Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Rural areas are rich in natural and cultural heritage and continuously attract new settlers and tourists worldwide. With heritage management and tourism development, rural gentrification in these areas has changed the social structure and appearance of specific villages. Heritage-led rural gentrification has remained largely unexplored. To understand the heritage–village relationship in heritage-led rural gentrification areas, this paper proposes an analytical framework for evaluating their relationship and constructs a set of quantitative evaluation indicators from spatial, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions, which is applied to the Badaling section of the Great Wall in China. This study quantifies the degree of correlation between the 15 villages and heritage. The findings indicate that the relationship between heritage and adjacent villages is influenced by many factors, including the distance between villages and the Great Wall, the mature scenic area, transportation conditions, online effects of social media, self-development ability, and state power. Although the spatial relationship is determined by historical factors that are currently unchangeable, the socio-economic and cultural relationships are more influenced by villages’ current development conditions. This study enhances the understanding of heritage–village relationship in heritage-led rural gentrification areas, which is helpful for understanding the synergy between heritage and rural communities worldwide.

Keywords

cultural heritage heritage-led rural gentrification heritage-village relationship sustainable development synergy

Introduction

The concept of gentrification is derived from (Glass, 1964) which initially described the influx of middle-class individuals into working-class London inner-city neighborhoods along with the results of social classes succession, housing renovation, and landscape changes. The above “classic gentrification” has involved complicatedly during the past years worldwide as its connotations are constantly generalizing and types are diversified highly under specific local contexts. Meanwhile, scholars generally agree that the essence of gentrification is the reconstruction of social space due to the succession of social classes. According to the geographical location where gentrification occurs, it can be classified into inner-city gentrification (Ley, 1986), suburban gentrification (Markley, 2018), and rural gentrification (Phillips, 1993). From the perspective of key resources that induce gentrification, it can be classified into educational gentrification (Smith et al., 2012), tourism gentrification (Gotham, 2005), green gentrification (Maia et al., 2020), transit-induced gentrification (Yoo et al., 2024), heritage-fueled gentrification (Grevstad-Nordbrock and Vojnovic, 2019), and so on. So rural gentrification can be conceptualized as gentrification that occurs in rural areas. Heritage-led gentrification or tourism-led gentrification can be conceptualized as gentrification which is mainly driven by heritage or tourism.

Although the concept of gentrification originated in the inner city, Parsons (1980) early on observed the phenomenon of gentrification in Britain rural areas and more researchers focused on it after 1990s. Now rural gentrification has become a worldwide process, changing the spatial, social, economic, and cultural characteristics of traditional rural communities (Gosnell and Abrams, 2011; Guimond and Simiard, 2010; Hoggart, 1997; Smith and Higley, 2012; Woods, 2007). It has been discussed in many countries such as Britain, the USA, Spain, Turkey, Russia, Mexico, and China (Ghose, 2004; Gocer et al., 2021; González, 2017; Li et al., 2024; Lorenzen, 2021; Mamonova and Sutherland, 2015; Nelson and Nelson, 2011; Solana-Solana, 2010; Stockdale, 2010). Recently, it has often been placed in the discussion of urban-rural relations from “planetary” perspectives (Qian et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2023). Although the four major shifts in the rural class structure, rural capital accumulation process, composition of rural housing stock, and agents of rural change are four key characteristics of rural gentrification (Darling, 2005), the connotation of rural gentrification is constantly expanding in studies across diverse nations and backgrounds. Focusing on class substitution in rural gentrification has evolved to encompass greater economic, cultural, and capital advantages, displacing indigenous populations to drive rural gentrification processes. Moreover, some studies argue that rural gentrification normally implies the co-existence of newcomers and long-term residents, alongside the transformation of pre-existing socio-economic and cultural conditions (Hines, 2010).

Rural gentrification in China and the West has different conditions, characteristics, driving mechanisms, and effects. For the formation conditions, land is privately owned and the population flows freely in the West, but China has unique collective land ownership system, lack of legal protection for rural housing rental, inadequate infrastructure, and the deficit of the middle class all make it hard for rural gentrification to take place on a large scale (Li et al., 2024). For the characteristics, unlike the population displacement of Anglocentric gentrification, rural gentrification in China is the process of diversified social groups moving from urban to rural areas for specific cultural experiences or residential needs and using economic capital to promote the reconstruction of rustic social space, which are often connected with new-build gentrification. For the driving mechanisms, from the perspective of production and consumption, market-oriented factors can be seen as a way of revaluing rural resources and space, such as real estate development (Smith, 2002), arts (Qian et al., 2013), and tourism (Ma and Su, 2024). There are also state-embedded institutional factors (Zhu et al., 2022) such as policies, mega development projects (Huebscher, 2021), and national heritage management (Chan et al., 2016). Capital supply as rent gap or cultural demand are the main driving force in Anglo-American countries while China’s bottom-up rural gentrification is more motiveless than the Anglo-American-centric one. In China, rural gentrification for the effects or impacts, Lorenzen (2021) argued that rural gentrification brought direct residential displacement or other forms of displacement in cases of the United Kingdom, North America, and Latin America and Mexico. Scholars often use a critical or negative context to describe the consequences of rural gentrification as inequality or injustice. However, China’s rural gentrification has assumed more positive and mainly from a geographical standpoint, with a focus on promoting rural revitalization in China (Tan and Zhou, 2022).

Despite rural gentrification is continuously taking place and attracting attention, the role of heritage in this process has hardly been explored in scholarly research worldwide. There is still little understanding of the multifaceted factors of heritage in promoting and changing rural communities. Under rural gentrification background, heritage and tourism are important factors which promote rural gentrification greatly in China. In fact, heritage and tourism are often intertwined and inseparable. Today policymakers worldwide assume that heritage and culture are resources that can stimulate local socio-economic development especially via tourism and that the creative classes foster creative economies that are locally-tuned and sustainable over the long term (Cesari and Dimova, 2019). Regenerated historic neighborhoods are usually prime real estate values and destinations of global tourism, especially if designated as World Heritage sites. Heritage-led gentrification is an important phenomenon especially in urban areas (Arkaraprasertkul, 2019; Cesari and Dimova, 2019; Zhu and Martínez, 2022). However, rural areas worldwide are rich in natural and cultural heritage, continuously attracting new settlers and tourists. Heritage-led gentrification in rural areas is always accompanied by villages transforming into tourism destinations through the development of leisure and tourism industries (Gao and Wu, 2017; Gocer et al., 2021; Ma and Su, 2024). Heritage-led rural gentrification requires more attention, and the differentiation of rural communities remains largely unexplored. The heritage-led transformation of rural areas has significant implications for local inhabitants. It is also changing the social and cultural behaviors of rural residents. Meanwhile, research has focused more on the gentrification of a single village (Gocer et al., 2021; González, 2017; Qian et al., 2013) and there is a lack of comparison of multiple cases. The comparison between multiple villages is more helpful in understanding the heritage–village relationship.

Against the background of heritage-led rural gentrification, this paper aims to fill the above gap in mainstream gentrification literature through empirical evidence from a rural town in World Heritage site and aims to explore the heritage–village relationship within the context of China. In China, more complicated factors are embedded in rural gentrification, unlike Anglo-American-centric cases (Li et al., 2024). This study considers the Great Wall and its adjacent villages as cases, constructing a correlation model and evaluation system to evaluate their relationships from both historical and contemporary perspectives. This study explores how the Great Wall and surrounding villages are interconnected differently, the extent to which this connection exists, and the factors influencing heritage-led rural gentrification. The Great Wall in China is a World Cultural Heritage site with a great influence in the world. It stretches across 15 provinces and municipalities, predominantly located in mountainous areas in North China, and is a significant representative of China’s linear cultural heritage. Broadly, linear cultural heritage encompasses diverse heritage elements. The walls are the main physical body and function-related elements. The whole military defense system also includes watchtowers, crenelated parapets, beacon towers, horse barriers, moats, quarries, brick and tile kilns, stone carvings, soldiers’ tombs, military settlements, and natural landscapes such as mountains, rivers, and lakes. The relationship between the Great Wall and the adjacent villages mainly refers to the main physical body of the Great Wall. The conclusions and implications drawn from this study will promote the coordination of rural communities’ development and cultural heritage protection to achieve sustainable rural gentrification in the future.

Heritage-led rural gentrification and an analytical framework

Heritage-led rural gentrification

From the perspective of the location where it occurred, heritage-led gentrification in urban areas has usually been associated with regeneration. If heritage-led regeneration is increasingly remaking cities, its outcomes are not predetermined: empirical evidence points not to development for all but rather to evictions, displacements, and growing racial and class inequalities (Cesari and Herzfeld, 2015; Zukin, 2010). Heritage gentrification is rooted in capital accumulation in the West similarly, but it is inseparable from the cultural process and heritage discourse. Heritage-led gentrification in rural areas has been largely overlooked by scholars. González (2017) examined the relationship between heritage and rural gentrification through the case study of a village in Spain founding that heritage plays a key role on the refurbishing of houses and changes in the social spaces of villages, and the transformation of social life and rituals into metacultural discourses of heritage. Compared with western countries, China’s heritagization pays more attention to national discourse, the reorganization of social order and the reshaping of cultural identity.

Heritage-led gentrification is always accompanied by tourism gentrification. As a driving force, tourism brings the main forms of displacement as residential, commercial, and place-based, which are reflected in the intensification of land and housing prices and the expansion of hospitality services, such as restaurants, nightclubs, and retail facilities (Cocola-Gant, 2018). Hines (2010) argues that rural gentrification is also a form of “permanent tourism.” Tourism in rural areas is often based on rich architectural and cultural heritage, including natural resources, agricultural activities, and festivals (Kizos and Losifidas, 2007). Cultural heritage, as an important tourist attraction, causes some rural areas to become popular destinations. Therefore, heritage-led rural gentrification requires further research. There are spatial, economic transformation, culture and lifestyle changes in the heritage-led rural gentrification areas. Gocer et al. (2021) documented the transformation of a historical village in Turkey. At the same time, heritage management in cultural heritage recovery can change rural populations, leading to tourism development, the creation of job sources, innovation projects, entrepreneurship, revitalized rural development, enhanced community culture identity, and social capital (Quintana et al., 2022). However, at the same heritage site, the development of adjacent rural communities is different, uneven, and imbalanced. However, this phenomenon has not attracted much attention from researchers.

It should be recognized that heritage-led rural gentrification occurs frequently in a wider global context. The national government’s role in heritage preservation and management has also promoted gentrification (Grevstad-Nordbrock and Vojnovic, 2019) such as the cornerstone program, which is the National Register of Historic Places (hereafter, National Register) in the USA and the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty in Britain. In China, with an emphasis on heritage preservation in recent years, building a series of National Cultural Parks was first proposed in 2017, and the Great Wall, Grand Canal, Long March Route, Yellow River, and Yangtze River were first designated. The National Cultural Parks encompass linear cultural heritage and its surrounding natural environments, historical relics, traditional settlements, and intangible cultural heritage, emphasizing the holistic protection and integrated development of natural and cultural heritage. Therefore, heritage-led rural gentrification has been underway in China in recent years.

The linear cultural heritage and adjacent villages

Linear cultural heritage is similar with international concepts such as historical trails, cultural routes, heritage corridors and heritage routes (Oikonomopoulou et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2023). The international heritage conservation concept has evolved from focusing on the preservation of physical objects to prioritizing a more comprehensive approach to community participation, residents, and the overall environment where heritage exists (Meskell, 2019). There has been growing attention paid to these heritages as tools capable of promoting sustainable development, especially in rural areas (Suárez et al., 2025). Suárez et al. (2025) thought that pilgrimage routes which are cultural heritages could be traversed by thousands of people, but their impact was felt almost exclusively in places situated directly along the paths. In fact, there are extensive rural regions along linear cultural heritage that are associated with many villages in history and at present.

Under state-oriented policies of heritage protection and local tourism development, rural communities near cultural heritages experience rural gentrification in China. As linear cultural heritage has a belt-like shape, unlike dotted and area-shaped heritage, rural communities along it possess different development resources, showing different development statuses. It is certain that heritage resources are the core driving force of rural gentrification in these communities. The relationship between heritage and community such as industry development, residents’ attitudes toward these heritages, their conservation behaviors, and participation level in heritage protection, is an effective approach to understanding the heritage-led rural gentrification process.

While existing studies have examined the relationships between cultural heritage and its surrounding environments and settlements (Jiang et al., 2024), research is more concerned with spatial relationships from geographical and architectural aspects, such as how heritage influences the distribution and architectural patterns of adjacent villages during historical periods (Yang et al., 2024). In fact, only by combining history and the present to observe the heritage–village relationship can we better understand the present heritage-led rural gentrification process. Katapidi (2021) also found the heritage of “modern” and rural Greece had only recently received serious attention. We focus too much on the past and not enough on the present (Herzfeld, 2019; Garden, 2006). Cultural heritage has been inherited from past generations and is currently maintained. It is also necessary to understand heritage–village relationship in history and at present (Harvey, 2001) to promote rural revitalization. Although some studies advocate for the co-development of cultural heritages and surrounding villages (Su and Wall, 2014), the interactive mechanisms between them remain unclear.

As for the Great Wall, villages along are settlements or communities located near it and have been greatly affected by their establishment and evolution. These villages have significant and multifaceted relationships with it as geographical, socio-economic, and cultural no matter in history or at present. Historically, the construction of the Great Wall defensive system has led to the construction of military encampments, passes, and fortified settlements, many of which have eventually grown into permanent villages at present (Cao and Zhang, 2018; Xiao et al., 2022). Numerous villages surrounding the Great Wall have developed tourism industries and have attracted visitors worldwide now (Tang et al., 2023). When exploring the relationship between the Great Wall and adjacent villages, it mainly refers to adjacent villages geographically near the main physical body of the Great Wall.

An analytical framework: The heritage–village relationship

Within the aggregation of linear cultural heritage, the main physical body is its core element, while villages along the physical body of linear cultural heritage are directly related to human daily life. Both the core heritage elements and the adjacent villages are not only material spatial entities in specific regions but also parts of social spaces. Spatial sociology provides an appropriate perspective to explore the heritage–village relationship. Sociologists including Émile Durkheim, Georg Simmel, Henri Lefebvre, David Harvey, Edward Soja, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Anthony Giddens have proposed theories on space and society (Frehse, 2021). These theories incorporate social phenomena into a three-dimensional framework of time, space, and society, and integrate phenomenology into sociology. The research paradigm of sociology has evolved from traditional structural analysis to spatial theory, focusing on diverse dimensions such as geographical space, social space, representational space, and cyberspace (Gans, 2002; Phillips, 2004).

Spatial sociology advocates the triadic logic of “time-space-society,” indicating that society, history, and space are closely interconnected. It reveals the interactional processes of time, space, and society in the dimensions of temporality, synchronicity, and diachronicity. Based on the above spatial sociology theories and cultural geography perspectives, this study constructs an analytical framework that provides insights and perspectives for better understanding and structuring the heritage–village relationship (Figure 1). Spatial dimension reflects the objective potential and possibility of heritage to promote rural gentrification. The stronger the spatial connection, the higher the attention paid by urban people attracted by the heritage to the village. Socio-economic dimension reflects the degree of heritage touristification and gentrification in present village. The stronger the socio-economic connection, the greater the change in the rural landscape and the more complex the population structure. Cultural dimension reflects the extent to which the traditional culture of the rural community is preserved and how residents and outsiders view heritage. The stronger the cultural connection, the better the community recognizes and preserves the heritage.

Figure 1.

The analytical framework for understanding the heritage–village relationship.

Correlation index evaluation system

Based on the literature review and analytical framework above and in order to evaluate the heritage–village relationship quantitatively, this study chose the Great Wall of China as a research object to construct a correlation index evaluation system from spatial, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions (Table 1).

Table 1.

The correlation index evaluation system to evaluate the heritage–village relationship.

Dimension	Indicator	Interpretation
Spatial	Spatial distance	The closest distance between the main physical body of the Great Wall and the main settlements in village at present
	Historical defense function	The status of village in the military defense system of the Great Wall in history as border town, fortified castle, fortress, defensive village, ordinary village
	Heritage protection area	The proportion of the heritage protection area in the total administrative area of the village at present
Socio-economic	Industrial development	Number of industries related to the Great Wall (including homestays, restaurants, shops, hotels, scenic spots, etc.) in village at present
	Related employment	The proportion of labor employment related to the Great Wall in the total permanent population of village at present
	Visitor arrivals	The level of annual visitors to village as a great many, many, average, few, almost none at present
Cultural	Tangible cultural heritage	The type of tangible cultural heritages related to the Great Wall (including ancient walls, beacon towers, castle ruins, other related buildings, and inscriptions) in village at present
	Intangible cultural heritage	The type of intangible cultural heritages related to the Great Wall (including folk, festival, legend, story, and figures) in village at present
	Contemporary cultural activity	The number of contemporary cultural activities related to the Great Wall held in village in recent one year, such as artistic performances, handicraft workshops, cultural lectures and seminars, photography and art exhibitions
	Cultural identity	The identify of village residents on the relationship between the Great Wall and village at present
	Heritage management	The number of staffs and volunteers in village who are responsible for the protection and management of the Great Wall at present
	Brand impact	The number of notes related to village and the Great Wall simultaneously in Weibo, Xiaohongshu, Dianping, Douyin, and other online social media apps in recent one year
	Educational base	The number of educational bases related to the Great Wall in village at present

In the spatial dimension, the evaluation focused on three indicators: spatial distance, historical defense function, and heritage protection area. The spatial distance directly reflects the physical spatial relationship between the Great Wall and nearby villages. Historically, some villages were built adjacent to the Great Wall integrating into the military defense system, while others were at a certain distance from the Great Wall in order to engage in agriculture on fertile land and support defense rapidly when necessary. Currently, villages closer to the Great Wall have greater opportunities for tourism development. The historical defense function is a crucial aspect of the spatial dimension. As the Great Wall has served as a military frontier in history, adjacent villages provided military supports and supplies, and especially those near passes often functioned as fortresses (Du et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023). According to the Great Wall’s defensive system, these villages can be categorized into different levels, such as border town, fortified castles, and fortresses. There were also defensive villages used for stationed troops and ordinary villages that were not directly related to the Great Wall’s defense function. The heritage protection area indicates national conservation strategies for both the Great Wall and its surrounding villages at present, highlighting their close relationship as a unified heritage entity.

In the socio-economic dimension, the study selects three indicators: industrial development, related employment, and visitor arrivals. This dimension evaluates the relationships between villages’ socio-economic development and heritage from a contemporary perspective. Some villages have been revitalized by heritage tourism associated with the Great Wall through tourism activities such as dining, accommodation, and entertainment, reflecting the dependency of village industries on the Great Wall. Heritage tourism provides diverse employment opportunities for residents and outsiders, including jobs as guides, park managers, transportation providers, and service staff at restaurants and hotels. The related employment becomes a primary source of income for many villagers and newcomers (Su and Wall, 2014). Visitor arrivals to villages not only bring direct economic benefits, but also foster social interactions between villagers and tourists, highlighting the social role of the Great Wall as a cultural heritage in modern society.

In the cultural dimension, the evaluation focuses on tangible and intangible cultural heritage, contemporary cultural activity, cultural identity, heritage management, brand impact, and educational base. Existing tangible cultural heritage in adjacent villages, such as ancient walls and beacon towers, and intangible cultural heritage such as folk stories, legends, figures, festivals, and customs related to the Great Wall, are not only parts of the military defense system but also reflect the village’s history and culture directly. These heritages reflect the interactive history between villages and the Great Wall, demonstrating their inseparable relationships in history and at present (Lin et al., 2022). Contemporary cultural activities held in villages, such as the Great Wall Festival and related art exhibitions, represent innovative efforts based on heritage preservation, demonstrating the modern vitality of the Great Wall and strengthening the cultural link between villages and the Great Wall. Villagers’ cultural identity (Li et al., 2021) in the relationship between their villages and the Great Wall reflects their emotional attachment and identity. Heritage management, such as villagers’ involvement in the protection and management of the Great Wall, reflects contemporary community responsibilities and participation in cultural heritage conservation. Brand impact focuses on the online dissemination of information about villages and the Great Wall, reflecting cultural relationships from a cyberspace perspective at present. Educational bases in villages now provide platforms for visitors to understand the Great Wall in depth, reinforcing the cultural bond between the Great Wall and villages. These evaluation indicators form a comprehensive assessment system for measuring the cultural correlation between the Great Wall and its surrounding villages.

Study area and methods

Description of the study area and data collection

The Ming Great Wall, as an ancient military defense project of China and a globally renowned World Cultural Heritage, stretches from Liaoning Province in the east to Gansu Province in the west, traversing multiple provinces in northern China. The section of the Great Wal in Beijing, characterized by its well-preserved status, tourism facilities, spectacular landscape, and convenient transportation, attracts numerous domestic and international tourists every year. Sites such as Badaling, Mutianyu, and Gubeikou sections have become iconic tourist destinations and have experienced rural gentrification in recent years. Yanqing District, which is in the northwest of Beijing, has the longest walls of the Ming Great Wall and the most intact defense system among all administrative districts, making it a representative area of the Great Wall. The Badaling Town in Yanqing District, where the walls of the Ming Great Wall are most densely distributed, is particularly significant and was chosen as the case study area (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The map of the study area.

Badaling Town has 15 administrative villages as shown in Table 2. Most of these villages have a long history of hundreds of years, with settlements located close to the Great Wall in space. Historically, these villages were closely linked to the Great Wall, and they continue to maintain social, economic, and cultural ties with it in contemporary times. In recent years, Badaling Town has relied on the Great Wall and integrated its cultural resources into heritage and rural tourism to promote local community development and attract many newcomers. Therefore, choosing the Great Wall and adjacent villages in Badaling Town as the research area provides a typical example for exploring heritage–village relationships in heritage-led rural gentrification areas, offering significant theoretical and practical value.

Table 2.

The villages’ basic information.

Name	Establishment time	Permanent resident population at present
Yingchengze Village	Ming Dynasty	1,268
Xibozi Village	Ming Dynasty	487
Chadao Village	Ming Dynasty	1,276
Dongcaoying Village	Twentieth century	773
Xiaofutuo Village	Ming Dynasty	439
Chengjiayao Village	Qing Dynasty	514
Dafutuo Village	Ming Dynasty	1,251
Shixia Village	Ming Dynasty	138
Donggou Village	Ming Dynasty	242
Nanyuan Village	Qing Dynasty	320
Shifosi Village	Ming Dynasty	340
Sanpu Village	Jin Dynasty	86
Waipao Village	Ming Dynasty	244
Lipao Village	Ming Dynasty	1,120
Bangshuiyu Village	Yuan Dynasty	535

The research group collected relevant data through fieldwork from September to November 2024. During this period, 291 questionnaires were distributed and 20 interviews were conducted with village administrators, residents, tourism operators and so on, providing a comprehensive dataset for analysis. Questionnaires and interviews did not cover personal information and privacy. No ethical approval was required in this research. The verbal informed consent for participation in the study has been obtained.

Data analysis methods

To ensure that the evaluation indicator system accurately reflects the heritage–village relationship, this study assigned weights to each indicator. Using the Delphi method, this study conducted consultations with 15 experts across various disciplines including urban and rural planning, cultural heritage conservation, tourism development, geography, ecology, and sociology. These experts were invited to evaluate the importance of each dimension via both electronic and paper-based surveys in which experts provided ratings for the indicators. Based on the feedback, the study established the average weights for each evaluation dimension and indicator (Table 3).

Table 3.

The weight of the indicators, the source of the data and the method of assignment in the evaluation index system between the Great Wall and adjacent villages.

Dimension	Weight	Indicators	Weight	Source	Assignment method
Spatial	0.337	Spatial distance	0.126	Geographic remote sensing data and fieldwork	Distance = 0 km, 5 points; 0 km < distance ⩽ 0.5 km, 4 points; 0.5 < km distance ⩽ 1 km, 3 points; 1 km < distance ⩽ 1.5 km, 2 points; distance > 1.5 km, 1 point
		Historical defense function	0.109	Historical document and fieldwork	Border town, 5 points; fortified castle, 4 points; fortress, 3 points; defensive village, 2 points; ordinary village, 1 point
		Heritage protection area	0.101	Geographic remote sensing data and official document	Proportion > 80%, 5 points; 60% < proportion ⩽ 80%, 4 points; 40% < proportion ⩽ 60%, 3 points; 20% < proportion ⩽ 40%, 2 points; 0 < proportion ⩽ 20%, 1 point; proportion = 0, 0 point
Socio-economic	0.298	Industrial development	0.113	Interview and fieldwork	Number ⩾ 200, 5 points; 100 ⩽ number < 200, 4 points; 50 ⩽ number < 100, 3 points; 10 ⩽ number < 50, 2 points; number < 10，1 point
		Related employment	0.089	Interview and fieldwork	Proportion > 40%, 5 points; 30% < proportion ⩽ 40%, 4 points; 20% < proportion ⩽ 30%, 3 points; 10% < proportion ⩽ 20, 2 points; 0 < proportion ⩽ 10%, 1 point
		Visitor Arrivals	0.095	Interview and fieldwork	A great many, 5 points; many, 4 points; average, 3 points; few, 2 points; almost none, 1 point
Cultural	0.365	Tangible cultural heritage	0.068	Historical document, interview, and fieldwork	Type = 5, 5 points; type = 4, 4 points; type = 3, 3 points; type = 2, 2 points; type = 1, 1 point; type = 0, 0 point
		Intangible cultural heritage	0.055	Historical document, interview, and fieldwork	Type = 5, 5 points; type = 4, 4 points; type = 3, 3 points; type = 2, 2 points; type = 1, 1 point; type = 0, 0 point
		Contemporary cultural activity	0.057	Interview and fieldwork	Each activity is worth 1 point, and the full score is 5 points
		Cultural identity	0.055	Questionnaire	The average value was calculated by assigning points to Likert five-component scale
		Heritage management	0.052	Interview	Number > 20, 5 points; 15 < number ⩽ 20; 4 points; 10 < number ⩽ 15，3 points; 5 < number ⩽ 10, 2 points; 0 < number ⩽ 5，1 point; number = 0, 0 point
		Brand impact	0.044	Online data	Number ⩾ 200, 5 points; 100 ⩽ number < 200, 4 points; 50 ⩽ number < 100, 3 points; 10 ⩽ number < 50, 2 points; number < 10, 1 point
		Educational base	0.034	Interview and fieldwork	Each base is worth 1 point, and the full score is 5 points

Table 3 lists the sources of data used for each evaluation indicator, categorizing them into three main types: factual statistical, survey, and spatial analysis data. Specific data collection methods included historical documents, field surveys, interviews, questionnaires, and geographic remote sensing data. Simultaneously, it is crucial to establish a reasonable scoring standardization method. Given that the indicators encompassed both quantitative and qualitative data, and considering the limited number of village samples, the extreme value standardization method is not suitable for this study. Therefore, an assignment scoring method was applied to standardize all obtained data. Each indicator had a clearly defined evaluation criterion and was scored on a scale of 0 to 5. The scores were then divided by 5 to calculate the standardized score for each indicator.

To calculate the overall relationship, a multi-objective linear weighted function was employed for the spatial, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions. The formula used for this calculation was as follows:

T = \sum_{i}^{n} (W_{i} S_{i})

$T$ is the total correlation score. $W_{i}$ are the weights assigned to the spatial, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions respectively. These weights reflected the relative importance of each dimension in the overall evaluation. $S_{i}$ represents the standardized scores for the spatial, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions. The total correlation index $T$ is distributed within the interval [0, 1] and can be used to evaluate the strength of the relationship (Table 4).

Table 4.

Evaluation standards for total correlation index T.

Range of T	[0,0.2)	[0.2,0.4)	[0.4,0.6)	[0.6,0.8)	[0.8,1)
Strength	Very week	weak	Moderate	Strong	Very Strong

Results and influencing factors

The total correlation results

According to the total correlation results (Figure 3), villages in Badaling Town have a significant difference in their relationship with the Great Wall. The total correlation index ranges from 0.264 to 0.758. Among these villages, Chadao has the closest ties to the Great Wall and Shixia ranks second. Both have a strong relationship as shown in Table 4. Shifosi, Xibozi, Lipao, Bangshuiyu, Nanyuan, Chengjiayao, Yingchengzi, and Donggou have a total correlation index greater than 0.4, indicating moderate relationships. In contrast, Sanpu, Waipao, Xiaofuduo, and Dongcaoying demonstrated weaker relationships with the Great Wall, and Dafuduo had the weakest ties to the Great Wall.

Figure 3.

The total correlation between the Great Wall and adjacent villages.

The values of the spatial correlation index range from 0.069 to 0.315. Chadao has the highest spatial correlation value, followed by Yinchengzi, Shifosi, Xibozi, and Lipao. In contrast, Dongcaoying and Dafutuo have lower spatial correlation degrees both below 0.1, while the remaining villages are distributed within the range of 0.1 to 0.2. In terms of socio-economic correlation, the index values range from 0.082 to 0.279. Chadao and Nanyuan show values greater than 0.2, whereas Yinchengzi and Dafutuo have values lower than 0.1. Other villages lie within the range of 0.1 to 0.2. Regarding cultural correlation, the values range from 0.068 to 0.318. Shixia has the highest value, while Waipao, Nanyuan, Sanbao, Xiaofutuo, and Dongcaoying have values below 0.1. The remaining villages have values between 0.1 and 0.2.

Results of the spatial correlation indicators and influencing factors

The results of the three spatial correlation indicators, some pictures of villages, and their closer spatial relationships with the Great Wall are shown (Figures 4 and 5). The main physical body of the Great Wall passes through or is directly adjacent to the settlements of Chadao, Yinchengzi, Shifosi, and Xibozi, so they have the highest scores in spatial distance. According to historical records, Chadao functioned as a fortified castle in the Great Wall’s defense system and held the highest rank among all villages in the historical defense function indicator. Yingchengzi, Shixia, and Shifosi functioned as fortresses along the Great Wall. Xibozi, Xiaofutuo, Dafutuo, Lipao, Waipao, and Bangshuiyu functioned as defensive villages along the Great Wall. Others were ordinary villages in history. The government delineates protection zones for all cultural heritage sites to ensure their preservation and management, which are called “heritage protection areas” now in China. For the proportion of heritage protection areas in the administrative area of a whole village, Chadao, Donggou, and Nanyuan have higher values. Dongcaoying and Dafutuo do not involve the protection area of the Great Wall.

Figure 4.

The results of the spatial correlation indicators.

Figure 5.

Some villages and their closer spatial relationships with the Great Wall. (a) Ancient castle gate in Chadao Village. (b) Old wall ruins in Chadao Village. (c) Shuiguan Great Wall Scenic Area entrance in Shifosi Village. (d) The wall ruins in Shifosi Village. (e) The wall ruins in Xibozi Village. (f) The terrain of the pass in Shixia Village.

Historically, the border town was larger in scale than the fortified castle and located further from the Great Wall, which facilitated agriculture and supply of resources. The fortified castle was smaller in scale and situated closer to the Great Wall to detect the military situation in time. Fortress was an important gateway point near the pass. Chadao ranked highest in terms of its fortified function and the closer distance which had the closest relationship to the Great Wall in history.

Results of the socio-economic correlation indicators and influencing factors

The results of the three socio-economic correlation indicators, some pictures of villages, and their closer socio-economic relationships with the Great Wall are shown (Figures 6 and 7). Chadao ranks first as an industrial development indicator. It has more than 100 homestays and the homestay operators include both local villagers and outsiders. Chadao is located near the Badaling Great Wall Scenic Area. If visitors want to travel to the Badaling Great Wall Scenic Area, they must pass through Chadao. Chadao also attracts many tourists by utilizing its preserved ancient castle. The development of tourism in Chadao has been significantly driven by convenient traffic conditions and well-preserved historical artifacts and structures, which offer visitors a rich cultural experience. Xibozi has more than 50 homestays, restaurants, and shops because of its convenient traffic conditions adjacent to the Jingli Highway. Along the Jingli Expressway, there are a row of restaurants providing convenient dining options for travelers. Shifosi also has more than 50 homestays, restaurants and shops because it is adjacent to the gate of the Shuiguan Great Wall Scenic Area. There are also some relics in Shifosi so there is a tourism need for industrial development. Sanpu has fewer than 10 accommodation facilities because of its small population which is less than 100 and its remote location, which is inconvenient for visitors. However, the tranquility and sparse population of Sanbao have become one of its advantages, as their homestays attract visitors each year who seek a quiet environment.

Figure 6.

The results of the socio-economic correlation indicators.

Figure 7.

Some pictures of villages and their closer socio-economic relationships with the Great Wall. (a) Homestays in Chadao Village. (b) The tourism destination of Chadao Village. (c) A commercial street in Xibozi Village. (d) Homestays in Shifosi Village. (e) Homestays in Sanpu Village. (f) Ancient Great Wall Scenic Area in Donggou Village.

As for related employment, Chadao, Sanpo, and Nanyuan have a higher employment proportion related to the Great Wall. These three villages are adjacent to the Great Wall Scenic Area which are Badaling Great Wall Scenic Area, Shuiguan Great Wall Scenic Area, and Ancient Great Wall Scenic Area. Scenic Areas provide more employment opportunities, while nearby villages receive the benefits of developing hospitality services.

As for visitor arrivals, because it is difficult to accurately count the number of tourists in each village every year, the data that were derived from interviews with the members of the village committees were only used as a reference for analysis. This highlights the fact that villages near the Great Wall Scenic Areas, where local industries are thriving, also experience a higher volume of tourists.

Results of the cultural correlation indicators and influencing factors

The results of the seven cultural correlation indicators and some pictures of villages and their closer cultural relationships with the Great Wall are shown (Figures 8 and 9). In the method of assigning scores for cultural heritage, this research provided five types respectively: the walls of the Great Wall, castle ruins, beacon towers, other related buildings of the Great Wall, monumental inscriptions for tangible cultural heritage, and the original legend of the village’s name, historical figures, historical stories, folk and traditional festivals for intangible cultural heritage. The administrative boundaries of each village were used as the statistical range in the classification and documentation of heritage types. Shixia and Chengjiayao have all five types of tangible cultural heritage. Shixiaguan Pass was a very important part of Juyongguan Pass in the Great Wall defense system historically. Currently there are relics of horse stables and stone quarries in this village. It was also said that Li Zicheng once led his troops to break through Shixia Pass and approached to Beijing in late Ming Dynasty. Chengjiayao also has rich brick and tile kilns and steles. There are no relics related to the Great Wall in Dongcaoying which was built in the 20th century and Xiaofutuo. Dongcaoying, Donggou, and Nanyuan have no intangible cultural heritages related to the Great Wall currently. All other villages have original legends of the village’s name. Bangshuiyu also has stories about Lizicheng and some emperor.

Figure 8.

The results of the cultural correlation indicators.

Figure 9.

Some pictures of villages and their closer cultural relationships with the Great Wall. (a) Fortress ruins in Shixia Village. (b) Brick kiln ruin in Shixia Village. (c) Ruins of the Great Wall in Dafutuo Village. (d) Ruins of the Great Wall in Shixia Village. (e) Workshop of artistic steamed bun in Xibozi Village. (f) Educational base in Shixia Village.

For the indicator of contemporary cultural activity, only Shixia has rich activities related to the Great Wall in the last year because President Xi replied a letter of appreciation to villagers in 2024, which brought more attention to it. For decades, the villagers have protected the Great Wall of their own accord, explored its cultural charm, and worked to build their beautiful hometown. As a result, Shixia has recently transformed itself into a popular Internet-famous destination. As activities in other villages, Xibozi has a workshop of artistic steamed buns, Chengjiayao held a children’s painting exhibition about the Great Wall, Shifosi has a permanent dragon dance performance team, Dongcaoying held a Great Wall memorial activity and Bangshuiyu has a Binzi (a kind of apple) workshop. The remaining villages do not have any related activities at present.

For the indicator of cultural identity, the research investigated six questions for the villagers. Shifosi, Shixia, and Chadao had higher values reveals, revealing that the villagers had a stronger sense of identity with the relationship between their villages and the Great Wall, as well as the Great Wall’s culture within their villages.

For the indicator of heritage management, all villages have specialized staff and volunteers responsible for patrolling and managing the Great Wall, ensuring its preservation and proper maintenance. Villages with more relics of the Great Wall have more personnel dedicated to preservation and management. Shixia has the largest number of volunteers, indicating the community’s strong recognition of and contribution to heritage conservation.

For the indicator of brand impact, data were collected from social media platforms including Weibo, Xiaohongshu, Dianping, and Douyin, focusing on the number of notes and posts related to the Great Wall and its surrounding villages that were shared over the past one year. Influenced by social media, Shixia has received the highest level of public attention and has the largest volume of user-generated content compared to other villages such as notes and posts. Online brand impact strongly correlates with tourism development. The bulk of online notes documented tourist check-in behaviors in specific villages, recording the beautiful scenery of the Great Wall and villages, local cuisine, and other aspects of travel experiences.

For the indicator of educational base, Shixia has more educational bases that collaborate with the government, schools, NGOs, and other organizations. Xiaofutuo and Chengjiayao both have an educational base that collaborates with colleges. This indicator reveals that while many villages were historically linked to the Great Wall, they did not effectively integrate their contemporary cultural resources for educational purposes and did not actively participate in promoting the spiritual and cultural values of the Great Wall heritage.

Conclusion and discussion

Conclusion and contribution

The contribution of this article to heritage-led rural gentrification is two-fold. Theoretically, compared with heritage cities, rural gentrification in the context of heritage has received insufficient attention and research, this research aims to understand the differentiated statuses in heritage-led rural gentrification areas by exploring the heritage–village relationship. The research selects case villages in an administrative town which is a World Heritage Site undergoing heritage-led rural gentrification. The analytical framework and correlation index evaluation system built in this study make an effective theoretical contribution to quantifying these relationships. By analyzing the different heritage–village correlations in Badaling Town across various dimensions both in history and at present, an uneven development status among communities is presented. The spatial dimension reflects an direct correlation. According to villages’ present spatial distance, historical defense functions and heritage protection area, it reveals the village with the most potential to integrate culture heritage with tourism for development, which is Chadao. The socio-economic dimension reflects the Great Wall as a cultural heritage that brings opportunities for rural industries, local livelihoods, and new gentrifiers. Chadao and Nanyuan have developed many homestays operated by locals and outsiders. However, on a larger scale from the perspective of the entire town, each village needs different development strategies rather than similar industries. Lipao serves as a good example of self-gentrification and combines fruit picking, children’s entertainment, and holiday industry, which attracts second-home tourists. Cultural dimension is the most fundamental and important in the three dimensions which needs to be improved the most. As a symbolic cultural heritage, the Great Wall and its tangible and intangible heritage along are closely linked as a whole. On one hand, it is very important to raise residents’ awareness and identity regarding heritage protection; on the other hand, it is also important to disseminate the culture of the Great Wall through activities or bases to reach the educational value of heritage. Now only few villages make efforts in cultural communication and heritage education. Against the background of the Great Wall National Cultural Park, it is necessary for the government of Badaling Town to organize rich festivals or activities and help villages cooperate with relevant organizations or social capital. A professional and open practical education base will attract more students and tourists, enhancing cultural revitalization, national identity, and promoting high-quality rural gentrification. All the above will promote the effective cultural connections between heritage and rural communities.

As for the practical contribution, the insight into the heritage–village relationship in this study provided data support and analytical basis for the coordinated protection and development of the Great Wall and adjacent villages, as well as positive rural gentrification and rural revitalization, which is another national strategy in China. Thus there are some practical implications for promoting balanced development among villages. Villages can take appropriate development paths based on their relationships with the Great Wall, combined with their characteristics and resource advantages. Villages that show a strong level of correlation with the Great Wall, such as Chadao and Shixia, should not only strengthen the conservation of both linear cultural heritage and the local heritage in villages, but also play an exemplary role in town, serving as models for others by showing best practices in their tourism and cultural industries under the construction of the National Cultural Park. Villages with moderate levels of correlation could focus on ways to improve their relationships with the Great Wall by excavating distinguishing cultural resources for industries. The spatial relationships are unchangeable for villages, and what they could do is to improve the socio-economic and cultural relationships in the construction process of the National Cultural Park to obtain more national policy supports from government. Villages with weak correlations can look for opportunities for cooperation and development with the above villages or other social capitals based on their other outstanding characteristics, which may have little correlation with the Great Wall. In addition, it is crucial for all villages to place significant emphasis on heritage preservation, improvement of rural infrastructure, and active community participation, ensuring that these efforts are helpful for the rural communities’ sustainable development. By reasonably dealing with the heritage–village relationship, adjacent villages have the potential to achieve balanced economic revitalization, cultural inheritance, and social progress to create relational and planetary rurality.

Limitation and discussion

It should be pointed out that this article has certain limitations. Regarding the Delphi method, the determination of weights in research methods has potential biases arising from the limited expert sample size. It also should be pointed out that the total correlation score here could not be interpreted as the degree of rural gentrification. They only reflect the degree of the association between heritage and village. Another indicator system which may include the proportion of migrant population, changes in land use and landscape, the price of house and so on to measure the degree of rural gentrification can be explored in future research.

In terms of influencing factors, it is also concluded that the distance between villages and heritage, whether it is directly near the mature scenic area, transportation conditions, online effects of social media, self-development ability of rural collective organizations, and state power all affect the heritage-led rural gentrification process. Gentrification has different phases, these village are in different phases as un-gentrification, pre-gentrification, or under-gentrification. Villages with weak connections are generally not gentrified because they have no distinctive features and can’t attract gentrifiers. Villages with stronger connections may be pre-gentrification or under-gentrification. The protection of the Great Wall heritage and the development of tourism attractions draw the attention of urban population to this place and capital investment. Under the unified planning of the government, many villages have built new communities and the old village are used for homestays and tourism. Many migrants are attracted by the natural and cultural environment living in the newly-built residences. How to balance the contradictions between tradition and modernity, globalization and localization, and maintain cultural diversity and inclusiveness is the key issue for heritage-rural communities.

Unlike Anglo-American-centric countries as Li et al. (2024) mentioned, Chinese rural gentrification emphasizes a pluralistic and cooperative class structure in rural areas, explaining the state-embedded side because of the specific rural land system. In China, heritage is often regarded as a productive resource that can drive the comprehensive development of a region, so the core formation mechanism is generally government-led governance mechanism, which is manifested as the combination of top-down such as the rural revitalization strategy and bottom-up such as community participation or market forces. In the West, it is usually driven by market and consumption mechanisms related to the aesthetic and symbolic value of heritage and identity recognition combining with polycentric governance. In terms of influence, the more positive effects of heritage-led rural gentrification are significant in China, which can be regulated by a powerful government. Therefore, unbalanced and uneven development among rural communities will greatly change under the influence of state power. The negative effects such as displacement rely more on social self-regulation or community resistance, making regulation more difficult in the West.

In conclusion, this research extends the study of heritage–village relationship from a historical scope to contemporary times, laying the groundwork for studies of heritage-led rural gentrification worldwide. Additionally, the source of the data and the assignment method in the evaluation index system offer an effective way to evaluate the correlation between heritage and villages. However, the analytical framework and the indicator system have only been validated for the villages of Badaling Town and the Great Wall, which needs to be revised and adjusted for future research to better understand the heritage–village relationship in rural gentrification areas.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the government of Badaling Town to support our field work and the students in the College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Beijing University of Technology who did the data collection work together with the authors.

ORCID iDs

Jing Gao

Junjie Wang

Linlin Dai

Ethical statement

Ethical approval is not applicable for this article. The main objective of the research is to explore the relationship between the Great Wall and its surrounding villages. It does not involve experiments on humans or animals, nor does it cover personal information and privacy.

Consent to participate

The verbal informed consent for participation in the study has been obtained.

Consent for publication

1. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript titled “Heritage-led rural gentrification and heritage–village relationship: The case of Badaling Town in China” for submission to Transactions in Planning and Urban Research. This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by any other journal. All the authors agree to submit it to Transactions in Planning and Urban Research for publication and are aware of and accept the journal’s policies.

2. All ethical guidelines have been followed in accordance with Sage’s policies. The research did not involve medical experiments or privacy.

Author contributions

Jing Gao: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; validation; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing.

Junjie Wang: Data curation; formal analysis; investigation; writing – review and editing.

Linlin Dai: Funding acquisition; methodology; project administration; supervision; writing – review and editing.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was founded by R&D Program of Beijing Municipal Education Commission (Number: SM202410005006); National Key R&D Program of China (Number: 2024YFC3808300).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Availability of data and materials

The data used and analyzed during this research are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author biographies

Jing Gao is a lecturer of the College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Beijing University of Technology. Her primary research areas are cultural heritage conservation and management, cultural geography, traditional village revitalization, and tourism research.

Junjie Wang is a graduate student of the College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Beijing University of Technology. His primary research areas are cultural heritage conservation and management, urban and rural planning.

Linlin Dai is an associate professor and doctoral supervisor at Peking University’s College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, and also serves as the director of the International Center for Recreation and Tourism Research (ICRTR). Her research interests mainly include rural tourism, the integration of cultural heritage protection and tourism development, festival and event tourism, and the spatial layout of rural settlements. She has led several research projects, some of which were funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. She has published a number of papers and received a few provincial- and ministerial-level awards.

References

Arkaraprasertkul

(2019) Gentrifying heritage: How historic preservation drives gentrification in urban Shanghai. International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(9): 882–896.

Cao

Zhang

(2018) The fractal structure of the Ming Great Wall Military Defense System: A revised horizon over the relationship between the Great Wall and the military defense settlements. Journal of Cultural Heritage 33: 159–169.

Cesari

Dimova

(2019) Heritage, gentrification, participation: Remaking urban landscapes in the name of culture and historic preservation. International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(9): 863–869.

Cesari

Herzfeld

(2015) Urban heritage and social movements. In: Meskell

(ed,) Global Heritage: A Reader. Wiley Blackwell, 171–195.

Chan

Iankova

Zhang

, et al. (2016) The role of self-gentrification in sustainable tourism: Indigenous entrepreneurship at Honghe Hani Rice Terraces world heritage site, China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24: 1262–1279.

Cocola-Gant

(2018) Tourism gentrification. In: Lees

Phillips

(eds) Handbook of Gentrification Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, 281–293.

Darling

(2005) The City in the country: Wilderness gentrification and the rent gap. Environment and Planning A 37(6): 1015–1032.

Chen

Cui

, et al. (2021) An exploration of the military defense system of the Ming Great Wall in Qinghai Province from the perspective of castle-based military settlements. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 13(3): 46.

Frehse

(2021) Time and the production of space in sociology. Sociologia & Antropologia 11(2): 389–414.

10.

Gans

(2002) The sociology of space: A use–centered view. City & Community 1(4): 329–339.

11.

Gao

(2017) Revitalizing traditional villages through rural tourism: A case study of Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China. Tourism Management 63: 223–233.

12.

Garden

MCE

(2006) The heritagescape: Looking at landscapes of the past. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(5): 394–411.

13.

Ghose

(2004) Big sky or big sprawl? Rural gentrification and the changing cultural landscape of Missoula, Montana. Urban Geography 25(6): 528–549.

14.

Glass

(1964) Aspects of change. In: Glass

(ed.) Centre for Urban Studies. MacGibbon and Kee, 19–30.

15.

Gocer

Shrestha

Boyacioglu

, et al. (2021) Rural gentrification of the ancient city of Assos (Behramkale) in Turkey. Journal of Rural Studies 87: 146–159.

16.

González

(2017) Heritage and rural gentrification in Spain: The case of Santiago Millas. International Journal of Heritage Studies 23(2): 125–140.

17.

Gosnell

Abrams

(2011) Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal 76(4): 303–322.

18.

Gotham

(2005) Tourism gentrification: The case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French Quarter). Urban Studies 42(7): 1099–1121.

19.

Grevstad-Nordbrock

Vojnovic

(2019) Heritage-fueled gentrification: A cautionary tale from Chicago. Journal of Cultural Heritage 38: 261–270.

20.

Guimond

Simard

(2010) Gentrification and neo-rural populations in the Quebec countryside: Representations of various actors. Journal of Rural Studies 26(4): 449–464.

21.

Harvey

(2001) Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(4): 319–338.

22.

Herzfeld

(2019) Value-added history. International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(9): 992–995.

23.

Hines

(2010) In Pursuit of Experience: The postindustrial gentrification of the rural American West. Ethnography 11(2): 285–308.

24.

Hoggart

(1997) Rural migration and counter-urbanization in the European periphery: The case of Andalucía. Sociologia Ruralis 37(1): 134–153.

25.

Huebscher

(2021) Megaprojects, gentrification, and tourism. A systematic review on intertwined phenomena. Sustainability 13(22): 1–23.

26.

Jiang

Sun

Zhang

, et al. (2024) Spatiotemporal dynamics and driving factors of vegetation coverage around linear cultural heritage: A case study of the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal. Journal of Environmental Management 349: 119431.

27.

Katapidi

(2021) Heritage policy meets community praxis: Widening conservation approaches in the traditional villages of central Greece. Journal of Rural Studies 81: 47–58.

28.

Kizos

Iosifides

(2007) The contradictions of agrotourism development in Greece: Evidence from three case studies. South European Society & Politics 12(1): 59–77.

29.

Ley

(1986) Alternative explanations for inner-city gentrification: A Canadian assessment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76(4): 521–535.

30.

Jing

Fan

, et al. (2021) Identifying cultural heritage corridors for preservation through multidimensional network connectivity analysis: A case study of the ancient Tea-Horse Road in Simao. China. Landscape research 46(1): 96–115.

31.

Zhang

Long

, et al. (2024) Understanding rural gentrification in China: Examining the evolving concept and comparative insights. Journal of Rural Studies 108: 103301.

32.

Lin

Zhang

, et al. (2022) Spatial structure and corridor construction of intangible cultural heritage: A case study of the Ming Great Wall. Land 11(9): 1478.

33.

Lorenzen

(2021) Rural gentrification, touristification, and displacement: Analysing evidence from Mexico. Journal of Rural Studies 86: 62–75.

34.

(2024) Local government intervention in tourism-driven rural gentrification: Types and interpretative framework. Tourism Management 100: 104828.

35.

Maia

ATA

Calcagni

Connolly

JJT

, et al. (2020) Hidden drivers of social injustice: Uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services behind green gentrification. Environmental Science & Policy 112: 254–263.

36.

Mamonova

Sutherland

(2015) Rural gentrification in Russia: Renegotiating identity, alternative food production and social tensions in the countryside. Journal of Rural Studies 42: 154–165.

37.

Markley

(2018) Suburban gentrification? Examining the geographies of New Urbanism in Atlanta’s inner suburbs. Urban Geography 39(4): 606–630.

38.

Meskell

(2019) Heritage, gentrification, participation: Remaking urban landscapes in the name of culture and historic preservation. International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(9): 996–998.

39.

Nelson

(2011) The global rural: Gentrification and linked migration in the rural USA. Progress in Human Geography 35(4): 441–459.

40.

Oikonomopoulou

Delegou

Sayas

, et al. (2017) An innovative approach to the protection of cultural heritage: The case of cultural routes in Chios Island, Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14: 742–757.

41.

Parsons

(1980) Rural gentrification: The influence of rural settlement planning policies. Geography Research Paper No 3. Department of Geography, University of Sussex, 5–12.

42.

Phillips

(1993) Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonisation. Journal of Rural Studies 9(2): 123–140.

43.

Phillips

(2004) Other geographies of gentrification. Progress in Human Geography 28(1): 5–30.

44.

Qian

Liu

(2013) Aestheticisation, rent-seeking, and rural gentrification amidst China’s rapid urbanisation: The case of Xiaozhou village, Guangzhou. Journal of Rural Studies 32: 331–345.

45.

Qian

Smith

(2025) Rural-urban interfaces and changing forms of relational and planetary rurality. Journal of Rural Studies 116: 103614.

46.

Quintana

Díaz-Puente

Gallego-Moreno

(2022) Architectural and cultural heritage as a driver of social change in rural areas: 10 years (2009–2019) of management and recovery in Huete, a town of Cuenca, Spain. Land Use Policy 115: 106017.

47.

Smith

(2002) Rural gatekeepers and “greentried” Pennine rurality: Opening and closing the access gates? Social & Cultural Geography 3(4): 447–463.

48.

Smith

Higley

(2012) Circuits of education, rural gentrification, and family migration from the global city. Journal of Rural Studies 28(1): 49–55.

49.

Solana-Solana

(2010) Rural gentrification in Catalonia, Spain: A case study of migration, social change and conflicts in the Empordanet area. Geoforum 41(3): 508–517.

50.

Stockdale

(2010) The diverse geographies of rural gentrification in Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 26(1): 31–40.

51.

Wall

(2014) Community participation in tourism at a world heritage site: Mutianyu Great Wall, Beijing, China. International Journal of Tourism Research 16(2): 146–156.

52.

Suárez

Salas

Franco

, et al. (2025) Towards a methodology of good practices for heritage-led rural regeneration: From the main paths to the surrounding areas. Cities 161: 105849.

53.

Tan

Zhou

(2022) Research framework for rural gentrification from the perspective of geography. Economic Geography 42(11): 173–184.

54.

Tang

Yang

Liu

, et al. (2023) Comprehensive evaluation of the cultural inheritance level of tourism-oriented traditional villages: The example of Beijing. Tourism Management Perspectives 48: 101166.

55.

Wang

Maye

Woods

(2025) Planetary rural geographies. Dialogues in Human Geography 15(3): 394–413.

56.

Woods

(2007) Engaging the global countryside: Globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Progress in Human Geography 31(4): 485–507.

57.

Zhang

(2023) Spatial reconstruction and cultural practice of linear cultural heritage: A case study of Meiguan Historical Trail, Guangdong, China. Buildings 13(1): 105.

58.

Xiao

Tang

Liang

(2022) Spatial distribution and cultural features of traditional villages in Beijing and influencing factors. Journal of Resources and Ecology 13(6): 1074–1086.

59.

Yang

Zhang

(2024) Temporal and spatial distribution characteristics of the Ming Great Wall. Heritage Science 12(1): 81.

60.

Yoo

Kumagai

Sho

, et al. (2024) Impact of high-speed railway on gentrification and regional inequality in Japan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 134: 104346.

61.

Zhang

Liu

Pei

, et al. (2023) Tourism value assessment of linear cultural heritage: The case of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal in China. Current Issues in Tourism 26(1): 47–69.

62.

Zhu

(2022) State-embedded gentrification in China. Cities 131: 103926.

63.

Zhu

Martínez

(2022) Heritage, values and gentrification: The redevelopment of historic areas in China. International Journal of Heritage Studies 28(4): 476–494.

64.

Zukin

(2010) Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford University Press.

Heritage-led rural gentrification and the heritage–village relationship: The case of Badaling Town in China

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Heritage-led rural gentrification and an analytical framework

Heritage-led rural gentrification

The linear cultural heritage and adjacent villages

An analytical framework: The heritage–village relationship

Correlation index evaluation system

Study area and methods

Description of the study area and data collection

Data analysis methods

Results and influencing factors

The total correlation results

Results of the spatial correlation indicators and influencing factors

Results of the socio-economic correlation indicators and influencing factors

Results of the cultural correlation indicators and influencing factors

Conclusion and discussion

Conclusion and contribution

Limitation and discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical statement

Consent to participate

Consent for publication

Author contributions

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Availability of data and materials

Author biographies

References