis, this study utilized SPSS 26.0 to assess the reliability and validity of the evaluation section’s data. The results revealed a KMO value of 0.858, exceeding the threshold of 0.5, alongside a Bartlett’s sphericity test value of 1578.584 (df=120) and a significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). These findings indicate that the questionnaire data fulfills the prerequisites for factor analysis. A loading coefficient's absolute value exceeding 0.4 signifies a corresponding relationship between an item and a factor. The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 6.
Table 6 Factor loading coefficients after rotation
Index Questionnaire items Factor loading coefficient Percentage variance of square sum of rotational load Cumulative
contribution rate
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Economic
dimension		 Employment opportunities 0.862 0.185 0.707
Family income 0.801
Consumption level 0.836
Industry driven 0.837
Political
dimension		 Participate in decision-making 0.772 0.184
Political rights 0.710
Political demands 0.777
Policy disclosure 0.798
Cultural
dimension		 Cultural literacy 0.805 0.173
Ideas and concepts 0.811
Cultural activity 0.820
Xibe culture 0.832
Environmental
dimension		 Infrastructure 0.820 0.165
Environmental awareness 0.779
Ecological environment 0.833
Sanitary environment 0.777
Rotation method: Varimax maximum variance method
This study employs the maximum variance rotation method (varimax) in factor analysis to aid in identifying the relationship between factors and measurement items. As shown in Table 6, all measurement items displayed communality values above 0.4, indicating a strong correlation between the items and the factors. The indicators offered a satisfactory explanation of the measurement items, and the factors successfully captured the underlying information. The cumulative contribution rate of 0.707, which represents the summed variance contribution rates of each factor, suggests that the measurement items can account for 70.7% of the real-world phenomena.

4.5 Results evaluation

4.5.1 Economic dimension evaluation analysis

The detailed evaluation of the economic dimension of residents’ livelihood well-being in rural tourism destinations, specifically at the “Rice Dream Space” scenic spot, is outlined in Table 7.
Table 7 Economic dimension evaluation
Index Strongly disagree Disagree Commonly Agree Strongly agree
Sample
size		 Proportion
(%)		 Sample
size		 Proportion (%) Sample
size		 Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion
(%)		 Sample
size		 Proportion
(%)
y1 25 12.25 20 9.80 28 13.73 59 28.92 72 35.29
y2 22 10.78 27 13.24 32 15.69 68 33.33 55 26.96
y3 22 10.78 23 11.27 33 16.18 68 33.33 58 28.43
y4 27 13.24 19 9.31 29 14.22 65 31.86 64 31.37
(1) Regarding the enhancement of employment opportunities for residents at the Rice Dream Space scenic spot, 28.92% of residents agreed, while 35.29% strongly agreed. In contrast, 9.80% disagreed, 12.25% strongly disagreed, and 13.73% expressed neutral sentiments. The survey revealed that the establishment of the scenic spot created numerous employment and entrepreneurship opportunities for residents, including homestays, rural tourism restaurants, carpool routes, land leasing, and full-time or part- time work within the area. This diversification enriched residents’ livelihood options and increased their economic income. Consequently, the development of the Rice Dream Space scenic spot significantly bolstered employment opportunities for residents.
(2) In terms of the increase in household income for residents at the Rice Dream Space scenic spot, 33.33% agreed and 26.96% strongly agreed. Conversely, 13.24% disagreed, and 10.78% strongly disagreed, while 15.69% expressed neutral sentiments. The survey indicated that the enhanced employment opportunities directly contributed to an improvement in residents’ household income. Thus, the development of the Rice Dream Space scenic spot uplifted the household income of most residents, although a minority experienced lesser benefits.
(3) Regarding the increase in consumption levels among residents at the Rice Dream Space scenic spot, 33.33% agreed, and 28.43% strongly agreed. In contrast, 11.27% and 10.78% disagreed and strongly disagreed, respectively, while 16.18% expressed neutral sentiments. This indicates that the majority of residents perceive the development of the scenic spot as having a positive impact on their consumption levels, whereas a minority believes it has had no significant effect. Overall, the development of the Rice Dream Space scenic spot has slightly increased residents’ consumption levels.
(4) Regarding resident participation in decision-making about the development of the Rice Dream Space scenic area, 31.86% agreed, and 31.37% strongly agreed. Conversely, 9.31% and 13.24% disagreed and strongly disagreed, respectively, while 14.22% expressed neutral sentiments. This indicates that the majority of residents are engaged in decision-making related to the scenic area’s development, while a minority are not. Therefore, measures should be implemented to ensure equitable decision-making rights for all residents in tourism destinations.

4.5.2 Evaluation and analysis in the political dimension

The political evaluation of the livelihoods and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations is presented in Table 8.
Table 8 Political dimension evaluation
Index Strongly disagree Disagree Commonly Agree Strongly agree
Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%)
y5 20 9.80 16 7.84 35 17.16 63 30.88 70 34.31
y6 14 6.86 18 8.82 32 15.69 76 37.25 64 31.37
y7 13 6.37 17 8.33 55 26.96 63 30.88 56 27.45
y8 20 9.80 15 7.35 34 16.67 67 32.84 68 33.33
(1) In terms of resident participation in decision-making related to the development of the Rice Dream Space scenic area, 30.88% of residents agreed, 34.31% expressed strong agreement, 7.84% expressed dissent, and 9.80% expressed strong dissent, while 17.16% indicated general agreement. This indicates that a majority of residents support participating in decision-making regarding the scenic area’s development, while those who do not participate represent a minority. Therefore, measures should be taken to ensure equal decision-making rights for residents in tourism destinations.
(2) In terms of equal political rights for residents in community (village) affairs, 37.25% of residents agreed, 31.37% strongly agreed, 8.82% disagreed, 6.86% strongly disagreed, and 15.69% expressed general agreement. Compared to participation in decision-making related to scenic spots, a greater percentage of residents agree or strongly agree, indicating a tendency to ensure equal political rights for residents in community (village) affairs.
(3) In terms of regularly expressing personal political demands to the community (village), 30.88% of residents agreed, 27.45% strongly agreed, 8.33% expressed dissent, and 6.37% strongly disagreed, while 26.69% expressed general agreement. The survey revealed that residents had low self-awareness and felt they did not have a voice. Consequently, although some residents regularly express their political demands to the community, the number of residents who feel generally satisfied and those who disagree is roughly equal, and a small number of people do not regularly express their political demands.
(4) In terms of feeling respected by more open and democratic tourism policies, 32.84% of residents agreed, 33.33% expressed strong agreement, 7.35% expressed dissent, and 9.80% expressed strong dissent, while 16.67% expressed general agreement. This indicates that most residents feel respected and support more open and democratic tourism policies, while a minority feel disrespected or disagree.

4.5.3 Cultural dimension evaluation analysis

The evaluation of the cultural dimension of livelihood and well-being for residents in rural tourism destinations is shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Cultural dimension evaluation
Index Strongly disagree Disagree Commonly Agree Strongly agree
Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%)
y9 13 6.37 23 11.27 29 14.22 79 38.73 60 29.41
y10 19 9.31 16 7.84 30 14.71 73 35.78 66 32.35
y11 14 6.86 15 7.35 28 13.73 79 38.73 68 33.33
y12 20 9.80 14 6.86 39 19.12 59 28.92 72 35.29
(1) The development of the Rice Dream Space scenic area has prompted residents to focus more on enhancing their cultural literacy. Specifically, 38.73% of residents agreed, 29.41% expressed strong agreement, 11.27% expressed disagreement, 6.37% expressed strong disagreement, and 14.22% expressed general agreement. The survey found that residents in the destination area prioritize improving their cultural literacy during interactions with tourists. They believe that enhancing cultural literacy is beneficial for establishing friendly and harmonious tourism relationships while also fulfilling their own spiritual needs. Consequently, the development of the scenic area has significantly contributed to enhancing residents’ cultural literacy.
(2) The development of the Rice Dream Space scenic area has led to an update and expansion of residents’ ideas and concepts. Specifically, 35.78% of residents agreed, 32.35% expressed strong agreement, 7.84% expressed disagreement, 9.31% expressed strong disagreement, and 14.71% expressed general agreement. While most residents show agreement, the number of those who disagree or feel neutral is roughly equal. The establishment of the scenic area has made residents more receptive to new ideas and developments, which is beneficial for broadening their perspectives, enhancing their intellectual growth, and expanding economic opportunities. Thus, the development of the scenic area has contributed significantly to the evolution of residents’ ideas and concepts.
(3) The development of the Rice Dream Space scenic area has led to an increase in local tourism-related cultural activities. Of the residents surveyed, 38.73% agreed, 33.33% expressed strong agreement, 7.35% expressed disagreement, 6.86% expressed strong disagreement, and 13.73% expressed general agreement. The investigation revealed that the development of scenic spots has attracted more tourism enterprises and visitors. To enhance the cultural and core competitiveness of tourism and to integrate the unique culture of the Xibe ethnic group, numerous tourism cultural activities have been organized. These include the creation of scarecrow scenes and rice field paintings that reenact the significant feat of the Xibe people’s westward migration, as well as festivals such as the “Thousand People Transplanting Rice” and the “Rice Culture Festival”. Residents who express disagreement and lack of enthusiasm typically participate less in tourism cultural activities.
(4) The development of the Rice Dream Space has positively impacted the culture of the Xibe ethnic group. Specifically, 28.92% of residents agree, 35.29% strongly agree, 6.86% disagree, 9.80% strongly disagree, and 19.12% are neutral. The investigation revealed that the scenic area has transformed the important female deity “Xili Mama”, who was originally a representative of the prosperity of the Xibe ethnic family. Various cultural activities have also been organized, and most residents believe that the development of the scenic area has brought positive effects to Xibe culture, facilitating its inheritance and promotion. However, a small number of residents disagree or feel indifferent, expressing concerns that the commercialization of the scenic spots has “changed the flavor” of the original ethnic culture, making it too utilitarian and neglecting traditional culture itself.

4.5.4 Evaluation and analysis of environmental dimensions

The evaluation of the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations is presented in Table 10.
Table 10 Environmental dimension evaluation
Index Strongly disagree Disagree Commonly Agree Strongly agree
Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%) Sample size Proportion (%)
y13 19 9.31 21 10.29 36 17.65 75 36.76 53 25.98
y14 16 7.84 14 6.86 44 21.57 78 38.24 52 25.49
y15 27 13.24 20 9.80 28 13.73 60 29.41 69 33.82
y16 18 8.82 18 8.82 34 16.67 67 32.84 67 32.84
(1) The development of the Rice Dream Space tourist attraction has enhanced local transportation conditions and infrastructure. Specifically, 36.76% of residents agreed, 25.98% expressed strong agreement, 10.29% expressed disagreement, 9.31% expressed strong disagreement, and 17.65% expressed general agreement. The investigation revealed that while the influx of tourists during peak season can cause traffic congestion on surrounding roads, the development of Rice Dream Space has significantly improved transportation facilities and infrastructure, including highways, parking lots, streetlights, greenery, and cultural squares at the destination.
(2) The development of Rice Dream Space has increased residents’ awareness of environmental protection. Specifically, 38.24% of residents agreed, 25.49% expressed strong agreement, 6.86% expressed disagreement, 7.84% expressed strong disagreement, and 21.57% expressed general agreement. This indicates that as Rice Dream Space develops, residents in the area have come to recognize the importance of environmental protection awareness for sustainable rural tourism, which is a fundamental requirement for environmental preservation. Consequently, the development of this tourist attraction has a significant impact on enhancing residents’ awareness of environmental protection.
(3) The development of Rice Dream Space has heightened concerns among the local government and residents regarding the protection of the ecological environment. Specifically, 29.41% of residents agreed, 33.82% expressed strong agreement, 9.80% disagreed, 13.24% strongly disagreed, and 13.73% expressed general agreement. This indicates that as Rice Dream Space continues to develop, both the local government and residents are increasingly recognizing that the tourist attraction’s scenic value and uniqueness are dependent on local environmental resources. Additionally, they understand that their health and development are closely tied to the environment. As a result, there is a growing emphasis on protecting the local ecological environment.
(4) The development of Rice Dream Space has led the local area to place greater emphasis on the governance of the hygiene environment. Of the residents surveyed, 32.84% agree and another 32.84% strongly agree that attention to this issue is necessary. In contrast, 8.82% disagree, 8.82% strongly disagree, and 16.67% express general agreement. The survey also revealed that while the number of tourists has been increasing year by year, the amount of garbage generated by these tourists during their activities has gradually risen, polluting the local ecological environment and adding to the workload of sanitation workers. Consequently, both the local government and residents are increasingly focused on managing the hygiene environment.

4.5.5 Comprehensive evaluation

The comprehensive evaluation of the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations is shown in Table 11.
Table 11 Comprehensive evaluation of livelihood and welfare
Indicator layer Average value Criteria layer Average value of dimensions Target layer Overall average value
y1 3.652 Economic dimension 3.585 Evaluation of
people’s livelihood and welfare		 3.677
y2 3.525
y3 3.574
y4 3.588
y5 3.721 Political dimension 3.717
y6 3.775
y7 3.647
y8 3.725
y9 3.735 Cultural dimension 3.762
y10 3.74
y11 3.843
y12 3.730
y13 3.598 Environmental
dimension		 3.648
y14 3.667
y15 3.608
y16 3.721
As shown in Table 11, the average score for the economic dimension of the livelihood well-being evaluation is 3.585, the average score for the political dimension is 3.717, the average score for the cultural dimension is 3.762, and the average score for the environmental dimension is 3.648. The results indicate that the livelihood well-being evaluation of residents in rural tourism destinations is high across all dimensions. Among the four dimensions, the economic dimension has the lowest average score, while the cultural dimension has the highest. In the economic dimension, the item with the lowest score is “the development of the scenic spot has improved my family income”, whereas the highest score item is “the development of the scenic spot has increased my employment opportunities”. In the political dimension, the lowest-scoring item is “I often express my political aspirations to the community (village)”, while the highest-scoring item is “the political rights of villagers in the community are equal in community affairs”. In the cultural dimension, the item with the lowest score is “the development of the scenic spot has had a positive impact on the Xibe culture”, and the highest score item is “the development of the scenic spot has increased the number of tourism-related cultural activities”. Lastly, in the environmental dimension, the item with the lowest score is “the development of the scenic spot has improved local traffic conditions and infrastructure”, while the highest score item is “the development of the scenic spot has made the local government pay more attention to the management of the sanitation environment”.
Based on the results of the factor analysis, the weight of livelihood well-being for residents of rural tourism destinations is as follows: Economic dimension (0.185)>political dimension (0.184)>cultural dimension (0.173)>environmental dimension (0.165). This indicates that economic needs play a significant role in the livelihood and well-being of these residents. By calculating the weighted average score of each dimension of the livelihood well-being evaluation, the comprehensive evaluation score is 3.677.

5 Discussion and conclusions

The Rice Dream Space scenic area has had varying degrees of positive effects, including providing employment opportunities for residents, increasing family income, raising consumption levels, promoting industrial growth, facilitating participation in tourism decision-making, ensuring political rights equality, expressing political demands, disclosing tourism policies, enhancing personal development, refreshing ideological concepts, augmenting cultural tourism activities, preserving the Xibe ethnic culture, improving infrastructure, strengthening environmental awareness, and emphasizing hygiene and ecological considerations. However, several issues have been identified during the analysis.
(1) In the economic dimension, the beneficial radiation range is relatively small, and the distribution of tourism income is uneven. This dimension carries the highest weight in evaluating people’s livelihood and well-being, yet it has the lowest average evaluation score. Despite the positive impacts of developing the Rice Dream Space scenic area— such as increasing employment opportunities and driving industries—its effectiveness in raising family income has been relatively weak. As rural tourism continues to deepen, some residents still benefit less or do not benefit at all. The limited beneficial radiation range contributes to a lower level of people’s livelihood and well-being. The fundamental reasons for this are the weak livelihood capabilities of destination residents and the uneven distribution of income generated by rural tourism. This aligns with the research findings of Gautam and Andersen (2016), Su et al. (2016), and Kataya (2021). Most residents leverage the synergy between tourism and other income sources, adopting multi-activity strategies to enhance overall livelihood sustainability and improve livelihood diversity. However, due to limited assets, some individuals find it challenging to participate in the tourism industry, and the freedom to engage in new livelihoods varies (Su et al., 2019).
(2) In the political dimension, residents exhibit relatively low self-awareness and are not adept at safeguarding their political rights. Although most residents believe that political rights are guaranteed in community (village) affairs, they seldom express their political demands. The investigation revealed several reasons for this, including ineffective channels and inadequate mechanisms for residents to voice their political concerns. Additionally, many residents struggle to articulate their demands, feel relatively satisfied with their current living conditions, possess low self-cognition, and have a limited understanding of relevant policies and their rights. Yang et al. (2022) also identified a lack of suitable power and responsibility mechanisms for the sustainable development of rural tourism in these areas. Furthermore, residents’ lack of understanding of rural tourism destination policies is a widespread issue (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Liu, 2020; Bichler, 2021).
(3) In the cultural dimension, the impact of the scenic area's development on Xibe ethnic culture is mixed. While the development of the Rice Dream Space scenic area has positively influenced local tourism-related cultural activities, many residents have differing opinions regarding its overall impact on Xibe culture. This situation presents both positive and negative effects on the livelihoods and well-being of residents. Traditional customs and lifestyles are vital cultural symbols for residents seeking identity. Tourism activities can foster exchanges between different ethnic cultures and draw societal and governmental attention to the local Xibe cultural heritage. However, to accommodate tourism development, Xibe folk culture has become “commercialized”, with folk activities often tailored for tourist entertainment. This commercialization undermines the original ecological life, ethnic culture, and folk customs of residents, ultimately diminishing their livelihoods and well-being. Current studies indicate that rural tourism development can negatively impact local culture (Mansperger, 1995; Tang and Xu, 2023), while others argue that it can promote cultural exchanges, development, and the protection of local culture (Saxena et al., 2007; Nicely and Sydnor, 2015; Nurlena et al., 2021). Ma et al. (2021) examined typical rural tourist attractions in Wuyuan County, Jiangxi Province, China, and found that rural tourism development has made cultural preservation a potential source of livelihood vulnerability for families in the area. Conversely, Naidoo and Sharpley (2016) used Mauritius as a case study to explore the impact of rural tourism on residents’ well-being and discovered that rural tourism can actively enhance community life. The inconsistency in findings may be attributed to variations in research areas or the different stages of rural tourism development in various destinations.
The analysis of the environmental dimension reveals that the pressure on transportation facilities and infrastructure is excessive. The development of the Rice Dream Space scenic area has received widespread recognition from residents for its focus on environmental hygiene governance; however, the acknowledgment of improvements in local transportation conditions and infrastructure remains relatively low. The investigation found that despite the construction of numerous supporting infrastructures and service facilities for tourism, the influx of tourists during peak seasons negatively affects local transportation. This situation causes inconvenience for residents living near the scenic area and increases the strain on public infrastructure, ultimately diminishing the livelihood and well-being of destination residents. This conclusion aligns with existing research findings (Iannucci et al., 2022; Yang and Phan, 2022). As rural tourism reaches a certain level of development, negative environmental impacts, such as overcrowded public spaces, disrupt the daily lives of residents (Mansor et al., 2021).

6 Suggestions

(1) The study identified four dimensions that contribute to the well-being of residents in rural tourism destinations: economic, political, cultural, and environmental. To enhance the livelihoods and well-being of these residents, efforts should focus on increasing employment rates and household incomes within the economic dimension while also promoting consumption and industry leadership. In the political dimension, it is essential to improve residents' participation in decision-making, protect their political rights, and ensure policy transparency. For the cultural dimension, enhancing residents’ cultural literacy and ideological understanding, along with strengthening cultural activities and promoting Xibe culture, is crucial. Finally, in the environmental dimension, attention must be given to improving the infrastructure of rural tourism destinations, raising residents’ environmental awareness, and enhancing ecological and sanitary conditions.
(2) Among the four dimensions of residents’ livelihood and well-being in rural tourism destinations, the economic dimension received the lowest average evaluation, while the cultural dimension received the highest. Therefore, efforts should be made to enhance the economic aspect of rural tourism destinations to improve residents’ well-being.
(3) According to the conclusions drawn from the factor analysis, residents’ livelihood well-being in rural tourism destinations is highest in the economic dimension and lowest in the environmental dimension. The level of economic development significantly impacts residents’ well-being in these areas. Therefore, the government should prioritize improving the economic conditions of rural tourism destinations. This includes increasing employment opportunities for residents, enhancing household incomes, boosting consumption levels, and fostering industrial growth in rural tourism destinations.

7 Limitations and future research

The data source is primarily limited to the residents and visiting tourists of “Rice Dream Space”, a specific rural tourist attraction in Shenyang. This limitation is likely to result in a significant underrepresentation of the collected samples. Given that “Rice Dream Space” possesses unique geographical, cultural, and economic characteristics, relying solely on data from this location is insufficient for comprehensively reflecting the livelihood and well-being of residents in rural tourist destinations. Consequently, the research conclusions may exhibit biases and cannot be broadly applied to other rural tourist areas. In future studies, to enhance the representativeness and universality of the research, we should actively consider expanding the sample coverage. Specifically, we can extend our research to include more rural tourism destinations across various regions and levels of development. Additionally, we should include a more diverse range of residents, such as individuals from different age groups, occupational backgrounds, and income levels, to ensure a comprehensive and varied sample. This approach will provide a more accurate understanding of the livelihoods and well-being of rural tourism residents and their differing characteristics. Additionally, for successful rural tourism cases like “Rice Dream Space”, future research should focus on a deeper analysis and exploration of these examples. It is essential to move beyond merely acknowledging their superficial success and instead uncover the underlying factors and mechanisms driving their achievements. This includes examining unique business models, effective management strategies, and innovative tourism products. Such research can help identify replicable and generalizable experiences of broad significance, offering valuable insights and inspiration for the development of other rural tourism destinations. Future research should maintain a continuous focus on practical exploration and innovative experiences in rural tourism. As rural tourism continues to develop and evolve, new practice models and innovative measures are emerging, presenting both opportunities and challenges for improving the livelihoods and well-being of residents in these areas. Therefore, it is crucial to track and study these new situations and problems promptly, continually enriching and enhancing the theoretical system and practical framework for evaluating the livelihoods and well-being of residents in rural tourism areas. This approach will promote the sustainable and healthy development of rural tourism.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
An W J, Zhong P F. 2023. Research on the evaluation of the welfare of local residents in the establishment of national parks in ethnic regions: A case study of the Sunan Area of Qilian Mountain National Park. Territory & Natural Resources Study, 45(4): 91-96. (in Chinese)

[2]
Bai M, Wu G B. 2017. Analysis of the current situation and influencing factors of farmers’ subjective well-being: based on survey data of farmers in 5 provinces and 10 counties. China Rural Survey, (1): 41-51, 141-142. (in Chinese)

[3]
Bichler B F. 2021. Designing tourism governance: The role of local residents. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19: 100389. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100389.

[4]
Chen H, Li J X, Wang Y W, et al. 2023. Measurement of high quality development of rural tourism in China from the perspective of resident happiness and identification of influencing factors. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 44(11): 237-246. (in Chinese)

[5]
Cummins R A, Eckersley R, Pallant J, et al. 2003. Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian unity wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research, 64(2): 159-190.

[6]
Delany-Crowe T, Marinova D, Fisher M, et al. 2019. Australian policies on water management and climate change: Are they supporting the sustainable development goals and improved health and well-being? Globalization and Health, 15(1): 1-15.

[7]
Fan R G, Zhang H J. 2012. Evaluation model and enhancement strategies for livelihood welfare: Based on reliability, structural validity analysis, and structural equation modeling. Business and Management Journal, 34(9): 161-169. (in Chinese)

[8]
Gao Y, Wang J. 2012. Research on the impact of tourism development on the happiness of destination residents and improvement strategies. Journal of Jilin Business and Technology College, 28(4): 43-46. (in Chinese)

[9]
Gautam Y, Andersen P. 2016. Rural livelihood diversification and household well-being: Insights from Humla, Nepal. Journal of Rural Studies, 44: 239-249.

[10]
Hansen B G, Bugge C T, Skibrek P K. 2020. Automatic milking systems and farmer wellbeing—Exploring the effects of automation and digitalization in dairy farming. Journal of Rural Studies, 80: 469-480.

[11]
Haq R. 2009. Measuring human wellbeing in Pakistan: Objective versus subjective indicators. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(3): 516-532.

[12]
Huang M, Ren D. 2020. China’s human development index system innovation and regional comparison. Comparative Economic & Social System, 36(1): 170-178. (in Chinese)

[13]
Iannucci G, Martellozzo F, Randelli F. 2022. Sustainable development of rural areas: A dynamic model in between tourism exploitation and landscape decline. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 32(3): 991-1016.

[14]
Jin L. 2023. Study on multi-dimensional development model of rural health tourism. Journal of Shenyang Normal University (Social Science Edition), 47(5): 63-68. (in Chinese)

[15]
Jing X Y, Luo J H. 2013. Construction and application of measurement model for farmers’ happiness index in tourist destinations: Comparative analysis of tourism rural communities in Taining World Heritage Site. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 29(5): 215-220. (in Chinese)

[16]
Kataya A. 2021. The impact of rural tourism on the development of regional communities. Journal of Eastern Europe Research in Business and Economics, 10: 652463. DOI: 10.5171/2021.652463.

[17]
Li H M, Zhang A L. 2013. Ecological environment protection and well-being. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33(3): 825-833. (in Chinese)

[18]
Li X S, Yang Z. 2023. Empirical study on the evaluation of farmers’ welfare in rural tourist attractions. Tourism Research, 15(4): 53-66. (in Chinese)

[19]
Li Z Y, Zhao Y, Cheng D P. 2009. Construction of an evaluation system for the happiness index of residents in tourist destinations. Journal of Commercial Economics, 28(29): 104-106. (in Chinese)

[20]
Lin Z F. 2020. A review of research on farmers’ welfare. Rural Science and Technology, 11(24): 46-48. (in Chinese)

[21]
Liu D, Chen H, Zhang J, et al. 2023. Objective well-being assessment of villages in loess hilly and gully areas and its impact on farmers’ subjective well-being: A case study of Mizhi County, Shaanxi Province. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 43(3): 530-540. (in Chinese)

DOI

[22]
Liu R. 2020. The state-led tourism development in Beijing’s ecologically fragile periphery: Peasants’ response and challenges. Habitat International, 96: 102119. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102119.

[23]
Ma W T, Hu J. 2024. Enhancing people’s livelihood and welfare through ecological civilization in the new era: Generating logic, value implications, and strengthening paths. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (Social Sciences), 23(1): 1-10. (in Chinese)

[24]
Ma X F, Sun Y. 2024. Research on the adaptation relationship between tourism industry development and people’s livelihood welfare: A case study of Zhangjiajie. Tourism Science, 38(6): 1-19. (in Chinese)

[25]
Ma X L, Wang R, Dai M L, et al. 2021. The influence of culture on the sustainable livelihoods of households in rural tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(8): 1235-1252.

[26]
Mansor N A, Rusli S A, Abd Razak N F, et al. 2021. Over-development in rural tourism: Tourism impact, local community satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Rigeo, 11(10): 262-271.

[27]
Mansperger M. 1995. Tourism and cultural change in small-scale societies. Human Organization, 54(1): 87-94.

[28]
Naidoo P, Sharpley R. 2016. Local perceptions of the relative contributions of enclave tourism and agritourism to community well-being: The case of Mauritius. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1): 16-25.

[29]
Nicely A, Sydnor S. 2015. Rural tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 54(6): 717-729.

[30]
Nurlena N, Taufiq R, Musadad M. 2021. The socio-cultural impacts of rural tourism development: A case study of Tanjung tourist village in Sleman Regency. Jurnal Kawistara, 11(1): 62-74.

[31]
Qin Y C. 2015. Analysis of the conceptual connotation and relationship between welfare, welfare, and social welfare. Henan Social Sciences, 23(9): 112-116, 124. (in Chinese)

[32]
Rasoolimanesh S M, Ringle C M, Jaafar M, et al. 2017. Urban vs. rural destinations: Residents’ perceptions, community participation and support for tourism development. Tourism Management, 60: 147-158.

[33]
Saxena G, Clark G, Oliver T, et al. 2007. Conceptualizing integrated rural tourism. Tourism Geographies, 9(4): 347-370.

[34]
Sheng S Q. 2017. Analysis of people's livelihood from the perspective of the “Five Major Development Concepts”. Tribune of Study, 33(8): 13-16. (in Chinese)

[35]
Su M M, Wall G, Wang Y N, et al. 2019. Livelihood sustainability in a rural tourism destination—Hetu Town, Anhui Province, China. Tourism Management, 71: 272-281.

[36]
Su M M, Wall G, Xu K. 2016. Heritage tourism and livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural community: Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(5): 735-757.

[37]
Summers J K, Smith L M, Case J L, et al. 2012. A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. AMBIO, 41(4): 327-340.

DOI PMID

[38]
Tan X W, Wu G B. 2014. New advances in welfare measurement theory and practice: Overview of the international forum on “Welfare measurement and policy applications under the background of accelerating urbanization”. Chinese Rural Economy, (9): 87-96. (in Chinese)

[39]
Tang M Y, Xu H Z. 2023. Cultural integration and rural tourism development: A scoping literature review. Tourism and Hospitality, 4(1): 75-90.

[40]
Van Ootegem L, Spillemaeckers S. 2010. With a focus on well-being and capabilities. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(3): 384-390.

[41]
Veenhoven R. 2000. Well-being in the welfare state: Level not higher, distribution not more equitable. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2(1): 91-125.

[42]
Wang H H, Sha H X. 2022. Research on entrepreneurial motivation of rural tourism operators from the perspective of rural revitalization. Journal of Shenyang Normal University (Social Science Edition), 46(4): 21-28. (in Chinese)

[43]
Wang S Y, Luo Y T, Han Y J, et al. 2018. The evolution of regional disparity of human well being in China and its influencing factors: Based on the human development index (HDI). Progress in Geography, 37(8): 1150-1158. (in Chinese)

[44]
Wu X D, Zeng C. 2024. Media practice and theoretical logic of creating differentiated space tourism brands—An example of Harbin of Heilongjiang Province. Journal of Shenyang Normal University (Social Science Edition), 48(5): 83-88. (in Chinese)

[45]
Xi J P. 2017. Secure a decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects and strive for the great success of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era—Report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. Party Building, 30(11): 15-34. (in Chinese)

[46]
Xing Z J. 2006. Construction and tracking research of the index system for happiness index. Data, (8): 10-12. (in Chinese)

[47]
Xu X C, Ren X, Tang M W. 2020. Construction of China’s balanced development index indicator System. Statistical Research, 37(2): 3-14. (in Chinese)

[48]
Xue G X, Zhi L. 2020. Literature review on the relationship between ecological environment protection and farmers’ welfare. Forest Inventory and Planning, 45(1): 106-110, 149. (in Chinese)

[49]
Yang J, Phan M. 2022. Study on the impact of rural tourism behavior development on ecological environment in Zhejiang Province. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 22(1): 4160868. DOI: 10.1155/2022/4160868.

[50]
Yang Q, Li J, Tang Y. 2022. The dilemma of the great development of rural tourism from the sustainable environment perspective. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 14(1): 7195813. DOI: 10.1155/2022/7195813.

[51]
Zhang J, Cheng L. 2019. Tourism development and resident happiness: A system dynamics perspective. Tourism Tribune, 34(8): 12-24. (in Chinese)

[52]
Zhang Y, Li L. 2021. Empirical study on the relationship between tourism development and rural residents’ happiness: A case study of Yangchangshou Village in Jinhu, Zepu, Xinjiang. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 49(18): 135-139, 143. (in Chinese)

[53]
Zhu Y F, He D, Fan Z J. 2023. Factors influencing the happiness of residents in rural tourist destinations and their pathways of action. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 43(9): 1598-1607. (in Chinese)

[54]
Zorondo-Rodriguez F, Grau-Satorras M, Kalla J, et al. 2016. Contribution of natural and economic capital to subjective well-being: Empirical evidence from a small-scale society in Kodagu (Karnataka), India. Social Indicators Research, 127(2): 919-937.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉