Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantitative analysis shows moderate residents’ integration in heritage site conservation, highlighting key benefits and participation issues.
A persistent conflict exists between heritage site conservation and local residents’ livelihood development, often described as “site conservation restricting regional development, and regional development damaging site conservation”. As key stakeholders, residents often have insufficient participation and limited benefits. This issue weakens their connection with the heritage site and also hinders the realization of its social value. In response to the lack of quantitative analysis in this field, this study introduces the concept of “degree of residents’ integration” and constructs an evaluation model based on participation and benefit. The model was applied to four villages within the Han Chang’an City Site in Xi’an, China. Through literature analysis and field investigations, characteristic elements of residents’ integration were identified and classified into five dimensions, comprising 17 indicators. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method and the Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) method, a quantitative index system is constructed and applied to survey data to assess the residents’ integration degree. Results show an overall integration score of 64.31, indicating a moderate level. Dimensions related to industry and economy, and culture and leisure scored higher, while social welfare and subjective consciousness scored lower, reflecting weaker benefit perception and engagement. Its main contribution is proposing and operationalizing the “degree of residents’ integration” concept, providing a quantitative, replicable framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: