Impacts of Urbanization on the Protection of Built Heritage in Traditional Villages: A Case Study of 96 Traditional Villages in Guangzhou, China.

Impacts of Urbanization on the Protection of Built Heritage in Traditional Villages: A Case Study of 96 Traditional Villages in Guangzhou, China. | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Impacts of Urbanization on the Protection of Built Heritage in Traditional Villages: A Case Study of 96 Traditional Villages in Guangzhou, China. Yingliang Zheng, Zhibo Wang, Peng Ren, Jihang Xu, Jin Tao This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5845462/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The rapid urban development has intensified the conflicts between vernacular and modern civilizations. Large-scale urban expansion and development have placed traditional villages at risk of gradual disappearance or decline. As tangible carriers of cultural value, the built heritage of these villages has faced varying degrees of impact from urbanization. This study, which examines 96 traditional villages in Guangzhou City, employs a structural equation model incorporating four dimensions of urbanization and two aspects of built heritage protection to investigate how urbanization affects built heritage conservation. The findings reveal that: (1) the mechanisms through which urbanization negatively affects the spatial patterns and features of suburban and exurban villages differ; (2) favorable economic and locational factors support the protection and development of heritage buildings; and (3) the construction and enhancement of facilities have both positive and negative impacts on built heritage. This research provides an important reference for the conservation and development of built heritage in traditional villages, which is of practical significance in realizing the sustainable development of built heritage. Urbanization Tradition villages Built heritage Structural equation modeling Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction Traditional villages are settlements established in earlier times that are rich in traditional resources and embody diverse values spanning history, culture, science, art, society, and economy, making them worthy of preservation[ 1 ]. They represent a significant component of the country's historical and cultural heritage and serve as vital carriers of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage[ 2 , 3 ]. The cultural significance of these villages encompasses well-preserved traditional architectural features, distinctive village sites and layouts, and intangible cultural heritage elements[ 4 ]. In 2012, the Chinese government released the first national list of traditional villages, elevating their protection to a national priority with legal status(5,6). By 2023, a total of 8,155 villages had been designated as national-level traditional villages. Additionally, regional governments at various levels have emphasized the importance of protecting and developing traditional villages by evaluating their local heritage value and publishing corresponding provincial and municipal lists[ 7 , 8 ]. However, the rapid development and modernization of cities have intensified the conflicts between native and modern civilizations. Urbanization practices, including rapid spatial expansion, large-scale population relocation, and high-intensity building development, have contributed to challenges such as the depopulation of traditional villages or their in situ urbanization[ 9 – 13 ]. Consequently, many traditional villages are experiencing gradual decline or even disappearance. This impact is most evident in the deterioration of traditional buildings, historical patterns, and cultural elements[ 1 , 4 , 14 – 17 ]. The built heritage of traditional villages, as a crucial physical embodiment of their cultural value, has been particularly vulnerable and severely affected by urbanization[ 18 ]. Currently, many scholars have conducted extensive research on various aspects of traditional villages, including their value[ 19 , 20 ], vitality[ 21 ], vulnerability[ 22 ], depopulation[ 14 , 15 , 23 ], spatial distribution characteristics and influencing factors[ 6 , 24 , 25 ], evolutionary traits[ 26 ], and strategies for protection and development[ 27 , 28 ]. The state of built heritage preservation has been integrated into comprehensive evaluation systems for traditional villages, facilitating more systematic and scientific assessments of sustainable development and bolstering preservation efforts[ 21 , 29 ]. These studies highlight the significance of built heritage in the conservation and development of traditional villages, noting that its decline serves as a visible indicator of village hollowing out[ 14 ]. While natural factors contribute to this issue, human activities have an even greater impact. To meet modern living demands, population migration and the construction of new housing have accelerated the deterioration and functional loss of traditional village spaces[ 30 ]. Concurrently, rapid urban development has pushed traditional villages toward localized urbanization and urban-rural integration.[ 10 , 31 , 32 ] Urban expansion increasingly encroaches upon village spatial resources, directly damaging traditional buildings, features and spatial patterns[ 33 ]. Although existing research highlights the impact of urbanization on built heritage, studies examining the specific mechanisms of this influence remain limited. Current analyses have identified factors affecting built heritage in traditional villages under urbanization. For example, Wang D. et al. argued that the economic and locational changes brought by urbanization accelerate the decay of traditional village buildings[ 23 ]. Liu C. et al. suggested that urbanization-driven human activities threaten traditional buildings by examining building hollowing coefficients in these villages[ 14 ]. However, most findings are qualitative, lacking in-depth analysis and empirical investigation of the specific mechanisms at play. In research focused on the evaluation of traditional village protection and development, building-related indicators are often included in assessment frameworks. For instance, Liu S. et al. used factors such as the proportion of historical buildings and the classification of protected cultural relics as measures for assessing the protection and vitality of village-built environments[ 21 ]. However, built heritage in traditional villages comprises not only buildings but also traditional features and patterns[ 34 – 36 ]. Future studies should emphasize these elements to provide a more comprehensive understanding. Additionally, existing research has also shown that the impact of urbanization on built heritage varies significantly based on location. For example, in Foshan, the contrasting cases of Chaji and Daqitou illustrate this: Chaji, close to urban areas, has suffered extensive heritage damage, while Daqitou, located farther from urban centers, has remained well-preserved[ 37 ]. These differences highlight the importance of examining how urbanization mechanisms affect traditional village heritage in different locational condition, ensuring more accurate and comprehensive assessments to inform preservation strategies. In this context, the present study investigates the following questions: What specific urbanization factors influence the preservation of built heritage in traditional villages, and through what mechanisms? How do preservation outcomes vary among villages at different distances from urban centers? Lastly, do legally protected built heritage experience different impacts from urbanization? Guangzhou, a city characterized by rapid urbanization, is also recognized as one of China's national historical and cultural cities[ 38 , 39 ]. Given the conflict between urban development and heritage preservation, investigating the mechanisms by which urbanization impacts traditional villages in Guangzhou holds significant practical relevance and urgency. This study, therefore, selects Guangzhou as the research area and considers factors related to location, economy, population, and facilities construction. Employing a structural equation model, the empirical analysis examines traditional villages at national, provincial, and municipal levels within Guangzhou to explore the specific mechanisms by which urbanization affects built heritage. The aim of this study is to elucidate how various aspects of the urbanization process influence the preservation of traditional village heritage and to identify the challenges and issues involved. The findings are intended to provide a scientific basis for developing policies and strategies to enhance heritage protection. Materials and Methods Research Area and Study Subjects Guangzhou, located at the heart of the Pearl River Delta and serving as the capital of Guangdong Province, comprises 11 administrative districts, including Tianhe, Yuexiu, Haizhu, and Liwan. As the cultural center of Lingnan and Cantonese culture, Guangzhou hosts traditional villages known for their distinctive spatial patterns, features, and architectural forms, embodying significant built heritage and cultural richness[40,41]. However, since the economic reforms of 1978, Guangzhou has experienced rapid development, leveraging its strategic location and economic foundations[38,42]. This urban expansion has continually encroached upon the long-standing physical spaces of traditional villages, meanwhile, the influx of modern cultural values and lifestyles has altered village spaces and the local residential environment, eroding their original rural essence and spirit[43]. Thus selecting Guangzhou as the research area is not only representative but also critically significant for understanding how to balance urbanization with the protection of built heritage. Currently, Guangzhou has 96 traditional villages designated at the national, provincial, and municipal levels (refer to Figure 1). These villages are distributed across all districts except Yuexiu District. This study selects these 96 traditional villages as the research subjects to analyze urbanization factors and examine the mechanisms by which these factors affect built heritage, including the spatial patterns, distinctive features, and traditional buildings of these villages. Figure 1. The distribution of traditional villages in Guangzhou. Research methodology Traditional villages represent a dynamic and complex composite system, with their built heritage influenced by numerous variables. Measuring the effects of these variables directly and accurately presents significant challenges. Thus, it is crucial to use observable indicators that can be directly measured to effectively represent these variables. Structural equation modeling (SEM) provides a powerful multivariate statistical approach for examining interactions among variables[44]. By integrating factor analysis and path analysis, SEM combines measurement and analysis seamlessly. This method enables researchers to explore the underlying relationships between independent variables using the covariance matrix and allows for simultaneous multi-factor analysis across multiple variables[45–47]. Recent studies have utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate various aspects of traditional village development mechanisms, human-environment relationships, resource protection, and distribution mechanisms. For example, Li J. et al. conducted an empirical analysis of 95 national-level traditional villages in the Huizhou region, concluding that heritage resources play a dominant role in village development, while external factors such as policies and market conditions act as moderating influences. They also identified essential supporting elements for village development, including infrastructure and regional natural geographic conditions[44]. Similarly, Tang W. et al. used SEM to explore the relationship between residents' place attachment and their attitudes toward resource protection in three ancient villages in southern Anhui[48]. Zhao Y. et al. developed a structural equation model to analyze the intrinsic connections and influencing patterns among the spatial environment components of settlements along the Grand Canal in Tianjin[49]. Xie X. et al. applied SEM alongside an adaptive evaluation system to assess the suitability of rural settlement layouts in Hongshankou Town, Jinchang City[50]. Lastly, Luo Y. et al. employed SEM to examine whether production, living and ecological factors influence the development levels of 21 national-level traditional villages in Jiangxi Province[51]. This study aims to establish a structural equation model to investigate the impact mechanisms of urbanization on the conservation of built heritage in traditional villages. Additionally, it seeks to propose policy recommendations to effectively support the sustainable development and preservation of built heritage in these villages. Model construction Relation Hypothesis on the impact of urbanization on the built heritage of traditional villages Under the influence of the polarization and diffusion effects of megacities, traditional villages with varying locational characteristics face distinct challenges concerning their built heritage[52]. Concurrently, the progressive spread of urbanization has impacted the economic, demographic, and infrastructural conditions of these villages to differing degrees[53–60]. Changes in economic development, population mobility, and facilities construction further threaten the integrity of built heritage[10,14,23,30–33]. Therefore, this study selects location, economics, population, and facilities construction as independent variables for analysis. The built heritage of traditional villages includes not only the distinctive patterns and features but also the traditional architecture that embody ancient wisdom and cultural achievements[35,36,61,62]. Currently, the definition of traditional architecture is broad; however, this study specifically focuses on the preservation of cultural heritage buildings and historic buildings—those with significant historical and cultural value that receive legal protection—constructing a dimension referred to as "Protected Buildings." While traditional style architecture contributes to the overall character of the village, it is not legally protected. Therefore, this study classifies it under the dimension of "Spatial Patterns and Features." Accordingly, this research identifies "Spatial Patterns and Features" and "Protected Buildings" as the dependent variables for analysis. In summary, this study selects “Location”, “Economics”, ”Population”, “Facilities Construction”, “Spatial Patterns and Features” and “Protected Buildings” as latent variables within the model variable system, constructing a structural equation model. In the process of urbanization, location plays a direct and indirect role in the development of traditional villages, resulting in various characteristic impacts[52]. The proximity of traditional villages to urban areas directly influences the degree of pressure they face from urban expansion. Villages located closer to urban centers are generally more vulnerable to land acquisition and development activities, which can significantly affect their landscapes, spatial patterns, and built environments[43]. Additionally, while economic development, population mobility, and facilities construction contribute to the modernization of production and living conditions, they also pose further challenges to the preservation of built heritage in traditional villages. Based on these considerations, this study proposes the research model shown in Figure 2 and presents the following hypothesis: H1a: Location influences Spatial Patterns and Features. H2a: Location influences Protected Buildings. H1b: Economics influences Patterns and Features. H2b: Economics influences Protected Buildings. H1c: Population influence Patterns and Features. H2c: Population influence Protected Buildings. H1d: Facilities Construction influences Patterns and Features. H2d: Facilities Construction influences Protected Buildings. Figure 2. Conceptual Model of the Impact of Urbanization on the Built Heritage of Traditional Villages Construction of the indicator system for explicit variables and calculation methods This study utilized six latent variables: the four urbanization dimensions of "Location," "Economics," "Population," and "Facility Construction," along with the two built heritage dimensions of "Spatial Patterns and Features" and "Protected Buildings." As these latent variables cannot be directly measured, explicit variables were identified by synthesizing relevant literature (see Table 1). Meanwhile, scoring of the explicit variables in relation to the actual situation of the research (see Table 2). For "Location," scholars such as Zhu Z., Liu S., and Ma S. have argued that the distance between villages and central urban areas, highway exits, and AAA-level tourist attractions significantly influences village development[21,63–65]. Additionally, Kong L. et al. highlighted that public transportation accessibility is an essential aspect of location[27]. Regarding "Economics," Liu S., Ge J., and Bai M. et al. contend that the per capita annual income of villagers effectively reflects the economic level of a village[21]. Other researchers have pointed out that the number of enterprises within the village and the volume of visitors can also indicate the economic vitality of the area[54,66]. In the context of "Population," several studies have identified the migrant population, registered population, permanent residency rate, and aging rate as important indicators of demographic change in villages amid urbanization[37,65,67–69]. For "Facility Construction," indicators include the number and quality of living service facilities, basic infrastructure, and public service facilities, as well as their proximity to villages and development levels, which are seen as measures of urban infrastructure's impact on rural areas[69,70]. "Spatial Patterns and Features" are represented in studies by elements such as landscape environment patterns and the distinct features of traditional villages. Researchers like Chen J. and Tao J. have suggested measuring these through the completeness of landscape patterns, the integrity of traditional features within core protection areas, and the coherence of traditional features in village construction control zones[37,71,72]. Finally, "Protected Buildings" encompass historical and cultural heritage buildings. Scholars such as Huang Y. and Chen J. argued that factors such as the scale of preservation, protection levels of historical buildings, and the conservation status of cultural heritage buildings reflect the overall condition of protected structures[37,72]. Table 1. Explanation and Reference Sources of Explicit Variables Code Latent variables Code Explicit Variables Ref. A1 Location A11 Distance from village to central city Zhu Z, et al.[63], Cai E L, Li J W,et al.[65] A12 Public transportation accessibility of villages Kong L, Xu X, Wang W, et al.[27] A13 Distance from village to neighboring highway entrance/exit Liu S, Ge J, Bai M, et al.[21] A14 Distance from the village to the nearest AAA and above scenic spot Ma S, Fang X[64] B1 Economics B11 Annual per capita income of villagers Liu S, Ge J, Bai M, et al.[21] B12 Number of corporate enterprises within village boundaries Wang F, Liu Z, Shang S, et al.[66] B13 The volume of visitors Liu S, Ge J, Bai M, et al.[54] C1 Population C11 migrant population Xie S H, Ning Y M,et al.[67] C12 rate of permanent residents Chen L, Lu C, Yuan F, et al.[68],Chen J.[37] C13 registered population Cai E L, Li J W,et al.[65] C14 The aging rate Li S F,Li J Q,Liu D Y,et al.[69] D1 Facilities Construction D11 Number of living service facilities within a 1 km radius of the village Xiao T Q,Sun H X,Li X X,et al.[70] D12 Level of infrastructure development Li S F,Li J Q,Liu D Y,et al.[69] D13 Distance from the village to community-level or higher public service facilities Li S F,Li J Q,Liu D Y,et al.[69] E1 Spatial Patterns and Features E11 Completeness of landscape patterns Tao J,Chen Z X,Wei C,et al.[71] ,Huang Y, Li E, Xiao D.[72] E12 Integrity of traditional features in core protection areas Chen J.[37] ,Tao J,Chen Z X,Wei C,et al.[71] E13 Coherence of features in the village construction control zones Chen J[37]. Tao J,Chen Z X,Wei C,et al.[71] F1 Protected Buildings F11 Scale of preservation for historical buildings Huang Y, Li E, Xiao D.[72] F12 Level of protection for historical buildings Huang Y, Li E, Xiao D.[72] F13 Conservation status of cultural heritage buildings Chen J.[37] Table 2. Scoring Standard for Explicit Variables Latent variables Explicit Variables Unit Scoring standard Method 1 2 3 4 5 A1 A11 km ＞60 45-60 30-45 15-30 0-15 ③ A12 - 0-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 0.8-1 ④ A13 km ＞8 6-8 4-6 2-4 0-2 ③ A14 km ＞8 6-8 4-6 2-4 0-2 ③ B1 B11 10,000CNY 0-1 1-3 3-6 6-9 ＞9 ⑤ B12 - 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 ＞80 ① B13 - 0-200 200-400 400-600 600-800 ＞800 ⑥ C1 C11 - 0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 ＞2000 ⑤ C12 % 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 ⑤ C13 - 0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 ＞2000 ⑤ C14 % ＞8 6-8 4-6 2-4 0-2 ⑤ D1 D11 - ＜10 10-30 30-50 50-100 ＞100 ②,① D12 - 1 2 3 4 5 ②,① D13 km ＞4 3-4 2-3 1-2 ＜1 ③,① E1 E11 - 1 2 3 4 5 ② E12 - 1 2 3 4 5 ② E13 - 1 2 3 4 5 ② F1 F11 - 1 2 3 4 5 ② F12 - 1 2 3 4 5 ② F13 - 1 2 3 4 5 ② Method： (1)POI data imported into ArcGIS for statistical analysis; (2)Field surveys; (3)Calculation of spatial distances using ArcGIS in combination with road network data[73]; (4)Village public transportation accessibility (Tn) calculated as: T n = (Number of bus stations * 0.3 + Number of bus routes * 0.3 + Number of metro and intercity rail stations * 0.4) / T max ; (5)Literature review; (6)Acquisition of public data from Gaode Map. Notes: In the explicit variables of D12, scores 1-5 represent"The village roads are not paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities cover less than 20% of the village.", "The village roads are partially paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities cover 20-40% of the village.", "Some of the village roads are paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities cover 40-60% of the village.", "Most of the village roads are paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities cover 60-80% of the village.", "The roads are fully paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities are fully developed, covering 80-100% of the village." In the explicit variables of E11, scores 1-5 represent"Damaged", "Only partial remains", "Main structure still exists", "Relatively well-preserved", "Well-preserved." In the explicit variables of E12, scores 1-5 represent"Nearly no traditional feature", "Overall traditional feature is chaotic", "A large number of newly constructed buildings, affecting the overall traditional feature", "Few new buildings, not affecting the overall traditional feature", "Overall traditional feature is complete and harmonious." In the explicit variables of E13, scores 1-5 represent"Nearly no traditional feature", "Overall traditional feature is chaotic", "A large number of newly constructed buildings, affecting the overall traditional feature", "Few new buildings, not affecting the overall traditional feature", "Overall traditional feature is complete and harmonious." In the explicit variables of F11, scores 1-5 represent"Minimal preservation scale, with historical building groups severely damaged or completely lost", "Limited preservation scale, with historical building groups damaged", "Moderate preservation scale, with historical building groups largely preserved", "Significant preservation scale, with historical building groups relatively intact", "Large preservation scale, with historical building groups fully intact." In the explicit variables of F12 and F13, scores 1-5 represent"Extremely low level of protection, with severe damage to structure, façade, etc.", "Low level of protection, with considerable damage to structure, façade, etc.", "Moderate level of protection, with some damage to structure, façade, etc.", "High level of protection, with minimal damage to structure, façade, etc.", "Very high level of protection, with structure, façade, etc., in excellent condition." Results Reliability and Validity Tests Reliability assesses the stability and consistency of results obtained from the measurement scale. A reliability analysis of the survey data was conducted using SPSS software. Items with low reliability, such as A14 and C14, were removed from the analysis. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each dimension and the overall scale are shown in Table 3. The overall scale achieved an alpha coefficient of 0.916, while the coefficients for the subscales were all above 0.8, indicating strong internal consistency among the scale items[74]. Table 3. Alpha coefficient values and Reliability test. Dimension N（Number of items） Alpha coefficients Overall Scale Reliability Location 3 0.834 0.916 Economics 3 0.907 Population 3 0.909 Facilities Construction 3 0.858 Spatial Patterns and Features 3 0.887 Protected Buildings 3 0.850 Notes: It is generally accepted that when the alpha coefficient is greater than 0.8, the scale reliability is considered excellent; when the alpha coefficient falls between 0.7 and 0.8, the reliability is considered good; and when the alpha coefficient is above 0.6, it is considered an acceptable level of reliability [75] . Validity measures the extent to which the predicted results align with the actual measurement data. Higher validity indicates that the measurement accurately reflects the true situation. In this study, SPSS software was used to conduct a validity test using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure. A KMO value closer to 1 suggests that the data is well-suited for the analysis. As shown in Table 4, the KMO value is 0.855, and Bartlett's test of sphericity produced a value of 1166.068, with a significance level that passed the 1% threshold. These results indicate that the variables demonstrate strong independence, meeting the criteria for validity testing and supporting the feasibility of further empirical research. Table 4. KMO values and Bartlett’s test. Name Value KMO Sampling suitability quantity 0.855 Bartlett’s sphericity test Approximate cardinality 1166.068 df(Degree of freedom) 153 .sig(Significance) ＜0.001 Fitting Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis To evaluate the consistency between the model and the proposed theoretical framework and to confirm whether each measurement item significantly loads onto its designated factor without significant cross-loadings, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 26.0 software. A CFA model was initially constructed based on the theoretical foundations outlined earlier, and the SPSS sample data from previous analyses were imported into the model for evaluation. The model fit was subsequently assessed. As shown in Table 5, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ²/df) was 1.176, below the acceptable threshold of 5, indicating an adequate fit. The RMSEA value was 0.043, well under the 0.05 benchmark, suggesting an excellent fit. Additionally, the Incremental Fit Index (IFI) was 0.981, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.981, and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.976, all surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.9, signifying a robust fit. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the model exhibits a strong fit to the data. Table 5. Fitting coefficients of the structural equation model Index χ 2 /df RMSEA IFI CFI TLI Fitting the Standard <3 0.9 >0.9 >0.9 Values 1.176 0.043 0.981 0.981 0.976 Convergent Validity Test Convergent validity refers to whether the explicit variables measuring the same latent construct converge onto the latent variable. In this study, conver gent validity is assessed using Factor Loadings, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). Generally, it is considered that convergent validity is satisfactory when the AVE exceeds 0.5 and the CR is greater than 0.6. As shown in Table 6, the standardized factor loadings for all 18 measurement items in this study are above 0.6, with most exceeding 0.7. The AVE for each variable surpasses 0.5, and the CR values range from 0.838 to 0.912, with the majority exceeding 0.7. These findings indicate that the measurement model demonstrates strong convergent validity. Table 6. Model Validity Summary Path Factor Loading Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted Public transportation accessibility of villages ← Location 0.763 0.838 0.634 Distance from village to central city ← Location 0.881 Distance from village to neighboring highway entrance/exit ← Location 0.737 The volume of visitors ← Economics 0.884 0.908 0.767 Number of corporate enterprises within village boundaries ← Economics 0.863 Annual per capita income of villagers ← Economics 0.880 Level of infrastructure development ← Facilities Construction 0.755 0.861 0.674 Number of living service facilities within a 1 km radius of the village ← Facilities Construction 0.858 Distance from the village to community-level or higher public service facilities ← Facilities Construction 0.846 Registered population ← Population 0.921 0.912 0.776 Rate of permanent residents ← Population 0.830 Migrant population ← Population 0.889 Completeness of landscape patterns ← Spatial Patterns and Features 0.878 0.888 0.727 Integrity of traditional features in core protection areas ← Spatial Patterns and Features 0.819 Coherence of features in the village construction control zones ← Spatial Patterns and Features 0.859 Scale of preservation for historical buildings ← Protected Buildings 0.843 0.849 0.652 Level of protection for historical buildings ← Protected Buildings 0.768 Conservation status of cultural heritage buildings ← Protected Buildings 0.810 Analysis of structural equation modeling results Relation Hypothesis Testing The research model was constructed using AMOS 26.0 software, and its fit was evaluated while testing the hypothesis. The model includes 6 latent variables and 18 explicit variables, aiming to explore the impact of location, population, facilities construction, and economics on village traditional pattern and feature, as well as on protected buildings. The standardized path coefficients in the structural equation model demonstrate the strength and significance of the relationships between variables, assessed using p-values (refer to Table 7). The analysis shows that all factor loadings are statistically significant at the 0.01 level, confirming the reliability of the measurement model. These results were used to construct the structural model illustrating the impact of urbanization on the built heritage of traditional villages (shown in Figure 3). Figure 3. Structural equation model results. Table 7. Results of hypothesis tests. Hypothesis Path Unstandardized Estimate S.E. t-value p-value Standardized Estimate H1a Location → Spatial Patterns and Features -0.507 0.136 -3.734 *** -0.420 H2a Location → Protected Buildings 0.407 0.155 2.618 ** 0.342 H1d Facilities Construction → Protected Buildings 0.332 0.153 2.173 ** 0.270 H2d Facilities Construction → Spatial Patterns and Features -0.291 0.129 -2.264 ** -0.234 H1b Economics → Spatial Patterns and Features -0.267 0.087 -3.059 ** -0.276 H2b Economics → Protected Buildings 0.309 0.104 2.964 ** 0.324 H1c Population → Spatial Patterns and Features -0.149 0.071 -2.096 ** -0.194 H2c Population → Protected Buildings 0.002 0.083 0.025 0.980 0.003 Notes: "→" Indicates the path influence relationship, "***", "**", and "*" indicate P ≤ 0.001, 0.001 < P ≤ 0.05, and 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10, respectively. Path analysis results based on SEM Location: A1 has a significant negative impact on E1, with a standardized path coefficient of -0.420, a t-value of -3.734, and a p-value less than 0.001. This indicates that as the locational conditions of traditional villages improve, the negative impacts on the overall spatial patterns and features of the village become more pronounced. A1 also has a significant positive effect on F1, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.342, a t-value of 2.618, and a p-value of 0.009. This suggests that improved locational conditions contribute to better preservation of protected buildings in the village. Economics: The standardized path coefficient of B1 on E1 is -0.276, with a t-value of -3.059 and a p-value of 0.002, indicating a significant negative impact of improved economic conditions on the spatial patterns and features of village. In contrast, the standardized path coefficient of B1 on F1 is 0.324, with a t-value of 2.964 and a p-value of 0.003, suggesting a significant positive effect of economic factors on the protected buildings, with enhanced economic conditions promoting the preservation of these structures. Population: C1 has a significant negative effect on E1, with a standardized path coefficient of -0.194, a t-value of -2.096, and a p-value of 0.036, indicating that population growth negatively impacts the protection of the spatial patterns and features of traditional village. However, the standardized path coefficient of C1 on F1 is only 0.003, with a t-value of 0.025 and a p-value of 0.980, indicating that the path is not statistically significant. Facilities Construction: D1 has a negative effect on E1, with a standardized path coefficient of -0.234, a t-value of -2.264, and a p-value of 0.024, suggesting that the scale and level of facilities construction negatively affect the spatial patterns and features of traditional village. On the other hand, D1 positively influences F1, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.270, a t-value of 2.173, and a p-value of 0.030, indicating that facilities construction significantly promotes the preservation of protected buildings in the village. Discussion and policy recommendations Discussion This study establishes a framework for analyzing the urbanization factors affecting the built heritage of traditional villages. A sample of 96 traditional villages in Guangzhou was selected, with built heritage evaluated from two primary perspectives: "spatial patterns and features" and "protected buildings." An indicator system was developed encompassing four key dimensions—location, economy, population, and facilities construction. Using this framework, a structural equation model was constructed for in-depth analysis, resulting in the following conclusions. Destruction of Suburban Villages Due to Urban Sprawl The rapid development of cities has stimulated economic activities, leading to increased urban expansion. Suburban villages, due to their advantageous location, have attracted a large influx of migrants and spurred the rise of land rent economies. In response, local villagers have often adopted large-scale redevelopment practices, such as demolishing old buildings to construct new ones, driven by economic interests. This has resulted in irreversible damage to the appearance and spatial patterns of these traditional villages. As a major city in the Pearl River Delta region, Guangzhou has leveraged its prime location and strong economic foundation to accelerate urbanization. This process has affected traditional villages and their built heritage to varying degrees in different zones from a number of economic and demographic dimensions[76]. Suburban villages are particularly vulnerable to urbanization pressures. Their proximity to urban commercial and political hubs, coupled with their favorable geographic positions, subjects them to constant interaction with urban areas and places them at the forefront of rapid urban expansion[52]. As a result, these villages face significant risks of being subsumed by urban development, leading to a convergence and erosion of the boundaries between village and city. On the one hand, in order to promote the rapid construction of urban, the government has implemented policies involving the expropriation of village land and has permitted developers to undertake large-scale demolition and construction, including the occupation of farmland, removal of hills, and reclamation of water bodies. For example, Huatingfang, a natural village within the Huocun administrative village in Huangpu District (illustrated in Figure 4), exemplifies these changes. Prior to 2004, Huatingfang maintained a traditional environment characterized by surrounding woodlands and fields, with a spatial layout of 'pond at the front, village at the rear.' Although some rural expansion and new farmhouses had been added, the village's traditional spatial patterns and features were still clearly visible. However, significant changes began in 2008 when developers constructed a 24,180㎡ steel trading center in the southeastern part of the village to support the nearby steel manufacturing industry. Between 2012 and 2016, additional farmland in the northeastern part of the village was appropriated for the construction of a 34,500㎡ industrial park. From 2020 to 2024, large-scale real estate development occurred as developers acquired more village land. By 2024, the area of traditional buildings in Huatingfang had decreased dramatically from approximately 39,000㎡ to about 5,180㎡, while water bodies were reduced from around 19,550㎡ to 3,200㎡, and woodlands and fields shrank from about 263,500㎡ to 106,400㎡. This extensive development significantly disrupted the village's landscapes and features, resulting in the widespread demolition of traditional style architecture, leaving only legally protected buildings intact. The modern urbanscape has now replaced much of the traditional appearance, severely undermining the village's authenticity and historical significance. Note: Map come from https://maps.google.com Figure 4. The evolution of Huatingfang natural village from 2004 to 2024 On the other hand, villages have leveraged their advantageous locations and national preferential policies to initiate rural industrialization, promoting the growth of "Three-plus-one" trading-mix enterprises (custom manufacturing using supplied materials, designs, or samples, along with compensation trade). This strategy led to a rapid expansion of manufacturing activities and the construction of numerous factories and supporting facilities within village boundaries. As a result, industrial and urban elements became embedded within the village feature in a planar form (shown in Figure 5), disrupting the original traditional layout and creating a fragmented feature that juxtaposes the old with the new. Note: Map come from https://maps.google.com Figure 5. The industrial elements is embedded in the Sanhua Traditional Village in a planar form. Rapid urban development generated significant employment opportunities, drawing a large influx of both local rural residents and external migrants to urban areas. This population shift fueled a robust rental market within the villages. Additionally, suburban villages, with their lower living costs, became the most suitable settlement option for many people. To accommodate the substantial market demand brought about by the population influx, the land rent economy in suburban villages gradually emerged. Motivated by economic gain, villagers often prioritized short-term financial benefits over the preservation of their cultural and historical heritage. This led to the widespread demolition of traditional style buildings to create space or modernize them. On one hand, traditional style buildings were dismantled to clear land for rental factories or modern residential constructions, contributing to the gradual loss of the village’s traditional built heritage. On the other hand, some relatively well-preserved traditional buildings, especially those in prime locations, were modified with modern materials such as bricks, concrete, and corrugated iron for repairs and expansions before being rented out. Although these modifications maintained the basic functionality of the buildings, they significantly compromised their authenticity and spatial integrity, stripping them of their original historical and cultural significance. Meanwhile, traditional style buildings that had fallen into disrepair were often left neglected due to the high cost of restoration and minimal economic return. These buildings continued to decay over time, with their walls and structural components deteriorating further, ultimately leading to their disappearance. Under these conditions, the cultural and historical value inherent in the built heritage is progressively being eroded. Locational Disadvantages Leading to the Decline of Exurban Villages Exurban villages, situated in less favorable locations, have largely retained their traditional layouts and appearances. However, challenges such as population decline and insufficient village vitality have rendered much of the built heritage vacant and underutilized, leading to its gradual deterioration. Exurban traditional villages experience minimal impacts from urbanization and maintain limited connections with urban centers. As a result, these villages have preserved their natural landscape, traditional patterns and features more effectively. Their distance from urban areas shields them from extensive urban development, allowing them to avoid significant alterations. Additionally, these villages have maintained an agrarian economic structure centered on traditional farming and small-scale handicrafts, contributing to lower economic development and limited resources for modernization or reconstruction. Consequently, many traditional buildings have retained their original forms and structures, remaining largely untouched by major redevelopment. This preservation sustains the simple, rustic character of the villages, enhancing their authenticity and historical value. Moreover, some villagers continue to inhabit these buildings, maintaining their residential function and further contributing to the preservation of the traditional village. However, rapid urbanization has led to significant economic, living standard, and employment disparities between urban and rural areas[77]. These disparities have driven many rural residents to migrate to cities, resulting in the "hollowing out" of exurban traditional villages. The outflow of labor and declining population have significantly diminished the vitality of these villages, further accelerating the deterioration of their built heritage. Although the traditional patterns and features of these villages are somewhat preserved, many traditional buildings remain vacant and unused, hastening their decay. Additionally, these structures, often built with materials such as clay, brick, wood, and tile, are highly susceptible to environmental damage from natural weathering, wind, and rain, as well as human neglect and poor maintenance. These factors contribute to severe degradation and eventual collapse of the buildings, eroding the cultural and historical legacy they represent[14]. With the expansion of urbanization and improvements in infrastructure, such as urban roads and public transportation, some exurban villages have gradually adopted a dual lifestyle characterized by "working in the city, living in the village[78]." Villagers earn income through urban employment and invest it in enhancing their living conditions within the village. In order to accommodate modern living standards, many villagers have opted to abandon traditional residential buildings or demolish them in favor of constructing new homes that better satisfy contemporary needs. This transition has not only created a visual and structural disconnect between old and new village landscapes, gradually eroding their unique character, but has also accelerated the decline and potential loss of the remaining traditional style buildings. Differences in the Impact of Urbanization and Protection Status of Architectural Heritage In the process of urbanization, a significant disparity emerges between the treatment of traditional style buildings and officially protected heritage buildings. The advantageous location and favorable economic conditions of many villages have driven the growth of land rental economies and large-scale development projects. Motivated by profit and the demand for development space, traditional style buildings are often demolished, leading to their gradual disappearance. In contrast, protected heritage buildings benefit from legal safeguards and serve as vital symbols of the village’s traditional culture and kinship ties. Influenced by both regulatory frameworks and a shared sense of cultural identity, these buildings are subject to collaborative efforts by municipal authorities and villagers to ensure their effective preservation, management, and adaptive reuse. As previously discussed, various urbanization-related factors have adversely affected the spatial patterns and features of traditional villages[14,23]. Traditional style buildings, as integral components of village appearance, are a crucial aspect of the evaluation framework for spatial patterns and features. Despite still comprising a significant portion of village structures, their preservation status is often inadequate and frequently overlooked. Throughout the urbanization process, these buildings have suffered both direct and indirect damage. Under the combined pressures of human activity and environmental factors, traditional style buildings are gradually deteriorating, leading to a loss of their original cultural value and historical significance. However, this study reveals that locational and economic factors have a positive influence on the preservation of protected buildings, including historical and heritage buildings. This finding suggests that urban development, to some extent, can contribute to the conservation of such buildings. On the one hand, location plays a pivotal role in facilitating the passive protection of heritage buildings within the framework of legal constraints. These structures, which include officially designated heritage sites, unregistered immovable cultural relics, and historically significant modern buildings, are safeguarded under laws such as the Cultural Relics Protection Law of the People's Republic of China [79]. Furthermore, historical buildings identified by municipal or county governments as having preservation value, even if not formally registered as immovable cultural relics, are protected under regulations such as the Regulations on the Protection of Famous Historical and Cultural Cities, Towns, and Villages . Both types of buildings are legally mandated for protection. Proximity to urban centers enhances the visibility and attention afforded to protected buildings, as they embody essential aspects of traditional and regional culture. As a result, these buildings are often prioritized for restoration and conservation, receiving more frequent monitoring and management to maintain their safety and cultural significance. Additionally, villages in advantageous locations are better equipped to attract social resources and engage public participation, creating opportunities for both preservation and adaptive reuse of these built heritage. On the other hand, economic factors significantly contribute to the active preservation of protected buildings, often driven by villagers' sense of heritage and cultural identity. In traditional villages, such buildings typically include ancestral halls, academies, and temples, which embody the historical and cultural essence of the village. These buildings serve as focal points for key activities, including worship, festivals, weddings, and education, functioning as the spiritual and social epicenters of village life[37]. They symbolize clan cohesion and cultural continuity. The economic benefits derived from urbanization have increased villagers’ willingness, particularly in suburban villages, to invest in the preservation and restoration of these buildings. Such investments often aim to maintain the traditional architectural appearance and structural integrity of these buildings and, in some cases, involve extensions or renovations to enhance their authenticity and completeness. In this context, economic advancements facilitated by urbanization play a pivotal role in fostering the conservation and sustainable development of protected buildings, particularly those of cultural significance such as ancestral halls and temples. The Dual Impact of Facilities Construction on the Preservation and Development of Built Heritage in Traditional Villages Urban expansion frequently results in the integration and appropriation of village land for city development, with large-scale infrastructure projects often causing significant disruptions to the original patterns and traditional features of villages. However, the moderate construction of facilities can yield notable benefits. Improved accessibility enhances village connectivity, revitalizes local economies, and promotes tourism that capitalizes on existing protected buildings. This, in turn, supports the preservation and sustainable development of cultural heritage, balancing modernization with the conservation of built heritage. Research indicates that uncontrolled facilities development driven by urbanization has detrimental effects on traditional villages[26,80–85]. Such projects, primarily designed to meet urban demands, often incorporate villages into broader city planning frameworks and are executed through large-scale construction and extensive redevelopment. This approach frequently results in significant damage to built heritage, undermining the historical and cultural integrity of these villages. For instance, the development of residential service facilities, public service facilities, and basic infrastructure exemplifies these adverse impacts. Residential service facilities, often driven by market demand and economic interests, tend to prioritize profitability. Their unregulated expansion and over-commercialization can disrupt the traditional village landscape, accelerating the deterioration of built heritage. Public service infrastructure projects frequently involve the requisition of village forests or farmland or the demolition of traditional buildings to create space, further compromising the integrity of village layouts. Large-scale infrastructure developments, such as urban roads bisecting villages or the construction of parking lots necessitating the removal of houses and farmland, significantly disrupt the spatial patterns and features of villages. Additionally, the haphazard installation of essential infrastructure, such as tangled electrical wires and exposed pipelines, negatively affects both the appearance and safety aspects of the village. However, this study reveals that the construction of facilities can have a positive impact on the preservation of protected buildings. Appropriately planned and executed facilities development has the potential to support the conservation and adaptive reuse of protected buildings, thereby contributing to their long-term preservation and sustainable advancement. On one hand, well-planned facilities construction improves village livability by creating a more appealing and habitable environment. This not only encourages residents to remain in the village but also fosters a stronger sense of responsibility toward protecting their surroundings and cultural heritage. Consequently, the community becomes more motivated to actively engage in the preservation and sustainable development of built heritage. On the other hand, the development of robust facilities provides a strong foundation for the growth of tourism in traditional villages. Tourism development, in turn, can attract government support and funding, thereby driving the revitalization and adaptive reuse ofprotected buildings, as well as promoting the overall development of the village’s built heritage. A notable example is Huangpu Ancient Village in Haizhu District. Following the rapid urbanization triggered by the reform and opening-up period, Huangpu Village gradually evolved into an urban village, integrating modern urban facilities and services into its historical fabric[86]. Despite urbanization pressures, the historical and cultural significance of Huangpu Village, particularly its ancient port, was rediscovered with the rise of the Pazhou business center in the 2000s. Leveraging existing urban infrastructure, the village enhanced its transportation networks, public services, and tourism-related facilities, creating favorable conditions for tourism development[87]. The local government actively supported this transformation by implementing policies that combined facility upgrades with cultural heritage preservation. Efforts included the restoration of protected buildings, repurposing them to serve both traditional functions and contemporary roles. These buildings now house modern cultural institutions, such as village museums, exhibition halls, libraries, and community centers, while still accommodating traditional activities. Through the integration of facilities construction and cultural preservation, Huangpu Ancient Village successfully attracted visitors by offering modern amenities and service alongside its historical charm and cultural ambiance. This strategy has significantly contributed to the long-term conservation and sustainable development of the village’s cultural heritage, demonstrating the positive synergy between infrastructure development and heritage preservation. Policy Recommendations Based on the analysis of urbanization's impact on the preservation of built heritage in traditional villages in Guangzhou, this study offers policy recommendations designed to provide a scientific basis and practical solutions for heritage conservation in the context of urbanization. These recommendations aim to strike a balance between safeguarding cultural heritage and supporting modern development. Overall, implementing tailored protection and development plans for each traditional village is crucial. This study highlights that the impact of urbanization on the built heritage of traditional villages varies significantly depending on specific factors and conditions. To address the diverse challenges these villages face during urbanization, the following strategies are proposed for consideration. Strict Regulation of Development Activities in Traditional Villages A comprehensive assessment should be conducted for all new construction projects within traditional villages, with stringent controls on scale, height, and architectural style to ensure development remains moderate and contextually appropriate. Overdevelopment, particularly large-scale infrastructure projects that could disrupt the village’s spatial layout, must be avoided. Efforts should focus on preserving the village’s traditional patterns and features. Additionally, a robust regulatory framework for urban development should be established, integrating the protection of built heritage and traditional culture into construction oversight mechanisms. Every proposed construction project should be rigorously evaluated to ensure it does not compromise the village’s traditional characteristics or cultural value. To support these efforts, a dynamic monitoring and early-warning system for traditional villages should be implemented[71]. This system would collect and analyze data on the status of built heritage in real-time, identifying potential risks and development trends. Early warnings of adverse impacts would enable the timely adoption of preventive measures to mitigate threats and safeguard the integrity of traditional villages. Rational Activation and Utilization of Built Heritage Resources In the context of urban development, it is crucial to encourage the integration of urban construction with the built heritage of traditional villages, fostering a harmonious interplay between urban growth and traditional culture. This approach seeks to achieve a balanced coexistence that preserves cultural identity while accommodating modernization. For construction projects within village boundaries, design styles that reflect and complement the traditional architectural character should be prioritized, minimizing the visual and cultural impact of modern buildings on the village’s heritage. Moreover, innovative strategies, such as introducing new functions and business models, can support the dynamic conservation and adaptive reuse of built heritage. This approach creates a virtuous cycle in which development incentivizes protection, and preservation enhances development potential. Additionally, efforts should focus on sustaining traditional cultural practices and folk activities within heritage buildings, such as ancestral halls and temples. These spaces should serve as "living" carriers of historical and cultural narratives, showcasing heritage in an active and engaging manner. By promoting the continued use of these buildings for cultural and social functions, their historical significance can be preserved and revitalized. Emphasis on the Protection and Utilization of Traditional Style Buildings Currently, the protection and utilization of traditional style buildings have not received sufficient attention, leading to the destruction of many remaining structures. To address this issue, it is imperative to strengthen the development and enforcement of laws and regulations specifically aimed at safeguarding these buildings and establishing their formal legal status. Unlike officially protected heritage structures, traditional style buildings possess greater flexibility for transformation, offering more diverse opportunities for development. To ensure their sustainable use, it is essential to clearly define the direction and limitations for the adaptive reuse and revitalization of these buildings. This approach should prioritize integrating these structures with contemporary societal needs, fostering innovative methods of utilization that balance heritage preservation with economic and social benefits. By exploring diverse strategies for adaptive reuse, traditional style buildings can be transformed into valuable assets that retain their historical significance while contributing to modern development goals. Research Outlook and Limitations This study makes a valuable contribution to research on the challenges associated with the built heritage of traditional villages within the context of urbanization. Methodologically, the application of structural equation modeling for multi-factor analysis provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the multifaceted impacts of urbanization on various aspects of built heritage. This analytical approach deepens the understanding of the mechanisms through which urbanization affects the preservation and transformation of traditional village heritage. Additionally, the study distinguishes protected cultural relics and historic buildings from the broader category of built heritage, treating them as a separate evaluative dimension. This differentiation enables a nuanced exploration of how urbanization impacts the preservation and development of architectural heritage. The findings highlight that advantageous location and favorable economic conditions play a significant role in promoting the conservation and sustainable development of protected heritage within the urbanization process. The findings of this study offer valuable insights into the mechanisms through which urbanization influences the built heritage of traditional villages in Guangzhou. These results can serve as a reference for similar research on the built heritage of traditional villages in other urbanizing regions. Furthermore, the study provides practical guidance and theoretical support for the protection and sustainable development of built heritage in traditional villages undergoing urbanization. This study has certain limitations. Urbanization is a multifaceted process involving numerous dynamic and interrelated factors. Consequently, the dimensions considered in this analysis are not exhaustive and could be further expanded. Future research should incorporate additional relevant variables to provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of how urbanization affects the built heritage of traditional villages. Such efforts would enhance the depth and persuasiveness of the findings, offering a more accurate depiction of the underlying mechanisms. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Author Contribution Data availabilityNo datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.Author contributionsConceptualization: Yingliang Zheng, Jin Tao, Peng Ren, Jihang XuMethodology: Yingliang Zheng, Jin Tao, Peng RenValidation: Yingliang Zheng Formal analysis: ,Yingliang Zheng, Jin Tao,Peng Ren, Zhibo WangInvestigation: Yingliang ZhengData curation: Yingliang Zheng, Zhibo WangWriting – original draft: Yingliang Zheng, Jin TaoWriting – review & editing: Jin Tao, Yingliang Zheng, Peng Ren, Jihang XuVisualization: Yingliang ZhengSupervision: Jin Tao, Peng Ren, Jihang XuProject administration: Jin Tao, Peng Ren, Jihang XuFunding acquisition: Jin Tao Acknowledgement The authors extend their sincere gratitude to Professor Tao Jin's team from the School of Architecture, South China University of Technology, including Li Geng, Ye Zhaoyi, Wang Luyuan, and other members, for their valuable contributions to the field investigation, data collection, and related work in this study. Data availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. References Hu Y, Chen S, Cao W, et al. The concept and cultural connotation of traditional villages. Urban Dev Stud. 2014;21(1):10–3. Li BH, Luo Q, Liu PL, et al. Knowledge maps analysis of traditional villages research in China based on the Citespace method. Econ Geogr. 2017;37:207–14. Wu C, Chen M, Zhou L, Liang X, Wang W. Identifying the Spatiotemporal Patterns of Traditional Villages in China: A Multiscale Perspective. Land. 2020;9:449. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9110449 . Sun JX. Traditional villages: Theoretical connotation and development path. Tourism Tribune. 2017;32(1):1–3. Gao J, Wu B. Revitalizing traditional villages through rural tourism: A case study of Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China. Tour Manag. 2017;63:223–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.003 . Bian J, Chen W, Zeng J. Spatial distribution characteristics and influencing factors of traditional villages in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(8):4627. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084627 . Li B, Yin S, Liu P, Dou Y. Spatial Distribution of Traditional Villages and the Influencing Factors in Hunan Province. Econ Geogr. 2015;35(2):189–94. Tang CC, Wan ZW, Liu M, et al. Perception and improvement of the protection and inheritance of traditional village cultural heritage based on Multi-agent. J Arid Land Resour Environ. 2021;35(2):196–202. Long Y, Wu K. Realities of Urbanization in China: Spatial Expansion, Population Contraction, Low-Density Human Activities, and Urban Scoping. Urban Plann Forum. 2016;(2):72–7. Chuanbiao D, Yongqi Z, Wei T. The reconstruction of household of Zhucun in Guangzhou in the process of the rapid urbanization. Scientia Geogr Sinica. 2017;37(9):1326–36. Zhai Z. Study on the Coordinated Response Mechanism and Development Path of Traditional Villages in the Process of New Urbanization——a case study of traditional villages in Shaanxi province. Doctoral Thesis, Northwest University, Shaanxi;2019. Guo Y, Xiao Y, Yuan Q. The redevelopment of peri-urban villages in the context of path-dependent land institution change and its impact on Chinese inclusive urbanization: The case of Nanhai, China. Cities. 2017;60:466–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.010 . LI BH, Z S N, LIU PL. Pattern language of the spatial arrangement of traditional villages: A case study of Zhangguying village. Scientia Geogr Sinica. 2019;39(11):1691–701. Liu C, Xu M. Characteristics and influencing factors on the hollowing of traditional villages—taking 2645 villages from the Chinese traditional village catalogue (Batch 5) as an example. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(23):12759. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312759 . Liu S, Bai M, Yao M, et al. Identifying the natural and anthropogenic factors influencing the spatial disparity of population hollowing in traditional villages within a prefecture-level city. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0249448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249448 . Qin RJ, Leung HH. Becoming a traditional village: Heritage protection and livelihood transformation of a Chinese village. Sustainability. 2021;13(4):2331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042331 . Chen X, Li W. Spatial Characteristic of Traditional Village Group from Regional Perspective—A Case Study of Traditional Villages in Lishui. Econ Geogr. 2016;36:185–92. Ma H. Persistence and Transformation of Chinese Traditional Villages—Rethinking the Planning of Traditional Settlements. Urban Plann Forum. 2006;1:102–7. Fu J, Zhou J, Deng Y. Heritage values of ancient vernacular residences in traditional villages in Western Hunan, China: Spatial patterns and influencing factors. Build Environ. 2021;188:107473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107473 . Xu Q, Wang J. Recognition of values of traditional villages in southwest China for sustainable development: A case study of Liufang Village. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):7569. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147569 . Liu S, Ge J, Bai M, et al. Toward classification-based sustainable revitalization: Assessing the vitality of traditional villages. Land Use Policy. 2022;116:106060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106060 . Liu S, Ge J, Li W, et al. Historic environmental vulnerability evaluation of traditional villages under geological hazards and influencing factors of adaptive capacity: A district-level analysis of Lishui, China. Sustainability. 2020;12(6):2223. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062223 . Wang D, Zhu Y, Zhao M, et al. Multi-dimensional hollowing characteristics of traditional villages and its influence mechanism based on the micro-scale: A case study of Dongcun Village in Suzhou, China. Land Use Policy. 2021;101:105146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105146 . Su H, Wang Y, Zhang Z, et al. Characteristics and influencing factors of traditional village distribution in China. Land. 2022;11(10):1631. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101631 . Gao C, Wu Y, Bian C, et al. Spatial characteristics and influencing factors of Chinese traditional villages in eight provinces the Yellow River flows through. River Res Appl. 2023;39(7):1255–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3880 . Chen X, Xie W, Li H. The spatial evolution process, characteristics and driving factors of traditional villages from the perspective of the cultural ecosystem: A case study of Chengkan Village. Habitat Int. 2020;104:102250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102250 . Kong L, Xu X, Wang W, et al. Comprehensive evaluation and quantitative research on the living protection of traditional villages from the perspective of Production–Living–Ecology. Land. 2021;10(6):570. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060570 . Dai D, Fu J, Zhao C. A Study on the Protection Strategy of Traditional Villages from the Perspective of Cultural Ecology—Take Wuhe Village, Julong Town, Yanting County, Mianyang City as an Example. Open J Social Sci. 2019;7(7):88–98. Yanbing H, Xuning Q, Tongwen W. On dividing the classification and assessment of the vulnerability of cultural landscape of traditional villages: A case study of Henan province. Tourism Sci. 2021;35(3):24–41. Lin H. Study on the Protection and Activation Strategy of Hollow Traditional Villages in the Suburbs of Guangzhou. Master's thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou;2020. Wen J, Yan X. Typical Characteristics and Power Mechanism of Rural in Situ Urbanization in Zhongshan City. World Reg Stud. 2011;20(2):76–83. Li PL. Tremendous changes: The end of villages-A study of villages in the center of Guangzhou city. Social Sci China. 2002;1:168–79. Zhan F. SResearch on the transition of the traditional village and thetransformation mode under the influence of new town development——a case study of Foshan new town. Master's thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou;2017. Mu Q, Aimar F, Chen L. The joint force of bottom-up and top-down in the Preservation and Renewal of Rural Architectural Heritage, taking Piedmont, Italy as the case study. Jianzhushi. 2021;209:51–7. Wen Q, Tang J, Cai K. The Authenticity and Integrity of Traditional Village Protection from the Perspective of Vernacular Built Heritage:A Case Study of Three Gorges Original Township Hankuimen. Huazhong Archit. 2023;41(12):143–7. Tan GY, Yi LW. Critical thinking on the protection of traditional villages and rural construction based on the concept of built heritage. New Arch. 2023;2:4–10. Cheng J. Study on the protection and sustainable development of traditional villages in the Pearl River Delta. Doctoral Thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou;2022. Gong J, Xia B, Chen J. Spatially fuzzy assessment of regional eco-security in Guangzhou, a fast urbanizing area: A case study in Guangzhou City. Acta Ecol Sin. 2008;28:4992–5001. Zhang J, Huo X, Zhang Y, Zhang J. Innovations and Practical Explorations of Guangzhou Historic-city Conservation Plan. Urban Rural Plann. 2017;(1):51–61. Feng Z, Xiao D, Fu J. The Cultural Landscape Characteristics Of Traditional Villages And Houses Based On Cultural Regionalization——A Case Study Of Guangzhou. Archit Cult. 2016;(6):102–4. Zhu X, Lin Y, Fan J, et al. Research on the Situation and Protection Utilization of Ancient Villages in Guangdong Province. J South China Univ Technol (Social Sci Edition). 2016;18(6):105–13. Yang R. Spatial differentiation and mechanisms of typical rural areas in the suburbs of a metropolis: A case study of Beicun Village, Baiyun District, Guangzhou. Acta Geogr Sin. 2019;74(8):1622–36. WEI C, LIU F, YANG C, et al. Challenges and trends in the preservation and utilization of traditional villages in rapidly urbanized area: A case study of the Pearl River Delta. J Nat Resour. 2024;39(8):1867–86. Li J, Chu J, Li Y. Research on the Revitalization Path of Traditional Villages Based on PLS-SEM: Taking Ancient Huizhou Area as an Example. Dev Small Cities Towns. 2021;39(7):16–24. Cheng K. Characteristics and Applications of Structural Equation Modeling. Stat Decis. 2006;(10):22–5. Liu Y, Long H, Chen Y, et al. Progress of research on urban-rural transformation and rural development in China in the past decade and future prospects. J Geog Sci. 2016;26:1117–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-016-1318-8 . Kong X, Liu D, Tian Y, et al. Multi-objective spatial reconstruction of rural settlements considering intervillage social connections. J Rural Stud. 2021;84:254–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.028 . Tang W, Zhang J, Luo H, Lu S, Yang X. Relationship between the place attachment of ancient village residents and their attitude towards resource protection—A Case study of Xidi, Hongcun and Nanping villages. Tourism Tribune. 2008;23(10):87–92. Zhao Y, Yan J, Huang M, Bian G, Du Y. Analysis of Settlement Space Environment along China’s Grand Canal Tianjin Section Based on Structural Equation Model—Case Study of 44 Typical Settlements. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095369 . Xie X, Ye L. Reconstructing Rural Settlements Based on Structural Equation Modeling—Taking Hongshanyao Town of Jinchang City as an Example. Sustainability. 2023;15(2):1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021338 . Luo Y, Zhao L, Chen L. Analysis of the Influence of Three Lives on the Protection and Development of Traditional Villages in the Context of Rural Tourism:Based on the survey of 21 national-level traditional villages in Jiangxi Province. Sci Technol Ind. 2023;23(1):108–13. Jiang J. Research on the Strategies of Suburban Villages' Organic Renewal in Megacities under the Pattern of Urban-Rural Integration: A Case Study of Villages in Suburb and Outer Suburb of Shanghai. Shanghai Urban Plann Rev. 2023;(4):62–9. Jiang X, Man S, Zhu X, Zhao H, Yan T. Sustainable Protection Strategies for Traditional Villages Based on a Socio-Ecological Systems Spatial Pattern Evaluation: A Case Study from Jinjiang River Basin in China. Sustainability (2071 – 1050). 2024;16(17). Liu S, Ge J, Bai M, Yao M, Zhu Z. Uncovering the factors influencing the vitality of traditional villages using POI (point of interest) data: a study of 148 villages in Lishui, China. Herit Sci. 2023;11(1):123. Fu L, Zhang Q, Tang Y, Pan J, Li Q. Assessment of urbanization impact on cultural heritage based on a risk-based cumulative impact assessment method. Herit Sci. 2023;11(1):177. He Y, Wen C, Fang X, Sun X. Impacts of urban-rural integration on landscape patterns and their implications for landscape sustainability: The case of Changsha, China. Landsc Ecol. 2024;39(7):129. Cui W, Li Y, Liu Y. Rural hollowing in key agricultural areas of China: Characteristics, mechanisms and countermeasures. Resour Sci. 2011;33(11):2014–21. Zheng D, Wen Q, Wang Y, Mi H. Differentiation mechanism and reconstruction strategy of rural population hollowing in China. Econ Geogr. 2019;39(02):161–8. Long H, Li Y, Liu Y. Analysis of evolutive characteristics and their driving mechanism of hollowing villages in China. Acta Geogr Sin. 2009;64(10):1203–13. Wang Q, Yang C, Tian L, Wu F, An J. Safety risk assessment of heritage buildings in metro construction based on SPA theory: a case study in Zhengzhou, China. Herit Sci. 2020;8:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-020-00439-3 . Zhang Y, Sun Z. A Review of Applied Uses of Satellite Remote Sensing for Risk Assessment and Dynamic Monitoring of Built Heritage Conservation. Mod Urban Res. 2022;(5):56–63. Dang X, Chen X. The Construction and Evolution of the Built Heritage Conservation System and Management Mechanisms in the UK. Urban Plann Int. 2924;1–13. Zhu Z, Yang H, Hu Y, Chen F, Ke C. Evaluation of village development potential and village classification by multi-source data. J Agricultural Resourcs Environ. 2021;38(6):1142–51. Ma S, Fang X, Research on Traditional Villages Tourism Resources Analysis Based on GIS. A Case Study on Zichuan District, Zibo City, Shandong Province, China. Asia-Pac J Converg Res Interchange. 2021;7(1):1–10. Cai E, Li J, Ye Q, Chen W, Feng J, Zhang S, Zhang S. Village classification and development strategies based on the development capacity and obstacle degree: a case study of Xinxian County, Henan Province, China. J Agricultural Resourcs Environ. 2023;40(5):1040–52. Wang F, Liu Z, Shang S, Qin Y, Wu B. Vitality continuation or over-commercialization? Spatial structure characteristics of commercial services and population agglomeration in historic and cultural areas. Tour Econ. 2019;25(8):1302–26. Xie S, Ning Y, Urbanization. and Suburbanization: The dual engines to spatial change of chinese metropolis under transitional era: a case study of Guangzhou. City Plann Rev. 2003;(11):24–9. Chen L, Lu C, Yuan F, Jiang Z, Wang L, Zhang D, et al. Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2021;5(2):57:1–5726. UVLens: Urban Village Boundary Identification and Population Estimation Leveraging Open Government Data. Li S, Li J, Liu D, Fang X. Design and Implementation of Rural Development Potential Evaluation System. Dev Small Cities༆Towns. 2024;42(2):5–15. Xiao T, Sun H, Li X, Zhang H, Li Y. Evaluation of Village Development Potential and Classification Strategies——An Example of the Wei Fan Area on the South Shore of Chaohu Lake. J Huaiyin Inst Technol. 2023;32(5):69–77. Tao J, Chen ZX, Wei C, Xiao D, Hang J. A Dynamic Monitoring and Early Warning System for Traditional Villages in China. South Archit. 2023;(4):29–39. Huang Y, Li E, Xiao D. Conservation Key points and management strategies of historic villages: 10 cases in the Guangzhou and Foshan Area, Guangdong Province, China. J Asian Archit Building Eng. 2022;21(4):1320–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2021.1941979 . Dou Y, Peng S, Li B. Study on spatial accessibility of traditional villages in Hunan province. Resource Dev Market. 2015;31(5):554–8. Wang Y, Cui J, Ni Y. A Study on Resident Satisfaction with the Quality of Public Space in Historical Cultural Districts Based on Structural Equation Modeling: Taking Suzhou Pingjiang Historic District as an Example. Mod Urban Res. 2023;(4):89–96. Changhong B, Wei L. A study of customer's satisfactions based on customer perceived value[J]. Nankai J. 2001;(6):14–20. Lin Z, Li N, Chang J et al. The differentiation characteristics and formation mechanism of hollowrization in traditional villages: A case study of the traditional villages in Yangquan, Shanxi[J]. Mod Urban Res. 2016;(1):16–23. Jiang C, Li J, Liu J. Does urbanization affect the gap between urban and rural areas? Evidence from China. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2022;82:101271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101271 . Cai X, Zhou X, Zhang D, Wu Y. Swirling flows: Processes and mechanisms of everyday life practice of new urban-rural amphibious group. Geographical Res. 2024;43(1):17–30. Cheng Y, Hu S, Yang R, Tao W, Li H, Li B, et al. Protection and Utilization of Chinese Traditional Villages for Rural Revitalization: Challenges and Prospects. J Nat Resour. 2024;39(8):1735–59. Li X. Study on Problems of Traditional Villages Infrastructure—Taking Yunshe village For Example. Master's thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou;2016. Zhang C, Zhu H, Xin T, Wang C. An Exploration on Optimization of Public Service Facilities in Traditional Villages under the Concept of Host-Guest Sharing:A Case Study Based on Shenjing Village in Huangpu, Guangzhou. South Archit. 2024;(2):64–71. Wei C, Miao K, Huang D, Xiao D. Research on Comprehensive Evaluation System for Infrastructure of Chinese Traditional Village. J Urban Reg Plann. 2017;9(4):112–26. Jiang X. Optimization Strategies for the Layout of Existing Commercial Services in Tourist Villages Based on Spatial Syntax. Master's thesis, Anhui Jianzhu University, Anhui;2024. Xi J, Zhao M, Ge Q, Kong Q. Changes in land use of a village driven by over 25 years of tourism: The case of Gougezhuang village, China. Land Use Policy. 2014;40:119–30. Qun Q, Mitchell CJA, Wall G. Creative destruction in China’s historic towns: Daxu and Yangshuo, Guangxi. J Destin Mark Manag. 2012;1(1):56–66. Pan S. A Comparative Study of Renewal Models for The Preservation and Inheritance of Cultural Heritage inUrban Village. Master's thesis, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou;2023. Jiang J. Research on the Practice of Social Organizations' Participation in the Activationof Rural Cultural Heritage: Taking Huangpu Ancient Village in Guangzhou as an Example. Master's thesis, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou;2024. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5845462","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":410967126,"identity":"2d82f1ac-a735-4e8d-95de-05fc6b54080b","order_by":0,"name":"Yingliang Zheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"South China University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yingliang","middleName":"","lastName":"Zheng","suffix":""},{"id":410967127,"identity":"e169919e-dc98-4a64-9676-c0874f974e3c","order_by":1,"name":"Zhibo Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"South China University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhibo","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":410967128,"identity":"b5249e50-b079-4dc6-8707-f2036a4bfb8e","order_by":2,"name":"Peng Ren","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"South China University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Peng","middleName":"","lastName":"Ren","suffix":""},{"id":410967129,"identity":"ab5ae655-1286-4c5e-85a6-c3f3ae0a07b5","order_by":3,"name":"Jihang Xu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"South China University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jihang","middleName":"","lastName":"Xu","suffix":""},{"id":410967130,"identity":"b217a861-8368-4708-858c-3eaae13fd11f","order_by":4,"name":"Jin Tao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"South China University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jin","middleName":"","lastName":"Tao","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-17 02:53:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5845462/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5845462/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":75704581,"identity":"661a9f8a-7543-48f5-9009-b07d0f0caec0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-07 09:59:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":3493410,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe distribution of traditional villages in Guangzhou\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5845462/v1/ba108e0deb180eb151969013.jpg"},{"id":75704575,"identity":"9fc4fee2-3c73-4b61-86f9-1ced3cca4071","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-07 09:59:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":118078,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual Model of the Impact of Urbanization on the Built Heritage of Traditional Villages\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5845462/v1/50a4be406f7316c2e3b49058.jpg"},{"id":75704579,"identity":"a61b8d54-a6d0-4fb4-92e0-6d34bbc09d7d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-07 09:59:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":347260,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStructural equation model results.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5845462/v1/23f84056bd24ec1eec7bf316.jpg"},{"id":75704589,"identity":"1a96e20f-dbf5-4795-b98c-13da0b7d5750","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-07 09:59:31","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29170127,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe evolution of Huatingfang natural village from 2004 to 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: Map come from https://maps.google.com\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5845462/v1/1fa72e04bba07608208e8319.jpg"},{"id":75704585,"identity":"a01ff8e9-4609-452a-a46b-518280e26615","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-07 09:59:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5477864,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe industrial elements is embedded in the Sanhua Traditional Village in a planar form\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: Map come from https://maps.google.com\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5845462/v1/cc298ceb40faf39eca95861b.jpg"},{"id":81918461,"identity":"63fbb2f7-dd4f-4c18-b603-7cbfeaa2ec5c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-04 20:16:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":39602412,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5845462/v1/e35d75f1-fc80-4969-b432-ae7f78b34a5d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Impacts of Urbanization on the Protection of Built Heritage in Traditional Villages: A Case Study of 96 Traditional Villages in Guangzhou, China.","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eTraditional villages are settlements established in earlier times that are rich in traditional resources and embody diverse values spanning history, culture, science, art, society, and economy, making them worthy of preservation[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. They represent a significant component of the country's historical and cultural heritage and serve as vital carriers of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. The cultural significance of these villages encompasses well-preserved traditional architectural features, distinctive village sites and layouts, and intangible cultural heritage elements[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. In 2012, the Chinese government released the first national list of traditional villages, elevating their protection to a national priority with legal status(5,6). By 2023, a total of 8,155 villages had been designated as national-level traditional villages. Additionally, regional governments at various levels have emphasized the importance of protecting and developing traditional villages by evaluating their local heritage value and publishing corresponding provincial and municipal lists[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the rapid development and modernization of cities have intensified the conflicts between native and modern civilizations. Urbanization practices, including rapid spatial expansion, large-scale population relocation, and high-intensity building development, have contributed to challenges such as the depopulation of traditional villages or their in situ urbanization[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10 CR11 CR12\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, many traditional villages are experiencing gradual decline or even disappearance. This impact is most evident in the deterioration of traditional buildings, historical patterns, and cultural elements[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15 CR16\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. The built heritage of traditional villages, as a crucial physical embodiment of their cultural value, has been particularly vulnerable and severely affected by urbanization[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrently, many scholars have conducted extensive research on various aspects of traditional villages, including their value[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], vitality[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], vulnerability[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], depopulation[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], spatial distribution characteristics and influencing factors[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], evolutionary traits[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], and strategies for protection and development[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. The state of built heritage preservation has been integrated into comprehensive evaluation systems for traditional villages, facilitating more systematic and scientific assessments of sustainable development and bolstering preservation efforts[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. These studies highlight the significance of built heritage in the conservation and development of traditional villages, noting that its decline serves as a visible indicator of village hollowing out[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. While natural factors contribute to this issue, human activities have an even greater impact. To meet modern living demands, population migration and the construction of new housing have accelerated the deterioration and functional loss of traditional village spaces[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Concurrently, rapid urban development has pushed traditional villages toward localized urbanization and urban-rural integration.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] Urban expansion increasingly encroaches upon village spatial resources, directly damaging traditional buildings, features and spatial patterns[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough existing research highlights the impact of urbanization on built heritage, studies examining the specific mechanisms of this influence remain limited. Current analyses have identified factors affecting built heritage in traditional villages under urbanization. For example, Wang D. et al. argued that the economic and locational changes brought by urbanization accelerate the decay of traditional village buildings[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Liu C. et al. suggested that urbanization-driven human activities threaten traditional buildings by examining building hollowing coefficients in these villages[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. However, most findings are qualitative, lacking in-depth analysis and empirical investigation of the specific mechanisms at play. In research focused on the evaluation of traditional village protection and development, building-related indicators are often included in assessment frameworks. For instance, Liu S. et al. used factors such as the proportion of historical buildings and the classification of protected cultural relics as measures for assessing the protection and vitality of village-built environments[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. However, built heritage in traditional villages comprises not only buildings but also traditional features and patterns[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR35\" citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Future studies should emphasize these elements to provide a more comprehensive understanding. Additionally, existing research has also shown that the impact of urbanization on built heritage varies significantly based on location. For example, in Foshan, the contrasting cases of Chaji and Daqitou illustrate this: Chaji, close to urban areas, has suffered extensive heritage damage, while Daqitou, located farther from urban centers, has remained well-preserved[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. These differences highlight the importance of examining how urbanization mechanisms affect traditional village heritage in different locational condition, ensuring more accurate and comprehensive assessments to inform preservation strategies. In this context, the present study investigates the following questions: What specific urbanization factors influence the preservation of built heritage in traditional villages, and through what mechanisms? How do preservation outcomes vary among villages at different distances from urban centers? Lastly, do legally protected built heritage experience different impacts from urbanization?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuangzhou, a city characterized by rapid urbanization, is also recognized as one of China's national historical and cultural cities[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Given the conflict between urban development and heritage preservation, investigating the mechanisms by which urbanization impacts traditional villages in Guangzhou holds significant practical relevance and urgency. This study, therefore, selects Guangzhou as the research area and considers factors related to location, economy, population, and facilities construction. Employing a structural equation model, the empirical analysis examines traditional villages at national, provincial, and municipal levels within Guangzhou to explore the specific mechanisms by which urbanization affects built heritage. The aim of this study is to elucidate how various aspects of the urbanization process influence the preservation of traditional village heritage and to identify the challenges and issues involved. The findings are intended to provide a scientific basis for developing policies and strategies to enhance heritage protection.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Area and Study Subjects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGuangzhou, located at the heart of the Pearl River Delta and serving as the capital of Guangdong Province, comprises 11 administrative districts, including Tianhe, Yuexiu, Haizhu, and Liwan. As the cultural center of Lingnan and Cantonese culture, Guangzhou hosts traditional villages known for their distinctive spatial patterns, features, and architectural forms, embodying significant built heritage and cultural richness[40,41]. However, since the economic reforms of 1978, Guangzhou has experienced rapid development, leveraging its strategic location and economic foundations[38,42]. This urban expansion has continually encroached upon the long-standing physical spaces of traditional villages, meanwhile, the influx of modern cultural values and lifestyles has altered village spaces and the local residential environment, eroding their original rural essence and spirit[43]. Thus selecting Guangzhou as the research area is not only representative but also critically significant for understanding how to balance urbanization with the protection of built heritage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Guangzhou has 96 traditional villages designated at the national, provincial, and municipal levels (refer to Figure 1). These villages are distributed across all districts except Yuexiu District. This study selects these 96 traditional villages as the research subjects to analyze urbanization factors and examine the mechanisms by which these factors affect built heritage, including the spatial patterns, distinctive features, and traditional buildings of these villages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1. The distribution of traditional villages in Guangzhou.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch methodology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraditional villages represent a dynamic and complex composite system, with their built heritage influenced by numerous variables. Measuring the effects of these variables directly and accurately presents significant challenges. Thus, it is crucial to use observable indicators that can be directly measured to effectively represent these variables. Structural equation modeling (SEM) provides a powerful multivariate statistical approach for examining interactions among variables[44]. By integrating factor analysis and path analysis, SEM combines measurement and analysis seamlessly. This method enables researchers to explore the underlying relationships between independent variables using the covariance matrix and allows for simultaneous multi-factor analysis across multiple variables[45\u0026ndash;47].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent studies have utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate various aspects of traditional village development mechanisms, human-environment relationships, resource protection, and distribution mechanisms. For example, Li J. et al. conducted an empirical analysis of 95 national-level traditional villages in the Huizhou region, concluding that heritage resources play a dominant role in village development, while external factors such as policies and market conditions act as moderating influences. They also identified essential supporting elements for village development, including infrastructure and regional natural geographic conditions[44]. Similarly, Tang W. et al. used SEM to explore the relationship between residents\u0026apos; place attachment and their attitudes toward resource protection in three ancient villages in southern Anhui[48]. Zhao Y. et al. developed a structural equation model to analyze the intrinsic connections and influencing patterns among the spatial environment components of settlements along the Grand Canal in Tianjin[49]. Xie X. et al. applied SEM alongside an adaptive evaluation system to assess the suitability of rural settlement layouts in Hongshankou Town, Jinchang City[50]. Lastly, Luo Y. et al. employed SEM to examine whether production, living and ecological factors influence the development levels of 21 national-level traditional villages in Jiangxi Province[51].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to establish a structural equation model to investigate the impact mechanisms of urbanization on the conservation of built heritage in traditional villages. Additionally, it seeks to propose policy recommendations to effectively support the sustainable development and preservation of built heritage in these villages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel construction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelation Hypothesis on the impact of urbanization on the built heritage of traditional villages\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnder the influence of the polarization and diffusion effects of megacities, traditional villages with varying locational characteristics face distinct challenges concerning their built heritage[52]. Concurrently, the progressive spread of urbanization has impacted the economic, demographic, and infrastructural conditions of these villages to differing degrees[53\u0026ndash;60]. Changes in economic development, population mobility, and facilities construction further threaten the integrity of built heritage[10,14,23,30\u0026ndash;33]. Therefore, this study selects location, economics, population, and facilities construction as independent variables for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe built heritage of traditional villages includes not only the distinctive patterns and features but also the traditional architecture that embody ancient wisdom and cultural achievements[35,36,61,62]. Currently, the definition of traditional architecture is broad; however, this study specifically focuses on the preservation of cultural heritage buildings and historic buildings\u0026mdash;those with significant historical and cultural value that receive legal protection\u0026mdash;constructing a dimension referred to as \u0026quot;Protected Buildings.\u0026quot; While traditional style architecture contributes to the overall character of the village, it is not legally protected. Therefore, this study classifies it under the dimension of \u0026quot;Spatial Patterns and Features.\u0026quot; Accordingly, this research identifies \u0026quot;Spatial Patterns and Features\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;Protected Buildings\u0026quot; as the dependent variables for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, this study selects \u0026ldquo;Location\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Economics\u0026rdquo;, \u0026rdquo;Population\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Facilities Construction\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Spatial Patterns and Features\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Protected Buildings\u0026rdquo; as latent variables within the model variable system, constructing a structural equation model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the process of urbanization, location plays a direct and indirect role in the development of traditional villages, resulting in various characteristic impacts[52]. The proximity of traditional villages to urban areas directly influences the degree of pressure they face from urban expansion. Villages located closer to urban centers are generally more vulnerable to land acquisition and development activities, which can significantly affect their landscapes, spatial patterns, and built environments[43]. Additionally, while economic development, population mobility, and facilities construction contribute to the modernization of production and living conditions, they also pose further challenges to the preservation of built heritage in traditional villages. Based on these considerations, this study proposes the research model shown in Figure 2 and presents the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1a:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eLocation influences Spatial Patterns and Features.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2a:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eLocation influences Protected Buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1b:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eEconomics influences Patterns and Features.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2b:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eEconomics influences Protected Buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1c:\u003c/strong\u003e Population influence Patterns and Features.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2c:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePopulation influence Protected Buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1d:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eFacilities Construction influences Patterns and Features.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2d:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eFacilities Construction influences Protected Buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 2. Conceptual Model of the Impact of Urbanization on the Built Heritage of Traditional Villages\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction of the indicator system for explicit variables and calculation methods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study utilized six latent variables: the four urbanization dimensions of \u0026quot;Location,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;Economics,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;Population,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;Facility Construction,\u0026quot; along with the two built heritage dimensions of \u0026quot;Spatial Patterns and Features\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;Protected Buildings.\u0026quot; As these latent variables cannot be directly measured, explicit variables were identified by synthesizing relevant literature (see Table 1). Meanwhile, scoring of the explicit variables in relation to the actual situation of the research (see Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor \u0026quot;Location,\u0026quot; scholars such as Zhu Z., Liu S., and Ma S. have argued that the distance between villages and central urban areas, highway exits, and AAA-level tourist attractions significantly influences village development[21,63\u0026ndash;65]. Additionally, Kong L. et al. highlighted that public transportation accessibility is an essential aspect of location[27].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding \u0026quot;Economics,\u0026quot; Liu S., Ge J., and Bai M. et al. contend that the per capita annual income of villagers effectively reflects the economic level of a village[21]. Other researchers have pointed out that the number of enterprises within the village and the volume of visitors can also indicate the economic vitality of the area[54,66].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of \u0026quot;Population,\u0026quot; several studies have identified the migrant population, registered population, permanent residency rate, and aging rate as important indicators of demographic change in villages amid urbanization[37,65,67\u0026ndash;69].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor \u0026quot;Facility Construction,\u0026quot; indicators include the number and quality of living service facilities, basic infrastructure, and public service facilities, as well as their proximity to villages and development levels, which are seen as measures of urban infrastructure\u0026apos;s impact on rural areas[69,70].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Spatial Patterns and Features\u0026quot; are represented in studies by elements such as landscape environment patterns and the distinct features of traditional villages. Researchers like Chen J. and Tao J. have suggested measuring these through the completeness of landscape patterns, the integrity of traditional features within core protection areas, and the coherence of traditional features in village construction control zones[37,71,72]. Finally, \u0026quot;Protected Buildings\u0026quot; encompass historical and cultural heritage buildings. Scholars such as Huang Y. and Chen J. argued that factors such as the scale of preservation, protection levels of historical buildings, and the conservation status of cultural heritage buildings reflect the overall condition of protected structures[37,72].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Explanation and Reference Sources of Explicit Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLatent variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplicit Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRef.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance from village to central city\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZhu Z, et al.[63],\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCai E L, Li J W,et al.[65]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic transportation accessibility of villages\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKong L, Xu X, Wang W, et al.[27]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance from village to neighboring highway entrance/exit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLiu S, Ge J, Bai M, et al.[21]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance from the village to the nearest AAA and above scenic spot\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMa S, Fang X[64]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnual per capita income of villagers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLiu S, Ge J, Bai M, et al.[21]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of corporate enterprises within village boundaries\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWang F, Liu Z, Shang S, et al.[66]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe volume of visitors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLiu S, Ge J, Bai M, et al.[54]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emigrant population\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eXie S H, Ning Y M,et al.[67]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003erate of permanent residents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChen L, Lu C, Yuan F, et al.[68],Chen J.[37]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eregistered population\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCai E L, Li J W,et al.[65]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe aging rate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLi S F,Li J Q,Liu D Y,et al.[69]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilities Construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of living service facilities within a 1 km radius of the village\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eXiao T Q,Sun H X,Li X X,et al.[70]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of infrastructure development\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLi S F,Li J Q,Liu D Y,et al.[69]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance from the village to community-level or higher public service facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLi S F,Li J Q,Liu D Y,et al.[69]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompleteness of landscape patterns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTao J,Chen Z X,Wei C,et al.[71]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e,Huang Y, Li E, Xiao D.[72]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegrity of traditional features in core protection areas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChen J.[37]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e,Tao J,Chen Z X,Wei C,et al.[71]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoherence of features in the village construction control zones\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChen J[37].\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTao J,Chen Z X,Wei C,et al.[71]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 43px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScale of preservation for historical buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHuang Y, Li E, Xiao D.[72]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of protection for historical buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHuang Y, Li E, Xiao D.[72]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 222px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConservation status of cultural heritage buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChen J.[37]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 2. Scoring Standard for Explicit Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLatent variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplicit Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 311px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScoring standard\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ekm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45-60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15-30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e③\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2-0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4-0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6-0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e④\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ekm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e③\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ekm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e③\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10,000CNY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e⑤\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20-40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40-60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60-80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e①\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-200\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200-400\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e400-600\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e600-800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e⑥\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e500-1000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1000-1500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1500-2000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞2000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e⑤\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20-40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40-60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60-80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80-100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e⑤\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e500-1000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1000-1500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1500-2000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞2000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e⑤\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6-8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e⑤\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10-30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30-50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50-100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e②,①\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e②,①\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ekm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＞4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e③,①\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e②\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e②\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e②\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e②\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e②\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 53px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e②\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethod：\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1)POI data imported into ArcGIS for statistical analysis; (2)Field surveys; (3)Calculation of spatial distances using ArcGIS in combination with road network data[73]; (4)Village public transportation accessibility (Tn) calculated as: T\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e = (Number of bus stations * 0.3 + Number of bus routes * 0.3 + Number of metro and intercity rail stations * 0.4) / T\u003csub\u003emax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e; (5)Literature review; (6)Acquisition of public data from Gaode Map.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotes:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the explicit variables of D12, scores 1-5 represent\u0026quot;The village roads are not paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities cover less than 20% of the village.\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;The village roads are partially paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities cover 20-40% of the village.\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Some of the village roads are paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities cover 40-60% of the village.\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Most of the village roads are paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities cover 60-80% of the village.\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;The roads are fully paved, and waste sewage treatment, water supply, electricity, and other facilities are fully developed, covering 80-100% of the village.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the explicit variables of E11, scores 1-5 represent\u0026quot;Damaged\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Only partial remains\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Main structure still exists\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Relatively well-preserved\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Well-preserved.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the explicit variables of E12, scores 1-5 represent\u0026quot;Nearly no traditional feature\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Overall traditional feature is chaotic\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;A large number of newly constructed buildings, affecting the overall traditional feature\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Few new buildings, not affecting the overall traditional feature\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Overall traditional feature is complete and harmonious.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the explicit variables of E13, scores 1-5 represent\u0026quot;Nearly no traditional feature\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Overall traditional feature is chaotic\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;A large number of newly constructed buildings, affecting the overall traditional feature\u0026quot;, \u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;Few new buildings, not affecting the overall traditional feature\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Overall traditional feature is complete and harmonious.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the explicit variables of F11, scores 1-5 represent\u0026quot;Minimal preservation scale, with historical building groups severely damaged or completely lost\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Limited preservation scale, with historical building groups damaged\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Moderate preservation scale, with historical building groups largely preserved\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Significant preservation scale, with historical building groups relatively intact\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Large preservation scale, with historical building groups fully intact.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the explicit variables of F12 and F13, scores 1-5 represent\u0026quot;Extremely low level of protection, with severe damage to structure, fa\u0026ccedil;ade, etc.\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Low level of protection, with considerable damage to structure, fa\u0026ccedil;ade, etc.\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Moderate level of protection, with some damage to structure, fa\u0026ccedil;ade, etc.\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;High level of protection, with minimal damage to structure, fa\u0026ccedil;ade, etc.\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;Very high level of protection, with structure, fa\u0026ccedil;ade, etc., in excellent condition.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReliability and Validity Tests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReliability assesses the stability and consistency of results obtained from the measurement scale. A reliability analysis of the survey data was conducted using SPSS software. Items with low reliability, such as A14 and C14, were removed from the analysis. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficients for each dimension and the overall scale are shown in Table 3. The overall scale achieved an alpha coefficient of 0.916, while the coefficients for the subscales were all above 0.8, indicating strong internal consistency among the scale items[74].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Alpha coefficient values and Reliability test.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN（Number of items）\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlpha coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall Scale Reliability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.834\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.916\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.907\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.909\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilities Construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.858\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.887\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 122px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.850\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotes: \u003cem\u003eIt is generally accepted that when the alpha coefficient is greater than 0.8, the scale reliability is considered excellent; when the alpha coefficient falls between 0.7 and 0.8, the reliability is considered good; and when the alpha coefficient is above 0.6, it is considered an acceptable level of reliability\u003c/em\u003e[75]\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eValidity measures the extent to which the predicted results align with the actual measurement data. Higher validity indicates that the measurement accurately reflects the true situation. In this study, SPSS software was used to conduct a validity test using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure. A KMO value closer to 1 suggests that the data is well-suited for the analysis. As shown in Table 4, the KMO value is 0.855, and Bartlett\u0026apos;s test of sphericity produced a value of 1166.068, with a significance level that passed the 1% threshold. These results indicate that the variables demonstrate strong independence, meeting the criteria for validity testing and supporting the feasibility of further empirical research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4. KMO values and Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 379px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eName\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 379px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKMO Sampling suitability quantity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.855\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBartlett\u0026rsquo;s sphericity test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApproximate cardinality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1166.068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf(Degree of freedom)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e153\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.sig(Significance)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e＜0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFitting Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the consistency between the model and the proposed theoretical framework and to confirm whether each measurement item significantly loads onto its designated factor without significant cross-loadings, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 26.0 software.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA CFA model was initially constructed based on the theoretical foundations outlined earlier, and the SPSS sample data from previous analyses were imported into the model for evaluation. The model fit was subsequently assessed. As shown in Table 5, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df) was 1.176, below the acceptable threshold of 5, indicating an adequate fit. The RMSEA value was 0.043, well under the 0.05 benchmark, suggesting an excellent fit. Additionally, the Incremental Fit Index (IFI) was 0.981, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.981, and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.976, all surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.9, signifying a robust fit. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the model exhibits a strong fit to the data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5. Fitting coefficients of the structural equation model\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"99%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/df\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFitting the Standard\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValues\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.176\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 17px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.043\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.981\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.981\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.976\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConvergent Validity Test\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConvergent validity refers to whether the explicit variables measuring the same latent construct converge onto the latent variable. In this study, conver gent validity is assessed using Factor Loadings, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). Generally, it is considered that convergent validity is satisfactory when the AVE exceeds 0.5 and the CR is greater than 0.6.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table 6, the standardized factor loadings for all 18 measurement items in this study are above 0.6, with most exceeding 0.7. The AVE for each variable surpasses 0.5, and the CR values range from 0.838 to 0.912, with the majority exceeding 0.7. These findings indicate that the measurement model demonstrates strong convergent validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 6. Model Validity Summary\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"562\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 333px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor Loading\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComposite Reliability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage Variance Extracted\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublic transportation accessibility of villages\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.763\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.838\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.634\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance from village to central city\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance from village to neighboring highway entrance/exit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.737\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe volume of visitors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.884\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.908\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.767\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of corporate enterprises within village boundaries\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.863\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnual per capita income of villagers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.880\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of infrastructure development\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilities Construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.755\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.861\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.674\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of living service facilities within a 1 km radius of the village\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilities Construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.858\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance from the village to community-level or higher public service facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilities Construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.846\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegistered population\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.921\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.912\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.776\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRate of permanent residents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.830\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMigrant population\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.889\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompleteness of landscape patterns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.878\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.888\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.727\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegrity of traditional features in core protection areas\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.819\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoherence of features in the village construction control zones\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.859\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScale of preservation for historical buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.843\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 80px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.849\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.652\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of protection for historical buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.768\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConservation status of cultural heritage buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026larr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.810\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis of structural equation modeling results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRelation Hypothesis Testing\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research model was constructed using AMOS 26.0 software, and its fit was evaluated while testing the hypothesis. The model includes 6 latent variables and 18 explicit variables, aiming to explore the impact of location, population, facilities construction, and economics on village traditional pattern and feature, as well as on protected buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe standardized path coefficients in the structural equation model demonstrate the strength and significance of the relationships between variables, assessed using p-values (refer to Table 7). The analysis shows that all factor loadings are statistically significant at the 0.01 level, confirming the reliability of the measurement model. These results were used to construct the structural model illustrating the impact of urbanization on the built heritage of traditional villages (shown in Figure 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 3. Structural equation model results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 7. Results of hypothesis tests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"102%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 33px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnstandardized \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS.E.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandardized Estimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 4px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rarr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.507\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.136\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.734\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.420\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 4px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rarr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.407\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.155\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.618\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.342\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilities Construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 4px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rarr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.332\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.153\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.173\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.270\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilities Construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 4px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rarr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.291\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.129\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.264\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.234\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 4px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rarr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.267\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.087\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.059\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.276\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 4px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rarr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.309\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.104\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.964\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.324\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 4px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rarr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpatial Patterns and Features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.149\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.071\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.096\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.194\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 4px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rarr;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtected Buildings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 7px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.083\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.025\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.980\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotes: \u0026quot;\u0026rarr;\u0026quot; Indicates the path influence relationship, \u0026quot;***\u0026quot;, \u0026quot;**\u0026quot;, and \u0026quot;*\u0026quot; indicate P \u0026le; 0.001, 0.001 \u0026lt; P \u0026le; 0.05, and 0.05 \u0026lt; P \u0026le; 0.10, respectively.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePath analysis results based on SEM\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation:\u003c/strong\u003e A1 has a significant negative impact on E1, with a standardized path coefficient of -0.420, a t-value of -3.734, and a p-value less than 0.001. This indicates that as the locational conditions of traditional villages improve, the negative impacts on the overall spatial patterns and features of the village become more pronounced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA1 also has a significant positive effect on F1, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.342, a t-value of 2.618, and a p-value of 0.009. This suggests that improved locational conditions contribute to better preservation of protected buildings in the village.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEconomics:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe standardized path coefficient of B1 on E1 is -0.276, with a t-value of -3.059 and a p-value of 0.002, indicating a significant negative impact of improved economic conditions on the spatial patterns and features of village. In contrast, the standardized path coefficient of B1 on F1 is 0.324, with a t-value of 2.964 and a p-value of 0.003, suggesting a significant positive effect of economic factors on the protected buildings, with enhanced economic conditions promoting the preservation of these structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePopulation:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eC1 has a significant negative effect on E1, with a standardized path coefficient of -0.194, a t-value of -2.096, and a p-value of 0.036, indicating that population growth negatively impacts the protection of the spatial patterns and features of traditional village. However, the standardized path coefficient of C1 on F1 is only 0.003, with a t-value of 0.025 and a p-value of 0.980, indicating that the path is not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFacilities Construction:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eD1 has a negative effect on E1, with a standardized path coefficient of -0.234, a t-value of -2.264, and a p-value of 0.024, suggesting that the scale and level of facilities construction negatively affect the spatial patterns and features of traditional village. On the other hand, D1 positively influences F1, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.270, a t-value of 2.173, and a p-value of 0.030, indicating that facilities construction significantly promotes the preservation of protected buildings in the village.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion and policy recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiscussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study establishes a framework for analyzing the urbanization factors affecting the built heritage of traditional villages. A sample of 96 traditional villages in Guangzhou was selected, with built heritage evaluated from two primary perspectives: \u0026quot;spatial patterns and features\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;protected buildings.\u0026quot; An indicator system was developed encompassing four key dimensions\u0026mdash;location, economy, population, and facilities construction. Using this framework, a structural equation model was constructed for in-depth analysis, resulting in the following conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDestruction of Suburban Villages Due to Urban Sprawl\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe rapid development of cities has stimulated economic activities, leading to increased urban expansion. Suburban villages, due to their advantageous location, have attracted a large influx of migrants and spurred the rise of land rent economies. In response, local villagers have often adopted large-scale redevelopment practices, such as demolishing old buildings to construct new ones, driven by economic interests. This has resulted in irreversible damage to the appearance and spatial patterns of these traditional villages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a major city in the Pearl River Delta region, Guangzhou has leveraged its prime location and strong economic foundation to accelerate urbanization. This process has affected traditional villages and their built heritage to varying degrees in different zones from a number of economic and demographic dimensions[76].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuburban villages are particularly vulnerable to urbanization pressures. Their proximity to urban commercial and political hubs, coupled with their favorable geographic positions, subjects them to constant interaction with urban areas and places them at the forefront of rapid urban expansion[52]. As a result, these villages face significant risks of being subsumed by urban development, leading to a convergence and erosion of the boundaries between village and city.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the one hand, in order to promote the rapid construction of urban, the government has implemented policies involving the expropriation of village land and has permitted developers to undertake large-scale demolition and construction, including the occupation of farmland, removal of hills, and reclamation of water bodies. For example, Huatingfang, a natural village within the Huocun administrative village in Huangpu District (illustrated in Figure 4), exemplifies these changes. Prior to 2004, Huatingfang maintained a traditional environment characterized by surrounding woodlands and fields, with a spatial layout of \u0026apos;pond at the front, village at the rear.\u0026apos; Although some rural expansion and new farmhouses had been added, the village\u0026apos;s traditional spatial patterns and features were still clearly visible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;However, significant changes began in 2008 when developers constructed a 24,180㎡ steel trading center in the southeastern part of the village to support the nearby steel manufacturing industry. Between 2012 and 2016, additional farmland in the northeastern part of the village was appropriated for the construction of a 34,500㎡ industrial park. From 2020 to 2024, large-scale real estate development occurred as developers acquired more village land. By 2024, the area of traditional buildings in Huatingfang had decreased dramatically from approximately 39,000㎡ to about 5,180㎡, while water bodies were reduced from around 19,550㎡ to 3,200㎡, and woodlands and fields shrank from about 263,500㎡ to 106,400㎡.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis extensive development significantly disrupted the village\u0026apos;s landscapes and features, resulting in the widespread demolition of traditional style architecture, leaving only legally protected buildings intact. The modern urbanscape has now replaced much of the traditional appearance, severely undermining the village\u0026apos;s authenticity and historical significance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: Map come from https://maps.google.com\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 4. The evolution of Huatingfang natural village from 2004 to 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, villages have leveraged their advantageous locations and national preferential policies to initiate rural industrialization, promoting the growth of \u0026quot;Three-plus-one\u0026quot; trading-mix enterprises (custom manufacturing using supplied materials, designs, or samples, along with compensation trade). This strategy led to a rapid expansion of manufacturing activities and the construction of numerous factories and supporting facilities within village boundaries. As a result, industrial and urban elements became embedded within the village feature in a planar form (shown in Figure 5), disrupting the original traditional layout and creating a fragmented feature that juxtaposes the old with the new.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote:\u0026nbsp;Map come from https://maps.google.com\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 5. The industrial elements is embedded in the Sanhua Traditional Village in a planar form.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRapid urban development generated significant employment opportunities, drawing a large influx of both local rural residents and external migrants to urban areas. This population shift fueled a robust rental market within the villages. Additionally, suburban villages, with their lower living costs, became the most suitable settlement option for many people.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo accommodate the substantial market demand brought about by the population influx, the land rent economy in suburban villages gradually emerged. Motivated by economic gain, villagers often prioritized short-term financial benefits over the preservation of their cultural and historical heritage. This led to the widespread demolition of traditional style buildings to create space or modernize them. On one hand, traditional style buildings were dismantled to clear land for rental factories or modern residential constructions, contributing to the gradual loss of the village\u0026rsquo;s traditional built heritage. On the other hand, some relatively well-preserved traditional buildings, especially those in prime locations, were modified with modern materials such as bricks, concrete, and corrugated iron for repairs and expansions before being rented out. Although these modifications maintained the basic functionality of the buildings, they significantly compromised their authenticity and spatial integrity, stripping them of their original historical and cultural significance. Meanwhile, traditional style buildings that had fallen into disrepair were often left neglected due to the high cost of restoration and minimal economic return. These buildings continued to decay over time, with their walls and structural components deteriorating further, ultimately leading to their disappearance. Under these conditions, the cultural and historical value inherent in the built heritage is progressively being eroded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLocational Disadvantages Leading to the Decline of Exurban Villages\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExurban villages, situated in less favorable locations, have largely retained their traditional layouts and appearances. However, challenges such as population decline and insufficient village vitality have rendered much of the built heritage vacant and underutilized, leading to its gradual deterioration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExurban traditional villages experience minimal impacts from urbanization and maintain limited connections with urban centers. As a result, these villages have preserved their natural landscape, traditional patterns and features more effectively. Their distance from urban areas shields them from extensive urban development, allowing them to avoid significant alterations. Additionally, these villages have maintained an agrarian economic structure centered on traditional farming and small-scale handicrafts, contributing to lower economic development and limited resources for modernization or reconstruction. Consequently, many traditional buildings have retained their original forms and structures, remaining largely untouched by major redevelopment. This preservation sustains the simple, rustic character of the villages, enhancing their authenticity and historical value. Moreover, some villagers continue to inhabit these buildings, maintaining their residential function and further contributing to the preservation of the traditional village.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, rapid urbanization has led to significant economic, living standard, and employment disparities between urban and rural areas[77]. These disparities have driven many rural residents to migrate to cities, resulting in the \u0026quot;hollowing out\u0026quot; of exurban traditional villages. The outflow of labor and declining population have significantly diminished the vitality of these villages, further accelerating the deterioration of their built heritage. Although the traditional patterns and features of these villages are somewhat preserved, many traditional buildings remain vacant and unused, hastening their decay. Additionally, these structures, often built with materials such as clay, brick, wood, and tile, are highly susceptible to environmental damage from natural weathering, wind, and rain, as well as human neglect and poor maintenance. These factors contribute to severe degradation and eventual collapse of the buildings, eroding the cultural and historical legacy they represent[14].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith the expansion of urbanization and improvements in infrastructure, such as urban roads and public transportation, some exurban villages have gradually adopted a dual lifestyle characterized by \u0026quot;working in the city, living in the village[78].\u0026quot; Villagers earn income through urban employment and invest it in enhancing their living conditions within the village. In order to accommodate modern living standards, many villagers have opted to abandon traditional residential buildings or demolish them in favor of constructing new homes that better satisfy contemporary needs. This transition has not only created a visual and structural disconnect between old and new village landscapes, gradually eroding their unique character, but has also accelerated the decline and potential loss of the remaining traditional style buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDifferences in the Impact of Urbanization and Protection Status of Architectural Heritage\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the process of urbanization, a significant disparity emerges between the treatment of traditional style buildings and officially protected heritage buildings. The advantageous location and favorable economic conditions of many villages have driven the growth of land rental economies and large-scale development projects. Motivated by profit and the demand for development space, traditional style buildings are often demolished, leading to their gradual disappearance. In contrast, protected heritage buildings benefit from legal safeguards and serve as vital symbols of the village\u0026rsquo;s traditional culture and kinship ties. Influenced by both regulatory frameworks and a shared sense of cultural identity, these buildings are subject to collaborative efforts by municipal authorities and villagers to ensure their effective preservation, management, and adaptive reuse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs previously discussed, various urbanization-related factors have adversely affected the spatial patterns and features of traditional villages[14,23]. Traditional style buildings, as integral components of village appearance, are a crucial aspect of the evaluation framework for spatial patterns and features. Despite still comprising a significant portion of village structures, their preservation status is often inadequate and frequently overlooked. Throughout the urbanization process, these buildings have suffered both direct and indirect damage. Under the combined pressures of human activity and environmental factors, traditional style buildings are gradually deteriorating, leading to a loss of their original cultural value and historical significance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this study reveals that locational and economic factors have a positive influence on the preservation of protected buildings, including historical and heritage buildings. This finding suggests that urban development, to some extent, can contribute to the conservation of such buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the one hand, location plays a pivotal role in facilitating the passive protection of heritage buildings within the framework of legal constraints. These structures, which include officially designated heritage sites, unregistered immovable cultural relics, and historically significant modern buildings, are safeguarded under laws such as \u003cem\u003ethe Cultural Relics Protection Law of the People\u0026apos;s Republic of China\u003c/em\u003e[79]. Furthermore, historical buildings identified by municipal or county governments as having preservation value, even if not formally registered as immovable cultural relics, are protected under regulations such as \u003cem\u003ethe Regulations on the Protection of Famous Historical and Cultural Cities, Towns, and Villages\u003c/em\u003e. Both types of buildings are legally mandated for protection. Proximity to urban centers enhances the visibility and attention afforded to protected buildings, as they embody essential aspects of traditional and regional culture. As a result, these buildings are often prioritized for restoration and conservation, receiving more frequent monitoring and management to maintain their safety and cultural significance. Additionally, villages in advantageous locations are better equipped to attract social resources and engage public participation, creating opportunities for both preservation and adaptive reuse of these built heritage. On the other hand, economic factors significantly contribute to the active preservation of protected buildings, often driven by villagers\u0026apos; sense of heritage and cultural identity. In traditional villages, such buildings typically include ancestral halls, academies, and temples, which embody the historical and cultural essence of the village. These buildings serve as focal points for key activities, including worship, festivals, weddings, and education, functioning as the spiritual and social epicenters of village life[37]. They symbolize clan cohesion and cultural continuity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe economic benefits derived from urbanization have increased villagers\u0026rsquo; willingness, particularly in suburban villages, to invest in the preservation and restoration of these buildings. Such investments often aim to maintain the traditional architectural appearance and structural integrity of these buildings and, in some cases, involve extensions or renovations to enhance their authenticity and completeness. In this context, economic advancements facilitated by urbanization play a pivotal role in fostering the conservation and sustainable development of protected buildings, particularly those of cultural significance such as ancestral halls and temples.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Dual Impact of Facilities Construction on the Preservation and Development of Built Heritage in Traditional Villages\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUrban expansion frequently results in the integration and appropriation of village land for city development, with large-scale infrastructure projects often causing significant disruptions to the original patterns and traditional features of villages. However, the moderate construction of facilities can yield notable benefits. Improved accessibility enhances village connectivity, revitalizes local economies, and promotes tourism that capitalizes on existing protected buildings. This, in turn, supports the preservation and sustainable development of cultural heritage, balancing modernization with the conservation of built heritage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch indicates that uncontrolled facilities development driven by urbanization has detrimental effects on traditional villages[26,80\u0026ndash;85]. Such projects, primarily designed to meet urban demands, often incorporate villages into broader city planning frameworks and are executed through large-scale construction and extensive redevelopment. This approach frequently results in significant damage to built heritage, undermining the historical and cultural integrity of these villages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor instance, the development of residential service facilities, public service facilities, and basic infrastructure exemplifies these adverse impacts. Residential service facilities, often driven by market demand and economic interests, tend to prioritize profitability. Their unregulated expansion and over-commercialization can disrupt the traditional village landscape, accelerating the deterioration of built heritage. Public service infrastructure projects frequently involve the requisition of village forests or farmland or the demolition of traditional buildings to create space, further compromising the integrity of village layouts. Large-scale infrastructure developments, such as urban roads bisecting villages or the construction of parking lots necessitating the removal of houses and farmland, significantly disrupt the spatial patterns and features of villages. Additionally, the haphazard installation of essential infrastructure, such as tangled electrical wires and exposed pipelines, \u0026nbsp;negatively affects both the appearance and safety aspects of the village.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this study reveals that the construction of facilities can have a positive impact on the preservation of protected buildings. Appropriately planned and executed facilities development has the potential to support the conservation and adaptive reuse of protected buildings, thereby contributing to their long-term preservation and sustainable advancement. On one hand, well-planned facilities construction improves village livability by creating a more appealing and habitable environment. This not only encourages residents to remain in the village but also fosters a stronger sense of responsibility toward protecting their surroundings and cultural heritage. Consequently, the community becomes more motivated to actively engage in the preservation and sustainable development of built heritage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the development of robust facilities provides a strong foundation for the growth of tourism in traditional villages. Tourism development, in turn, can attract government support and funding, thereby driving the revitalization and adaptive reuse ofprotected buildings, as well as promoting the overall development of the village\u0026rsquo;s built heritage. \u0026nbsp;A notable example is Huangpu Ancient Village in Haizhu District. Following the rapid urbanization triggered by the reform and opening-up period, Huangpu Village gradually evolved into an urban village, integrating modern urban facilities and services into its historical fabric[86]. Despite urbanization pressures, the historical and cultural significance of Huangpu Village, particularly its ancient port, was rediscovered with the rise of the Pazhou business center in the 2000s. Leveraging existing urban infrastructure, the village enhanced its transportation networks, public services, and tourism-related facilities, creating favorable conditions for tourism development[87]. The local government actively supported this transformation by implementing policies that combined facility upgrades with cultural heritage preservation. Efforts included the restoration of protected buildings, repurposing them to serve both traditional functions and contemporary roles. These buildings now house modern cultural institutions, such as village museums, exhibition halls, libraries, and community centers, while still accommodating traditional activities. Through the integration of facilities construction and cultural preservation, Huangpu Ancient Village successfully attracted visitors by offering modern amenities and service alongside its historical charm and cultural ambiance. This strategy has significantly contributed to the long-term conservation and sustainable development of the village\u0026rsquo;s cultural heritage, demonstrating the positive synergy between infrastructure development and heritage preservation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePolicy Recommendations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the analysis of urbanization\u0026apos;s impact on the preservation of built heritage in traditional villages in Guangzhou, this study offers policy recommendations designed to provide a scientific basis and practical solutions for heritage conservation in the context of urbanization. These recommendations aim to strike a balance between safeguarding cultural heritage and supporting modern development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, implementing tailored protection and development plans for each traditional village is crucial. This study highlights that the impact of urbanization on the built heritage of traditional villages varies significantly depending on specific factors and conditions. To address the diverse challenges these villages face during urbanization, the following strategies are proposed for consideration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStrict Regulation of Development Activities in Traditional Villages\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA comprehensive assessment should be conducted for all new construction projects within traditional villages, with stringent controls on scale, height, and architectural style to ensure development remains moderate and contextually appropriate. Overdevelopment, particularly large-scale infrastructure projects that could disrupt the village\u0026rsquo;s spatial layout, must be avoided. Efforts should focus on preserving the village\u0026rsquo;s traditional patterns and features. Additionally, a robust regulatory framework for urban development should be established, integrating the protection of built heritage and traditional culture into construction oversight mechanisms. Every proposed construction project should be rigorously evaluated to ensure it does not compromise the village\u0026rsquo;s traditional characteristics or cultural value. To support these efforts, a dynamic monitoring and early-warning system for traditional villages should be implemented[71]. This system would collect and analyze data on the status of built heritage in real-time, identifying potential risks and development trends. Early warnings of adverse impacts would enable the timely adoption of preventive measures to mitigate threats and safeguard the integrity of traditional villages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRational Activation and Utilization of Built Heritage Resources\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of urban development, it is crucial to encourage the integration of urban construction with the built heritage of traditional villages, fostering a harmonious interplay between urban growth and traditional culture. This approach seeks to achieve a balanced coexistence that preserves cultural identity while accommodating modernization. For construction projects within village boundaries, design styles that reflect and complement the traditional architectural character should be prioritized, minimizing the visual and cultural impact of modern buildings on the village\u0026rsquo;s heritage. Moreover, innovative strategies, such as introducing new functions and business models, can support the dynamic conservation and adaptive reuse of built heritage. This approach creates a virtuous cycle in which development incentivizes protection, and preservation enhances development potential. Additionally, efforts should focus on sustaining traditional cultural practices and folk activities within heritage buildings, such as ancestral halls and temples. These spaces should serve as \u0026quot;living\u0026quot; carriers of historical and cultural narratives, showcasing heritage in an active and engaging manner. By promoting the continued use of these buildings for cultural and social functions, their historical significance can be preserved and revitalized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmphasis on the Protection and Utilization of Traditional Style Buildings\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, the protection and utilization of traditional style buildings have not received sufficient attention, leading to the destruction of many remaining structures. To address this issue, it is imperative to strengthen the development and enforcement of laws and regulations specifically aimed at safeguarding these buildings and establishing their formal legal status. Unlike officially protected heritage structures, traditional style buildings possess greater flexibility for transformation, offering more diverse opportunities for development. To ensure their sustainable use, it is essential to clearly define the direction and limitations for the adaptive reuse and revitalization of these buildings. This approach should prioritize integrating these structures with contemporary societal needs, fostering innovative methods of utilization that balance heritage preservation with economic and social benefits. By exploring diverse strategies for adaptive reuse, traditional style buildings can be transformed into valuable assets that retain their historical significance while contributing to modern development goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Outlook and Limitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study makes a valuable contribution to research on the challenges associated with the built heritage of traditional villages within the context of urbanization. Methodologically, the application of structural equation modeling for multi-factor analysis provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the multifaceted impacts of urbanization on various aspects of built heritage. This analytical approach deepens the understanding of the mechanisms through which urbanization affects the preservation and transformation of traditional village heritage. Additionally, the study distinguishes protected cultural relics and historic buildings from the broader category of built heritage, treating them as a separate evaluative dimension. This differentiation enables a nuanced exploration of how urbanization impacts the preservation and development of architectural heritage. The findings highlight that advantageous location and favorable economic conditions play a significant role in promoting the conservation and sustainable development of protected heritage within the urbanization process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study offer valuable insights into the mechanisms through which urbanization influences the built heritage of traditional villages in Guangzhou. These results can serve as a reference for similar research on the built heritage of traditional villages in other urbanizing regions. Furthermore, the study provides practical guidance and theoretical support for the protection and sustainable development of built heritage in traditional villages undergoing urbanization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has certain limitations. Urbanization is a multifaceted process involving numerous dynamic and interrelated factors. Consequently, the dimensions considered in this analysis are not exhaustive and could be further expanded. Future research should incorporate additional relevant variables to provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of how urbanization affects the built heritage of traditional villages. Such efforts would enhance the depth and persuasiveness of the findings, offering a more accurate depiction of the underlying mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData availabilityNo datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.Author contributionsConceptualization: Yingliang Zheng, Jin Tao, Peng Ren, Jihang XuMethodology: Yingliang Zheng, Jin Tao, Peng RenValidation: Yingliang Zheng Formal analysis: ,Yingliang Zheng, Jin Tao,Peng Ren, Zhibo WangInvestigation: Yingliang ZhengData curation: Yingliang Zheng, Zhibo WangWriting \u0026ndash; original draft: Yingliang Zheng, Jin TaoWriting \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing: Jin Tao, Yingliang Zheng, Peng Ren, Jihang XuVisualization: Yingliang ZhengSupervision: Jin Tao, Peng Ren, Jihang XuProject administration: Jin Tao, Peng Ren, Jihang XuFunding acquisition: Jin Tao\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors extend their sincere gratitude to Professor Tao Jin's team from the School of Architecture, South China University of Technology, including Li Geng, Ye Zhaoyi, Wang Luyuan, and other members, for their valuable contributions to the field investigation, data collection, and related work in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu Y, Chen S, Cao W, et al. The concept and cultural connotation of traditional villages. Urban Dev Stud. 2014;21(1):10\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi BH, Luo Q, Liu PL, et al. Knowledge maps analysis of traditional villages research in China based on the Citespace method. Econ Geogr. 2017;37:207\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu C, Chen M, Zhou L, Liang X, Wang W. Identifying the Spatiotemporal Patterns of Traditional Villages in China: A Multiscale Perspective. Land. 2020;9:449. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/land9110449\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/land9110449\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun JX. Traditional villages: Theoretical connotation and development path. Tourism Tribune. 2017;32(1):1\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGao J, Wu B. Revitalizing traditional villages through rural tourism: A case study of Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China. Tour Manag. 2017;63:223\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBian J, Chen W, Zeng J. Spatial distribution characteristics and influencing factors of traditional villages in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(8):4627. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084627\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph19084627\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi B, Yin S, Liu P, Dou Y. Spatial Distribution of Traditional Villages and the Influencing Factors in Hunan Province. Econ Geogr. 2015;35(2):189\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTang CC, Wan ZW, Liu M, et al. Perception and improvement of the protection and inheritance of traditional village cultural heritage based on Multi-agent. J Arid Land Resour Environ. 2021;35(2):196\u0026ndash;202.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLong Y, Wu K. Realities of Urbanization in China: Spatial Expansion, Population Contraction, Low-Density Human Activities, and Urban Scoping. Urban Plann Forum. 2016;(2):72\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChuanbiao D, Yongqi Z, Wei T. The reconstruction of household of Zhucun in Guangzhou in the process of the rapid urbanization. Scientia Geogr Sinica. 2017;37(9):1326\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhai Z. Study on the Coordinated Response Mechanism and Development Path of Traditional Villages in the Process of New Urbanization\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;a case study of traditional villages in Shaanxi province. Doctoral Thesis, Northwest University, Shaanxi;2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuo Y, Xiao Y, Yuan Q. The redevelopment of peri-urban villages in the context of path-dependent land institution change and its impact on Chinese inclusive urbanization: The case of Nanhai, China. Cities. 2017;60:466\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLI BH, Z S N, LIU PL. Pattern language of the spatial arrangement of traditional villages: A case study of Zhangguying village. Scientia Geogr Sinica. 2019;39(11):1691\u0026ndash;701.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu C, Xu M. Characteristics and influencing factors on the hollowing of traditional villages\u0026mdash;taking 2645 villages from the Chinese traditional village catalogue (Batch 5) as an example. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(23):12759. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312759\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph182312759\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu S, Bai M, Yao M, et al. Identifying the natural and anthropogenic factors influencing the spatial disparity of population hollowing in traditional villages within a prefecture-level city. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0249448. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249448\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0249448\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin RJ, Leung HH. Becoming a traditional village: Heritage protection and livelihood transformation of a Chinese village. Sustainability. 2021;13(4):2331. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13042331\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su13042331\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen X, Li W. Spatial Characteristic of Traditional Village Group from Regional Perspective\u0026mdash;A Case Study of Traditional Villages in Lishui. Econ Geogr. 2016;36:185\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMa H. Persistence and Transformation of Chinese Traditional Villages\u0026mdash;Rethinking the Planning of Traditional Settlements. Urban Plann Forum. 2006;1:102\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFu J, Zhou J, Deng Y. Heritage values of ancient vernacular residences in traditional villages in Western Hunan, China: Spatial patterns and influencing factors. Build Environ. 2021;188:107473. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107473\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107473\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu Q, Wang J. Recognition of values of traditional villages in southwest China for sustainable development: A case study of Liufang Village. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):7569. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13147569\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su13147569\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu S, Ge J, Bai M, et al. Toward classification-based sustainable revitalization: Assessing the vitality of traditional villages. Land Use Policy. 2022;116:106060. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106060\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106060\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu S, Ge J, Li W, et al. Historic environmental vulnerability evaluation of traditional villages under geological hazards and influencing factors of adaptive capacity: A district-level analysis of Lishui, China. Sustainability. 2020;12(6):2223. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12062223\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12062223\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang D, Zhu Y, Zhao M, et al. Multi-dimensional hollowing characteristics of traditional villages and its influence mechanism based on the micro-scale: A case study of Dongcun Village in Suzhou, China. Land Use Policy. 2021;101:105146. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105146\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105146\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSu H, Wang Y, Zhang Z, et al. Characteristics and influencing factors of traditional village distribution in China. Land. 2022;11(10):1631. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/land11101631\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/land11101631\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGao C, Wu Y, Bian C, et al. Spatial characteristics and influencing factors of Chinese traditional villages in eight provinces the Yellow River flows through. River Res Appl. 2023;39(7):1255\u0026ndash;69. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3880\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/rra.3880\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen X, Xie W, Li H. The spatial evolution process, characteristics and driving factors of traditional villages from the perspective of the cultural ecosystem: A case study of Chengkan Village. Habitat Int. 2020;104:102250. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102250\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102250\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKong L, Xu X, Wang W, et al. Comprehensive evaluation and quantitative research on the living protection of traditional villages from the perspective of Production\u0026ndash;Living\u0026ndash;Ecology. Land. 2021;10(6):570. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/land10060570\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/land10060570\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDai D, Fu J, Zhao C. A Study on the Protection Strategy of Traditional Villages from the Perspective of Cultural Ecology\u0026mdash;Take Wuhe Village, Julong Town, Yanting County, Mianyang City as an Example. Open J Social Sci. 2019;7(7):88\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYanbing H, Xuning Q, Tongwen W. On dividing the classification and assessment of the vulnerability of cultural landscape of traditional villages: A case study of Henan province. Tourism Sci. 2021;35(3):24\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin H. Study on the Protection and Activation Strategy of Hollow Traditional Villages in the Suburbs of Guangzhou. Master's thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou;2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWen J, Yan X. Typical Characteristics and Power Mechanism of Rural in Situ Urbanization in Zhongshan City. World Reg Stud. 2011;20(2):76\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi PL. Tremendous changes: The end of villages-A study of villages in the center of Guangzhou city. Social Sci China. 2002;1:168\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhan F. SResearch on the transition of the traditional village and thetransformation mode under the influence of new town development\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;a case study of Foshan new town. Master's thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou;2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMu Q, Aimar F, Chen L. The joint force of bottom-up and top-down in the Preservation and Renewal of Rural Architectural Heritage, taking Piedmont, Italy as the case study. Jianzhushi. 2021;209:51\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWen Q, Tang J, Cai K. The Authenticity and Integrity of Traditional Village Protection from the Perspective of Vernacular Built Heritage:A Case Study of Three Gorges Original Township Hankuimen. Huazhong Archit. 2023;41(12):143\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan GY, Yi LW. Critical thinking on the protection of traditional villages and rural construction based on the concept of built heritage. New Arch. 2023;2:4\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng J. Study on the protection and sustainable development of traditional villages in the Pearl River Delta. Doctoral Thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou;2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGong J, Xia B, Chen J. Spatially fuzzy assessment of regional eco-security in Guangzhou, a fast urbanizing area: A case study in Guangzhou City. Acta Ecol Sin. 2008;28:4992\u0026ndash;5001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang J, Huo X, Zhang Y, Zhang J. Innovations and Practical Explorations of Guangzhou Historic-city Conservation Plan. Urban Rural Plann. 2017;(1):51\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeng Z, Xiao D, Fu J. The Cultural Landscape Characteristics Of Traditional Villages And Houses Based On Cultural Regionalization\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;A Case Study Of Guangzhou. Archit Cult. 2016;(6):102\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu X, Lin Y, Fan J, et al. Research on the Situation and Protection Utilization of Ancient Villages in Guangdong Province. J South China Univ Technol (Social Sci Edition). 2016;18(6):105\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang R. Spatial differentiation and mechanisms of typical rural areas in the suburbs of a metropolis: A case study of Beicun Village, Baiyun District, Guangzhou. Acta Geogr Sin. 2019;74(8):1622\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWEI C, LIU F, YANG C, et al. Challenges and trends in the preservation and utilization of traditional villages in rapidly urbanized area: A case study of the Pearl River Delta. J Nat Resour. 2024;39(8):1867\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi J, Chu J, Li Y. Research on the Revitalization Path of Traditional Villages Based on PLS-SEM: Taking Ancient Huizhou Area as an Example. Dev Small Cities Towns. 2021;39(7):16\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng K. Characteristics and Applications of Structural Equation Modeling. Stat Decis. 2006;(10):22\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu Y, Long H, Chen Y, et al. Progress of research on urban-rural transformation and rural development in China in the past decade and future prospects. J Geog Sci. 2016;26:1117\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-016-1318-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11442-016-1318-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKong X, Liu D, Tian Y, et al. Multi-objective spatial reconstruction of rural settlements considering intervillage social connections. J Rural Stud. 2021;84:254\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.028\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.028\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTang W, Zhang J, Luo H, Lu S, Yang X. Relationship between the place attachment of ancient village residents and their attitude towards resource protection\u0026mdash;A Case study of Xidi, Hongcun and Nanping villages. Tourism Tribune. 2008;23(10):87\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao Y, Yan J, Huang M, Bian G, Du Y. Analysis of Settlement Space Environment along China\u0026rsquo;s Grand Canal Tianjin Section Based on Structural Equation Model\u0026mdash;Case Study of 44 Typical Settlements. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5369. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su14095369\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su14095369\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie X, Ye L. Reconstructing Rural Settlements Based on Structural Equation Modeling\u0026mdash;Taking Hongshanyao Town of Jinchang City as an Example. Sustainability. 2023;15(2):1338. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su15021338\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su15021338\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuo Y, Zhao L, Chen L. Analysis of the Influence of Three Lives on the Protection and Development of Traditional Villages in the Context of Rural Tourism:Based on the survey of 21 national-level traditional villages in Jiangxi Province. Sci Technol Ind. 2023;23(1):108\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang J. Research on the Strategies of Suburban Villages' Organic Renewal in Megacities under the Pattern of Urban-Rural Integration: A Case Study of Villages in Suburb and Outer Suburb of Shanghai. Shanghai Urban Plann Rev. 2023;(4):62\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang X, Man S, Zhu X, Zhao H, Yan T. Sustainable Protection Strategies for Traditional Villages Based on a Socio-Ecological Systems Spatial Pattern Evaluation: A Case Study from Jinjiang River Basin in China. Sustainability (2071\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;1050). 2024;16(17).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu S, Ge J, Bai M, Yao M, Zhu Z. Uncovering the factors influencing the vitality of traditional villages using POI (point of interest) data: a study of 148 villages in Lishui, China. Herit Sci. 2023;11(1):123.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFu L, Zhang Q, Tang Y, Pan J, Li Q. Assessment of urbanization impact on cultural heritage based on a risk-based cumulative impact assessment method. Herit Sci. 2023;11(1):177.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe Y, Wen C, Fang X, Sun X. Impacts of urban-rural integration on landscape patterns and their implications for landscape sustainability: The case of Changsha, China. Landsc Ecol. 2024;39(7):129.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCui W, Li Y, Liu Y. Rural hollowing in key agricultural areas of China: Characteristics, mechanisms and countermeasures. Resour Sci. 2011;33(11):2014\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng D, Wen Q, Wang Y, Mi H. Differentiation mechanism and reconstruction strategy of rural population hollowing in China. Econ Geogr. 2019;39(02):161\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLong H, Li Y, Liu Y. Analysis of evolutive characteristics and their driving mechanism of hollowing villages in China. Acta Geogr Sin. 2009;64(10):1203\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Q, Yang C, Tian L, Wu F, An J. Safety risk assessment of heritage buildings in metro construction based on SPA theory: a case study in Zhengzhou, China. Herit Sci. 2020;8:1\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-020-00439-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40494-020-00439-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Y, Sun Z. A Review of Applied Uses of Satellite Remote Sensing for Risk Assessment and Dynamic Monitoring of Built Heritage Conservation. Mod Urban Res. 2022;(5):56\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDang X, Chen X. The Construction and Evolution of the Built Heritage Conservation System and Management Mechanisms in the UK. Urban Plann Int. 2924;1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu Z, Yang H, Hu Y, Chen F, Ke C. Evaluation of village development potential and village classification by multi-source data. J Agricultural Resourcs Environ. 2021;38(6):1142\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMa S, Fang X, Research on Traditional Villages Tourism Resources Analysis Based on GIS. A Case Study on Zichuan District, Zibo City, Shandong Province, China. Asia-Pac J Converg Res Interchange. 2021;7(1):1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai E, Li J, Ye Q, Chen W, Feng J, Zhang S, Zhang S. Village classification and development strategies based on the development capacity and obstacle degree: a case study of Xinxian County, Henan Province, China. J Agricultural Resourcs Environ. 2023;40(5):1040\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang F, Liu Z, Shang S, Qin Y, Wu B. Vitality continuation or over-commercialization? Spatial structure characteristics of commercial services and population agglomeration in historic and cultural areas. Tour Econ. 2019;25(8):1302\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie S, Ning Y, Urbanization. and Suburbanization: The dual engines to spatial change of chinese metropolis under transitional era: a case study of Guangzhou. City Plann Rev. 2003;(11):24\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen L, Lu C, Yuan F, Jiang Z, Wang L, Zhang D, et al. Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2021;5(2):57:1\u0026ndash;5726. UVLens: Urban Village Boundary Identification and Population Estimation Leveraging Open Government Data.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi S, Li J, Liu D, Fang X. Design and Implementation of Rural Development Potential Evaluation System. Dev Small Cities༆Towns. 2024;42(2):5\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXiao T, Sun H, Li X, Zhang H, Li Y. Evaluation of Village Development Potential and Classification Strategies\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;An Example of the Wei Fan Area on the South Shore of Chaohu Lake. J Huaiyin Inst Technol. 2023;32(5):69\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTao J, Chen ZX, Wei C, Xiao D, Hang J. A Dynamic Monitoring and Early Warning System for Traditional Villages in China. South Archit. 2023;(4):29\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang Y, Li E, Xiao D. Conservation Key points and management strategies of historic villages: 10 cases in the Guangzhou and Foshan Area, Guangdong Province, China. J Asian Archit Building Eng. 2022;21(4):1320\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2021.1941979\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13467581.2021.1941979\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDou Y, Peng S, Li B. Study on spatial accessibility of traditional villages in Hunan province. Resource Dev Market. 2015;31(5):554\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Y, Cui J, Ni Y. A Study on Resident Satisfaction with the Quality of Public Space in Historical Cultural Districts Based on Structural Equation Modeling: Taking Suzhou Pingjiang Historic District as an Example. Mod Urban Res. 2023;(4):89\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChanghong B, Wei L. A study of customer's satisfactions based on customer perceived value[J]. Nankai J. 2001;(6):14\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin Z, Li N, Chang J et al. The differentiation characteristics and formation mechanism of hollowrization in traditional villages: A case study of the traditional villages in Yangquan, Shanxi[J]. Mod Urban Res. 2016;(1):16\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang C, Li J, Liu J. Does urbanization affect the gap between urban and rural areas? Evidence from China. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2022;82:101271. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101271\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.seps.2022.101271\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai X, Zhou X, Zhang D, Wu Y. Swirling flows: Processes and mechanisms of everyday life practice of new urban-rural amphibious group. Geographical Res. 2024;43(1):17\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng Y, Hu S, Yang R, Tao W, Li H, Li B, et al. Protection and Utilization of Chinese Traditional Villages for Rural Revitalization: Challenges and Prospects. J Nat Resour. 2024;39(8):1735\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi X. Study on Problems of Traditional Villages Infrastructure\u0026mdash;Taking Yunshe village For Example. Master's thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou;2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang C, Zhu H, Xin T, Wang C. An Exploration on Optimization of Public Service Facilities in Traditional Villages under the Concept of Host-Guest Sharing:A Case Study Based on Shenjing Village in Huangpu, Guangzhou. South Archit. 2024;(2):64\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWei C, Miao K, Huang D, Xiao D. Research on Comprehensive Evaluation System for Infrastructure of Chinese Traditional Village. J Urban Reg Plann. 2017;9(4):112\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang X. Optimization Strategies for the Layout of Existing Commercial Services in Tourist Villages Based on Spatial Syntax. Master's thesis, Anhui Jianzhu University, Anhui;2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXi J, Zhao M, Ge Q, Kong Q. Changes in land use of a village driven by over 25 years of tourism: The case of Gougezhuang village, China. Land Use Policy. 2014;40:119\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQun Q, Mitchell CJA, Wall G. Creative destruction in China\u0026rsquo;s historic towns: Daxu and Yangshuo, Guangxi. J Destin Mark Manag. 2012;1(1):56\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePan S. A Comparative Study of Renewal Models for The Preservation and Inheritance of Cultural Heritage inUrban Village. Master's thesis, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou;2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang J. Research on the Practice of Social Organizations' Participation in the Activationof Rural Cultural Heritage: Taking Huangpu Ancient Village in Guangzhou as an Example. Master's thesis, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou;2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Urbanization, Tradition villages, Built heritage, Structural equation modeling","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5845462/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5845462/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe rapid urban development has intensified the conflicts between vernacular and modern civilizations. Large-scale urban expansion and development have placed traditional villages at risk of gradual disappearance or decline. As tangible carriers of cultural value, the built heritage of these villages has faced varying degrees of impact from urbanization. This study, which examines 96 traditional villages in Guangzhou City, employs a structural equation model incorporating four dimensions of urbanization and two aspects of built heritage protection to investigate how urbanization affects built heritage conservation. The findings reveal that: (1) the mechanisms through which urbanization negatively affects the spatial patterns and features of suburban and exurban villages differ; (2) favorable economic and locational factors support the protection and development of heritage buildings; and (3) the construction and enhancement of facilities have both positive and negative impacts on built heritage. This research provides an important reference for the conservation and development of built heritage in traditional villages, which is of practical significance in realizing the sustainable development of built heritage.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Impacts of Urbanization on the Protection of Built Heritage in Traditional Villages: A Case Study of 96 Traditional Villages in Guangzhou, China.","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-02-07 09:59:25","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5845462/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b767725d-82f7-4c72-b7e4-8bc079bdbae5","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-04T20:08:13+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-02-07 09:59:25","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5845462","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5845462","identity":"rs-5845462","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}