高度城镇化地区传统村落文旅发展模式比较研究OACHSSCD

Urbanization causes a shift from incremental expansion to stock optimization.This shift presents traditional villages in highly urbanized regions with multiple pressures,including heritage preservation,spatial renewal,and industrial transformation.Against this macro backdrop,the integration of culture and tourism has gradually emerged as an important pathway to promote the revitalization and utilization of these villages.However,significant differences in stakeholder power allocation,responsibility assumption,and benefit distribution during the process of developing cultural tourism can impede village conservation and development. To investigate these phenomena,this study employed stakeholder theory to establish a theoretical framework centered on the configuration of"power,responsibility,and interest"in traditional villages in the Pearl River Delta(PRD).By combining comparative case analysis,field surveys,and semistructured interviews,the study screened representative villages in the PRD that have entered normalized cultural-tourism operations.Three villages—namely,Fengjian Village in Foshan,Xixi Village in Dongguan,and Langtou Village in Guangzhou—were chosen to compare three typical models led by grassroots administrative subjects,market entities,and government-public welfare funds.The differences in operational mechanisms,cultural heritage preservation,and cultural tourism between these three models were then analyzed.The following research conclusions were drawn: (1)The grassroots administration-led model represented by Fengjian Village can utilize the town's administration,fiscal investment,and village-level organizations to facilitate environmental governance,build high-quality infrastructure,and restore core heritage assets.This model participates in the distribution of cultural-tourism benefits through self-operated businesses or house rentals.It has the advantages of strong publicity and quick initiation.Nevertheless,the model is dependent on continuous administrative investment and can be challenged by industrial homogenization and insufficient operational depth,thus restricting sustainable development. (2)The market-led model represented by Xixi Village achieves property consolidation and rapid resource activation through whole-village leasing,centralized investment promotion,and professionalized management.This model can quickly enhance the visibility of villages and their tourism attractiveness.However,it often prioritizes spatial value appreciation and short-term returns,making it easy to favor commercial development over cultural heritage preservation and external image over intrinsic cultural content.This also limits community participation and diminishes the subjectivity of villagers. (3)The government-public welfare fund collaborative model represented by Langtou Village can utilize the government's institutional supply,infrastructure support,and public welfare capital to overcome the bottlenecks of high initial investment and long return cycles.It achieves notable results in systematic heritage restoration,cultural exhibitions,and brand building,reflecting a strong orientation toward comprehensive preservation.However,it is highly dependent on external resources,entails relatively high long-term operational costs,and involves limited participation of villagers in core operational processes,thus requiring deeper community integration. As the findings reveal,there is no universally optimal model among the chosen three types.Their differences fundamentally stem from variations in the configuration of"power,responsibility,and interest"among multiple stakeholders.Hence,the key to developing cultural tourism in traditional villages does not lie in simply replicating a successful model,but in tailoring approaches to villages'inherent conditions,locations,resource endowments,and governance foundations.It is essential to appropriately match leading actors with collaborative relationships and establish a multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism characterized by clearly defined responsibilities,shared benefits,and joint risk-taking.The mechanism should not only enhance the arrangement of property rights,the distribution of benefits,and the participation channels,but also strengthen the subjective role of villagers in heritage preservation and cultural-tourism operations.This would overcome the bottlenecks of high initial investment and long return cycles based on government institutional supply,infrastructure support,and public welfare capital.It achieves notable results in systematic heritage restoration,cultural exhibitions,and brand building,reflecting a strong orientation toward comprehensive preservation.However,it is highly dependent on external resources,entails relatively high long-term operational costs,and involves limited participation of villagers in core operational processes,thus requiring deeper community integration.