Evaluation of rural ecological resilience from the perspective of communities and farmers: a study on Laochehe ethnic minority village in China

The ecological problems of tourism villages in the context of globalization cannot be ignored. Rural tourism has destroyed the rural ecological environment, and it is of great significance to explore the ecological resilience of tourism villages to achieve sustainable development. This study introduces an analytical framework with which to assess the ecological resilience of rural tourism locales, focusing on micro-level perspectives involving communities and farmers. Ecosystem service values and a comprehensive index are utilized as proxies to characterize ecological resilience, and its evolutionary characteristics and mechanisms are investigated. The results are as follows. (1) From the community perspective, rural land use has changed significantly from the agricultural function to the tourism compound function. During this transition, the ecological resilience index has decreased by 2.05 × 106. (2) From the perspective of farmers, the rural ecological resilience index and various dimensional indices have altogether increased. Notably, the transformation capability index has increased by 30.34%, the interference capability index has increased by 21.78%, and the response capability index has increased by 14.72%. The ecological resilience indices for different livelihood types, from highest to lowest, are ranked as follows: tourism-oriented farmers (0.4412), tourism-participating farmers (0.4274), and migrant-oriented farmers (0.4066). (3) Socio-economic factors and farmers’ livelihoods lead to the imbalance of the rural social ecosystem. The adaptive transformation of tourism villages has facilitated the dynamic evolution of ecological resilience. This study contributes to the enrichment of ecological resilience research perspectives and may offer valuable insights for the sustainable development of tourism villages in similarly developing countries around the world.


Introduction
With the acceleration of urbanization, the tension between resource utilization and conservation has become increasingly prominent.Today, the management of rural ecological environments has assumed a pivotal role in the broader context of global sustainable development (Guo and You 2023).While rural tourism bolstering economic growth and alleviating poverty, has also triggered a slew of environmental challenges (Liu et al 2023).Rural tourism has significantly changed the industrial structure and land use in the countryside, as well as the livelihood capital and livelihood behavior of farmers.This has impacted the countryside socially, economically, and culturally, and has produced two-way interference in the rural ecological environment.There is substantial et al 2019).Ostrom (2007) introduced the Social-Ecological System (SES) framework, which classifies the socialecological system into natural subsystems (resource units, resource systems) and social subsystems (governance systems, users) (Ostrom 2009, Ostrom 2007, Baird 2018).This framework offers a systematic approach for human societies to recognize and utilize natural resources.However, the SES framework overlooks the significant role of cultural factors within rural social-ecological systems, particularly those in tourism-oriented rural and ethnic areas (Wu et al 2022).
The SES framework focuses more on contemporary natural resource governance, neglecting the excavation of local cultural values from the perspective of historical periods.Compared to ordinary villages, the resilience and adaptive capacity of tourism villages in ethnic areas mainly derive from cultural values.Specifically, it is the effective utilization of rural resources through traditional culture and farmers' behavior (Hartel et al 2016, Sun 2019, Pickett et al 2011).The local cultural is an important foundation for the promotion of the formation of governance systems (Ruiz-Mallén et al 2013, Xiao et al 2023), and the sustainable development of tourism villages in ethnic areas should take into account not only the ecological material level, but also the sublimation of cultural values.Therefore, the SES framework must be adapted for application to the social-ecological system of tourism villages in ethnic areas.
In this study, the SES framework is refined to further segment the social-ecological systems of tourism villages into four components: the resource system, the social system, the cultural system, and the governance system (figure 1).This delineation enables a more comprehensive analysis of the intricate interactions among various elements of tourism villages.The resource system represents the natural ecological environment, which is crucial for the survival of tourism villages.External interferences can alter its composition and utilization patterns.The social system is the foundation of the development, management, and resource allocation within tourism villages.It reflects the social system, industrial structure, and livelihoods of villagers.The cultural system encompasses the moral values, customs, and behavioral practices cultivated by farmers through their continuous daily life experiences.The cultural system plays a vital role in the way that the village is managed.The governance system includes individuals or collectives leading rural governance processes, and encompasses various stakeholders such as government entities, villagers, social organizations, and markets.
As a chronic disturbance, tourism development leads to the dynamic evolution of rural social-ecological systems, and rural subsystems adapt to tourism disturbances accordingly (Nelson et al 2007).The carrying capacity and resilience of the rural system are limited, tourism development damages the natural environment, which is also subject to negative feedback from the rural social-ecological system (Calgaro et al 2014, Lin et al 2023).The tourism countryside will be changed by the perturbation of internal and external factors.These can be divided into natural and human factors, which interact with each other to promote the evolution of the rural system (Chen et al 2019).The impact of external perturbations is reflected in the changes of the natural environment and the human environment at the community level (primarily including resource systems, social systems).The impact of internal perturbations is reflected in the changes of social relations and organization at the farmer level (primarily including cultural systems, subject systems).
At the community level, rural tourism affects the rural resource environment.On the one hand, the structure and function of rural land change significantly, thus intensifying the demand for rural resources.This leads to a diminished value of rural ecological services, imposing irreversible consequences on the rural ecological environmental (Li et al 2022, Yin et al 2021, Wu et al 2020b).On the other hand, tourism interference changes the rural social structure and need to harmonize the contradictions between tourism development and resource utilization (Fabinyi et al 2014).At the farmer level, farmers respond to rural tourism by adapting to disturbances and adjusting their livelihood strategies.First, tourism development changes the village from a single subject to multiple subjects, thus promoting the countryside from villagers' autonomy to common governance.Second, rural tourism provides diversified livelihood opportunities, and farmers transform their livelihoods by proactively adapting to tourism disruptions.Finally, tourism development influences rural cultural and changes farmers' livelihoods, which contributes to the formation of new governance systems (Wu et al 2022, Xiao et al 2023).As a result, tourism development significantly impacts both the rural community level and the farmer level, and contributes to the dynamic evolution of ecological resilience in tourism villages.
Based on the preceding analysis, an analytical framework for ecological resilience of tourism villages was established from the dual perspectives of the community and farmers (figure 2).The influences of tourism disturbances on rural ecological resilience are chiefly characterized by changes in land use.Ecosystem service value is adopted in the proposed framework as a proxy indicator.The land-use data of Laochehe Village in different periods were collected by ArcGIS, and the ecological service value of the village in each period was calculated by the equivalent factor method, thus allowing for the indirect measurement of the evolution process of ecological resilience via the evolution characteristics of ecosystem service value.Additionally, the impacts of tourism disturbances on rural ecological resilience can be discerned through adjustments in the livelihoods and behavior of farmers.By constructing the evaluation index system for rural ecological resilience, the data of farmers were obtained via field research.The comprehensive index method was applied to calculate the comprehensive index of ecological resilience before and after tourism development, and the changes in the comprehensive index were used to characterize the evolution of ecological resilience.

Study area
Xiangxi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, commonly known as Xiangxi Prefecture, is located in the western part of Hunan Province, China (figure 3).The total population of Xiangxi Prefecture is 2.92 million, of which the minority population accounts for 77.21%.It is one of the most culturally diverse areas in China.Xiangxi Prefecture is also rich in natural resources and cultural resources.Historically, it was also recognized as one of China's most prominent poverty-stricken regions.Ecological and cultural tourism has made a great contribution to the economic development of Xiangxi Prefecture.In 2022, the tourism industry contributed to 56.31% of the regional GDP and up to 75.2% to economic growth.Today, tourism is a pillar industry in Xiangxi Prefecture.Hundreds of villages in the prefecture have embarked on tourism development initiatives, which have been instrumental in improving the livelihoods of local farmers.Laochehe Village, which is situated in Longshan County, Xiangxi Prefecture, is exemplary.Comprising 419 households and 1716 individuals, the village is predominantly inhabited by the Tujia ethnic group, accounting for 95% of the population.Laochehe Village is renowned for its rich ethnic heritage, with 450 landmark ethnic buildings and six national intangible cultural heritages.Since 2004, Laochehe Village has been actively involved in rural tourism, leading to a substantial increase in the average income of local families.At present, over 200 households are engaged in tourism-related industries in Laochehe Village, with an annual tourism income surpassing 2.5 million dollars and a per capita income of 3500 dollars.Compared with many ethnic villages, the land used for tourism in Laochehe village is more than 30 hectares.The large amount of land use change has had a significant impact on the ecological environment of Laochehe Village.In addition, many farmers in Laochehe Village are engaged in tourism and no longer engage in agricultural activities.Rural tourism has dramatically changed the livelihood capital and behavior of farming households.Given its strong typicality and representativeness, this setting provides an ideal subject for examining the evolution characteristics and mechanisms of rural ecological resilience under the influence of tourism disturbances.

Data resources
This study was conducted in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Helsinki and local statutory requirements.To ensure the validity and feasibility of the data, the triangulation method was employed to collect data from various channels (Baxter and Eyles, 1996).The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the authors.First, the basic information for Laochehe Village was obtained by its official website, policy documents, and village planning texts.Second, the researchers conducted field visits to Laochehe Village on three separate occasions in December 2021, July-August 2022, and July 2023.Field research was conducted through structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (figure 4).The questionnaire design was based on the theory of sustainable livelihoods and the theory of farmers' behavior, taking into account that traditional villages are the carriers of traditional culture and considering the influence of farmers' psychological capital.Thus, the five livelihood capitals were expanded to seven livelihood capitals: human capital, natural capital, physical capital, financial capital, social capital, cultural capital, and psychological capital.The questionnaire content included the village's socio-economic situation, the land-use change situation, farmers' livelihood capital, and farmers' behavior.The household served as the primary unit of the field survey, and the survey of each household lasted 60-120 min.The basic data were collected via questionnaires supported by in-depth interviews, and explained in detail the history of rural tourism development in Laochehe Village, the process of land-use change, and the dynamic process of farmers' livelihood capital and livelihood behavior.Consent was obtained from all participants of this study, and the respondents were free to refuse to answer any questions that they deemed sensitive or uncomfortable (Liu et al 2022).Considering that the impacts of tourism interference on villages are concentrated in specific development areas and some stakeholder farmer groups, the field research was mainly conducted via snowball sampling and random sampling (Baxter and Eyles, 1996).
The researchers conducted detailed interviews with village committees, heads of tourism companies, village cadres, and made referrals after the completion of the interviews to ensure that all villagers involved in rural tourism were surveyed, for a total of 103 questionnaires distributed.Second, some members not involved in rural tourism were randomly selected to be surveyed, aim to explore the differential characteristics of ecological resilience among different types of farmers, for a total of 37 questionnaires distributed.The researchers also lived in the village to understand the daily livelihood activities and behaviors of the farming households via nonparticipatory observation (Wu et al 2022), the purpose of which was to capture the cultural values of the village and the process of village governance.There are a total of 419 farm households in Laochehe Village, and the field research yielded questionnaires from 140 farm households.The questionnaires were used to obtain livelihood data from farmers before and after tourism development, which were supported by previous village textual information, the farmers' memories, and oral histories.
All the farmers involved in tourism in Laochehe Village were interviewed, which can reflect the impact of tourism development on the ecological resilience of villages and the livelihood of farmers, thus, the data are highly representative.Following the elimination of missing values and outliers in the key data variables, 131 valid questionnaires were obtained, representing an effectiveness rate of 93.57%.The original data were examined for reliability and validity via SPSS 24.0 software.The results revealed a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.755.Generally, reliability can be confirmed when the Cronbach's alpha coefficient reaches 0.7-0.8.The KMO test coefficient (0.776) exceeded the 0.5 threshold, and the Bartlett test coefficient (Sig.) was 0.000, indicating that the questionnaire data were reliable, effective, and representative.
Rural tourism has introduced substantial changes to the capital and practices surrounding farmers′ livelihood, concurrently influencing the demand and utilization of rural resources.It is imperative to investigate the ecological resilience of various types of farmers in the context of tourism-induced disruptions.To categorize the surveyed households, they were divided into three distinct groups based on the primary livelihoods and their respective contributions to household income (table 3) (Wu et al 2017, Li et al 2022).These categories include tourism-oriented farmers, tourism-participating farmers, and migrant-oriented farmers.The livelihood data of the farmers in Laochehe Village after tourism development were obtained via field research.The livelihood data of the farmers before tourism development were obtained by reviewing government statistics, rural planning texts, village records, tourism financial statements, and other textual information in different periods, and were supported by the recollections and oral histories of farmers.These data mainly included farmers' livelihood, their livelihood behaviors, their income from tourism, their perceptions and their willingness.In addition, this study was based on the data of the Third China Land Survey, which was combined with drone aerial photography and ArcGIS spatial visualization methods for auxiliary correction.The land-use data of Laochehe Village in 2022 were obtained.On this basis, by obtaining satellite maps of Laochehe Village in different periods (obtained from Landsat), and in combination with farmers' recollections and participatory mapping, land-use maps of Laochehe Village in 2004Village in , 2009Village in , 2016Village in and 2022 were drawn.The land use data of Laochehe Village in different periods (2004,2009,2016) were obtained from the China Land Use Remote Sensing Monitoring Database (https://resdc.cn/Datalist1.aspx?FieldTyepID=1,3) (table 2).The land data of different periods were analyzed by ArcGIS.In alignment with China's 2022 land-use status classification standards, land use was divided into five categories: cultivated land, forest land, garden land, water land, and construction land.

Methodology
As mentioned previously, this study was carried out from both community and farmers perspectives.From the community perspective, based on land-use data and the value equivalence of land ecosystem services, the ecosystem service value of Laochehe Village was calculated in different periods, and the ecological resilience of the village was quantitatively assessed using the ecosystem service value as a proxy.From the perspective of farmers, an evaluation index system for ecological resilience in rural tourism villages was established, and the weights were determined via the entropy weight method (Xie et al 2023).To calculate the comprehensive index for each dimension and indicator, the comprehensive index method was applied (Xiao et al 2023).Barrier factors were analyzed using the barrier degree model.Finally, qualitative analysis was conducted to investigate the evolutionary mechanisms of ecological resilience in Laochehe Village (Liu et al 2022).

Substitution method
Land is the foundation for rural social and economic activities, and any alterations in land use mirror the dynamic repercussions for rural social-ecological systems (Skerratt 2013, Berke and Ross 2013, Tong et al 2023).Ecosystem services encompass the conditions of the natural environment and the benefits generated by ecosystems during the ecological processes that sustain human existence, which are often discernible through land-use changes (Yin et al 2021).There is a noteworthy correlation between ecological resilience and ecosystem services (Tong et al 2023).Some scholars have calculated the value of ecosystem services in China using the value equivalent factor method per unit area, referencing the prices of China's three major grain crops (Xie et al 2015a, Xie et al 2015b).In this study, an annual correction coefficient for each period was calculated by considering the ratio of the average price of major grain crops in the study area in different periods of time, culminating in a final correction coefficient of 0.9731 (Qiu et al 2023).Based on the land-use data and the equivalent ecological service value within the study area, the ecological resilience index for the tourism village in different periods was calculated.The calculation method is as follows.
where ESV denotes the value of ecosystem services, which indirectly characterizes ecological resilience, A is the area of a certain land-use type, V is the ecosystem service value coefficient of a certain land-use type; EC f is the equivalent of the ecosystem service value of a certain land-use type, and E a represents a standard equivalent ecosystem service value.

Comprehensive index method
In this study, rural resilience from the perspective of farmers encompasses their interference capability, response capability, and transformation capability.The comprehensive index method was employed to calculate the index (Xiao et al 2023).
where R I denotes the ecological resilience index of Laochehe Village from the perspective of farmers, and B I , A I , and T I respectively represent the interference capability index, response capability index, and transformation capability index.Finally, W B , W A , and W T are respectively the weights of interference capability, response capability, and transformation capability.

Obstacle degree model
The barrier degree model was used to calculate the impact of each evaluation index on ecological resilience (Xiao et al 2023).The calculation method is as follows.
where P ij represents the index deviation, indicating the gap between a single index and the optimal target value, I j represents the degree to which the jth index poses an obstacle to livelihood resilience, and ω j represents the weight of a single factor on the total target; the weight of the j th index relative to the ecological resilience of tourism villages from farmer's perspective.

Index system
Farmers, as the primary stakeholders in tourism villages and integral contributors to rural governance, wield significant influence on rural ecological resilience via their livelihoods and behaviors.Farmers rely on rural resources to fulfill their daily needs, and can disrupt the rural ecology if their livelihoods and behaviors become irregular.The promotion of rural tourism expands the optional livelihoods available to farmers, but also increases the risks to their livelihoods.Based on the theory of sustainable livelihoods and the theory of farmers' behavior, an evaluation index system was established to investigate rural ecological resilience in tourism villages from the perspective of farmers.The functionality of the village land transitioned from singular to multifaceted, encompassing residential, production and ecological functions, with some parcels exhibiting mixed functions.For instance, some farmland and garden land were repurposed for roads, parking lots, and tourism facilities.Water resources were utilized to satisfy the dual demands for local production and living, as well as consumption and tourism.This reconfiguration of land functions bolstered the synergy among different land-use types, and strengthened their connection with local farmers.However, this transformation has had an irreversible impact on rural ecological resilience, exacerbating the ecological vulnerability and sensitivity of the region.
Equations (1) and (2) were utilized to calculate the ecological resilience index for Laochehe Village across different periods (table 6).The ecological resilience index of Laochehe Village decreased gradually from 2004 to 2022, and the magnitude of reduction varied across different stages.The tourism exploration stage (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008) exhibited the largest reduction, followed by the tourism transformation stage (2016-2022) and the tourism development stage (2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016), ultimately contributing to an overall decrease in the ecological resilience index by 2.05 × 10 6 .The ecological resilience indexes of cultivated land, forest land, and garden land were substantially reduced, respectively accounting for 27.14%, 45.73%, and 27.13% of the total decrease.Interestingly, the ecological resilience index for water land first decreased and then increased, ultimately reflecting an overall increase of 1.56 × 10 6 .The continuous expansion of construction land, however, was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in ecological resilience.Rural tourism led to the conversion of cultivated land, forest land, and garden land-resources with high ecological resilience-into construction land, resulting in a marked decline in the rural ecological resilience index.It is imperative for rural tourism development to be managed carefully to account for cultivated land, forest land, and garden land.Construction land must be planned judiciously, and the protection of water land must be prioritized to ensure the sustainable and balanced development of the region.4.2.Evolution characteristics from the perspective of farmers 4.2.1.Characteristics of ecological resilience before and after tourism development Equations (3)-( 6) were applied to calculate the interference capability index, response capability index, transformation capability index, and ecological resilience index of Laochehe Village from the perspective of farmers before and after tourism development.A descriptive statistical analysis of the findings was subsequently conducted (table 7).
Rural tourism has significantly enhanced Laochehe Village's interference capability index, response capability index, transformation capability index, and ecological resilience index.Specifically, as compared to 2004, the interference capability index increased by 21.78%, the response capability index increased by 14.72%, the transformation capability index increased by 30.34%, and the ecological resilience index increased by  (2004,2008,2016,2022) https    1 = less than 0.1 hm 2 ; 2 = 0.1-0.2hm 2 ; 3 =0.2-0.3 hm 2 ; 4 = 0.3-0.4hm 2 ; 5 = above 0.4 hm 2 0.0561 Annual per capita income C 9 1 = less than 1000 USD; 2 = 1000-1500 USD; 3 = 1500-3000 USD; 4 = 3000-7000 USD 0.0540 5 = above 7000 USD Family forest land area C 10 1 = less than 0.1 hm 2 ; 2 = 0.1-0.3hm 2 ; 3 = 0.3-0.6 hm 2 ; 4 = 0.6-1 hm 2 ; 5  ) increased by 33.33%.The multifaceted impact of rural tourism is evident.On the one hand, it provides farmers with diverse employment opportunities, significantly augmenting their financial capital (Wu et al 2020b).On the other hand, it has induced a shift in the attitudes of farmers toward resource utilization practices, prompting more scientific and standardized livelihood activities and ultimately reducing the interference of agriculture on rural ecological resilience.Nevertheless, rural tourism has also resulted in the conversion of cultivated land and forest land into construction land.This land-use shift has significantly depleted the natural capital of farmers, leading to a substantial decrease in rural ecological resilience.It is crucial to adopt a dialectical approach when evaluating the impact of tourism development on rural ecological environments, and to recognize both its positive and negative dimensions.

Characteristics of the ecological resilience of different types of farmers
To explore the various characteristics of the ecological resilience of farmers in Laochehe Village, the indices of ecological resilience and each dimension (table 8) for farmers with different livelihood types were statistically analyzed.Corresponding cylindrical scatter diagrams were drawn, as displayed in figures 6 and 7.The interference capability indices of different types of farmers, ranked from highest to lowest, were found to be as follows: tourism-participating farmers (0.1709), migrant-oriented farmers (0.1679), and tourism-oriented farmers (0.1438).The primary factor contributing to this disparity is the variance in the livelihood practices and behaviors of farmers (Xiao et al 2023).Rural tourism has broadened farmers' prospects for livelihood, reduced their reliance on traditional agriculture, and fostered a heightened awareness of the importance of environmental conservation.As a result, farmers have decreased their interference with rural ecosystems.As   8, tourism-oriented farmers were found to exhibit the lowest land pesticide costs (C 3 ) and land fertilizer costs (C 4 ) while achieving the highest household hygiene scores (C 6 ), suggesting that they have the strongest ecological awareness.However, tourism-oriented farmers exhibit a greater demand for daily living resources, which can intensify their impact on rural ecological resilience.Evidently, rural tourism wields a twofold impact on the interference capability of farmers.
The response capability indices of different types of farmers, ranked from highest to lowest, were found to be as follows: tourism-oriented farmers (0.1319), tourism-participating farmers (0.1169), and migrant-oriented farmers (0.1117).This divergence is underpinned by the pronounced positive effect of tourism on the material capital, financial capital, and social capital of farmers, which enhances their capacity to confront tourism-related risks and respond to tourism disturbances.Tourism-oriented farmers surpassed the others in the number of livelihood types (C 7 ), annual per capita income (C 9 ), total household fixed assets (C 11 ), and annual family education expenses (C 12 ).Farmers diversify their families' income channels by participating in rural tourism, leading to an increase in income.Financial capital becomes a necessity for farmers seeking to engage in various livelihood activities.However, tourism development also has a detrimental effect on the natural capital of Laochehe Village's farmers, given that nearly all of them are involved in land transfers.This has significantly impacted the agricultural acreage (C 8 ) and forest land area (C 10 ) indices of tourism-oriented farmers, ultimately impairing their response capability.In general, the degree of farmers' engagement with rural tourism is positively correlated with their response capability.
The transformation capability indices of different types of farmers, ranked from highest to lowest, were found to be as follows: tourism-oriented farmers (0.1655), tourism-participating farmers (0.1396), and migrantoriented farmers (0.1270).Transformation capability represents the comprehensive manifestation of farmers' access to information resources and the exploration of new livelihoods, which are jointly determined by policy support and the farmers' livelihoods.Tourism-oriented farmers typically have a stronger foundation and greater social support for their livelihoods.They can readily access social assistance and policy support, enabling them to effectively navigate tourism challenges and effect livelihood transformation.Thus, this group was found to exhibit the highest transformation capability.Additionally, the opportunities for professional skills training (C 16 ) and the willingness to engage in the tourism industry (C 19 ) of migrant-oriented farmers sharply contrast with those of tourism-oriented farmers.This discrepancy arises from the inherent challenges faced by migrantoriented farmers due to their relatively weaker livelihoods.Securing ample opportunities and returns from tourism is typically more challenging for migrant-oriented farmers.Their participation in rural tourism is limited, leading to their exclusion from the rural governance system.Moreover, some migrant-oriented farmers harbor a negative attitude toward tourism development (Wu et al 2022).
The ecological resilience indices of different types of farmers, ranked from highest to lowest, were found to be as follows: tourism-oriented farmers (0.4412), tourism-participating farmers (0.4274), and migrant-oriented farmers (0.4066).The ecological resilience of farmers reflects a comprehensive amalgamation of their interference, response, and transformation abilities.The ecological resilience index of farmers in Laochehe Village was found to exhibit a trend of central aggregation and polarization.While rural tourism has propelled differentiation and improvement in the livelihoods of farmers, its impact on their livelihoods is constrained due to limited capital and abilities.Only a small number of farmers manage to enhance their livelihoods in response to tourism challenges, while the majority can only passively resist the effects of tourism.These results underscore the pivotal role of livelihood capital in determining the ecological resilience of farmers, and also reflect the genuine needs of local farmers concerning the development of tourism.

Evolution mechanisms of ecological resilience in Laochehe Village
Tourism disturbance, which is a persistent disruptive factor, instigates adaptive changes within tourism villages over extended periods of social and economic activities.This, in turn, drives the continuous evolution of rural ecological resilience.Based on the analysis framework of the social-ecological systems of rural tourism (figure 1), the mechanism of the evolution of ecological resilience in Laochehe Village was investigated regarding its three core facets, namely the interference mechanism, response mechanism, and transformation mechanism (figure 8).

Interference mechanisms
Rural tourism attracts many external factors into the rural social-ecological system, driving changes in the land structure and utilization of resources (figure 9).This process significantly amplifies the impact of human activities on the rural ecological environment.Tourism development has a strong impact on the rural socialecological system, representing a crucial external factor in the evolution of rural ecological resilience (Wu et al 2017).The livelihood behavior of farmers directly affects the rural ecological environment.Tourism development facilitates the redistribution of rural resources and industrial transformation, inevitably leading to changes in the livelihood capital and behaviors of farmers.Irregular behavior in the daily lives of farmers can disrupt the ecological environment.Rural tourism promotes improvements in the ecological awareness and livelihood behaviors of farmers and intensifies their utilization of resources, which is an important internal factor in the evolution of rural ecological resilience.The combined effects of socio-economic factors and the behaviors of farmers lead to an imbalance in the social-ecological system of Laochehe Village.At the community level, the demand for rural resources increases and the value of said resources shifts.For example, certain cultivated lands may be rendered unproductive after conversion to tourist locales, and the waste byproducts of tourism activities can pollute the rural ecology.At the individual farmer level, changes transpire in terms of livelihood capital and livelihood strategies.Farmers have shifted from agricultural livelihoods to diversified livelihoods, thereby intensifying the destruction of the rural natural environment.As a result, the tensions between resource development and environmental conservation and the friction between stakeholders involved in tourism become increasingly pronounced.

Response mechanisms
The evolution of ecological resilience in tourism villages is influenced by a variety of internal factors, including the resource response, governance response, livelihood response and cultural response (figure 10).First and foremost, the structural and functional changes in rural land use under tourism disturbances are of paramount significance.These changes have a direct bearing on the evolution of rural ecological resilience, marking the resource response of the system.Second, tourism development promotes the restructuring of rural industrial structures and intensifies the tension between resource development and ecological protection.The redistribution of rural elements indirectly promotes the evolution of rural ecological resilience, thereby representing the governance response of the social system.Third, rural tourism instigates a shift in the livelihood patterns and behaviors of farmers.This transformation extends to the ways in which resources are utilized and the values that underpin these actions, directly influencing the evolution of rural ecological resilience.This phenomenon characterizes the livelihood response of the governance system.Finally, the interference of tourism has a profound impact on the reshaping of traditional rural culture.These changes subtly influence the rural culture and the values held by farmers.A growing number of farmers are embarking on livelihoods associated with tourism.In the process of environmental transformation, the pursuit of a harmonious coexistence between economic and ecological benefits indirectly shapes the evolution of rural ecological resilience.This illustrates the cultural response of the system.

Transformation mechanisms
The evolution of ecological resilience in tourism villages is primarily driven by two key factors, namely the adaptive transformation of the community and the livelihood transformation of farmers (figure 11).At the community level, there has been a significant intensification of the interconnection between rural land-use types.This transformation has shifted the land from a singular function to multiple functions, create a deeply integrated tourism-related rural resource system.Simultaneously, traditional agricultural livelihoods are being replaced by tourism livelihoods, with the tourism economy gradually assuming a dominant role.This transition drives rural transformation and diversifies the social-ecological systems within tourism villages.At the farmer level, rural tourism has promoted the diversification of livelihoods, changed livelihood capital and behavior, and elevated the awareness of environmental transformation.This process has intensified conflicts of interest in rural areas and caused governance systems to diversify.Furthermore, the rural cultural system has changed, exerting an influence on the values and behaviors of farmers.This has strengthened the subjective consciousness of farmers, encouraging them to align their livelihood with rationality.These adaptive shifts ultimately result in farmers becoming ecological stewards, effectively enhancing the ecological resilience of tourism villages (Wu et al 2022).

Discussion
The ecological governance of tourism villages is of paramount importance, and it is imperative to comprehensively understand the ecological resilience within these villages.While the theoretical understanding of the impacts of tourism and farmers on rural ecological resilience is well-established, the concept of such resilience remains somewhat nebulous.Further, the active role of farmers is often overlooked.This misalignment between theory and practice has resulted in a lack of practical guidance for promoting the sustainable development of tourism villages (Li et al 2022).In addition, ecological resilience is an inherently abstract concept, and the quantification of rural ecological resilience poses a challenge for the academic community (Carpenter et al 2005, Zhou 2017).The main contributions of this study can be summarized as follows.First, the SES framework was revised to align more closely with the characteristics of tourism villages and the livelihoods of farmers in ethnic areas.This revised framework facilitates a more comprehensive analysis of tourism in rural destinations that boast rich cultural resources.Second, drawing from social-ecological system theory, resilience theory, sustainable livelihood theory, and farmer behavior theory, an analysis framework of the ecological resilience of rural tourism areas was constructed from the dual perspective of the community and farmers.This framework contributes to refining and expanding the concept of ecological resilience and broadening ecological resilience research to the micro perspective.Third, the value of ecosystem services was used as a proxy for the quantitative measurement of the ecological resilience index.This innovative approach indirectly translates the abstract concept of ecological resilience into concrete and quantifiable factors, thus expanding the array of methods available for measuring resilience.Via these contributions, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of resilience in theory, broadens the scope of resilience research, and offers valuable case-based insights for global ecological governance and the pursuit of sustainable development in rural areas.
Rural tourism offers a feasible pathway for the advancement of rural social and economic development.However, rural tourism exhibits sensitivity and uncertainty, thus introducing significant challenges in the form of tourism management risks as well as rural governance and ecological conservation challenges (Qing et al 2022).The impact of tourism disturbances on rural social-ecological systems has dual facets and necessitates nuanced and dialectical research.Tourism development often accompanies significant demands for land resources (Calgaro et al 2014), thereby propelling the transformation of land from agricultural production purposes to multifaceted tourism purposes.This shift may involve changing the function of the land from a singular agricultural use to mixed uses, resulting in an irreversible impact on the landscape (Chen et al 2019, Hoang et al 2020).Conversely, rural tourism provides farmers with diversified livelihood opportunities, catalyzes livelihood transformations, effectively boosts the social and financial capital of farmers, and reshapes their behavioral paradigms.These factors, in turn, enhance the response capability and adaptability of farmers.However, the limited livelihood resources within the households of farmers often impede their ability to reap the rewards of tourism in their communities (Wu et al 2020b).In addition to being vulnerable to these risks, farmers tend to be reluctant to engage with the tourism sector.Local governments and tourism managers should actively guide farmers to participate in tourism-related livelihood behaviors with tangible benefits.
Ecological governance and ecological restoration in tourism villages require the joint efforts of policymakers and local communities.In many countries, the government has absolute authority in rural tourism and regional development, and to a large extent determines the ways of rural development.Therefore, in the process of policy formulation, the actual local situation should be taken into full consideration, and development should be carried out in accordance with local conditions.As the carrier and main implementer of tourism activities, the local community is the key to the success of rural tourism.However, there often exist weak community power, low community participation, and other circumstances that seriously hinder the development of rural tourism.Thus, endowing the community with more power in the process of rural tourism development is crucial.Only through the combination of 'top-down' government leadership and 'bottom-up' community self-governance can sustainable rural tourism development be realized.
As the primary practitioners of rural activities, farmers also represent significant human and social capital for the ecological governance of tourism villages.However, the governance of rural tourism villages still faces many challenges.As the social-ecological systems of rural tourism areas transform and reconfigure, the preexisting social networks and relationships also change.Additionally, there is a long-standing mindset characterized by government mandates dominating the behaviors of farmers, which dampens the enthusiasm of villagers to participate in rural governance.It is necessary to actively encourage farmers to participate in rural tourism.Furthermore, a governance framework that encompasses multiple stakeholders must be established to actively modernize the rural ecological governance structure.It is also imperative to ensure the central role of farmers in rural tourism.

Conclusions
This study delved into the dynamic evolution characteristics and underlying mechanisms of rural ecological resilience from the perspectives of community and farmers.The main conclusions can be summarized as follows.
(1) Rural tourism has contributed to changes in the structure and function of rural land, leading to a decline in ecological resilience.(2) Farmers' ecological resilience and each dimensional index increased under tourism disturbance.(3) The evolution of ecological resilience in tourism villages is steered by interference mechanisms, response mechanisms and transformation mechanisms.Based on the results of this work, suggestions for improving the ecological resilience of tourism villages are herein proposed.The government should develop scientifically informed planning programs, ensuring that rural natural and cultural resources are preserved while enabling controlled development.The government should also provide essential policy and financial support (e.g., rent reductions, skills training) to bolster farmers' livelihoods.Tourism enterprises should acknowledge the inherent strengths of farmers and provide more employment opportunities for local farmers.Farmers should capitalize on their central role in the rural area and leverage their strengths to facilitate livelihood transformation.They should also enhance their livelihood capabilities and ecological awareness while actively engaging in rural governance efforts.
This study remained characterized by some shortcomings.First, only one case village was selected for the study, and the research sample and research data were not adequate.Moreover, the comparative analysis of the ecological resilience of different villages and different types of farmers was insufficient.A follow-up study should expand the research scope and sample data to enhance the generalizability of the findings.In addition, recognizing that ecological resilience in tourism villages is a dynamic and evolving process, the exploration of how it may manifest different characteristics and mechanisms over longer periods requires more extensive data collection and monitoring of land-use changes and farmer dynamics, which also merit further research.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The revised SES framework for rural tourism villages.From Ostrom.Adapted with permission from AAAS.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The proposed ecological resilience analysis framework for rural tourism villages.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4.The on-site investigation of Laochehe Village.
://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/17.61%.This transformation can be attributed to the intervention of socio-economic factors, which have gradually opened up the closed rural social-ecological system.Rural tourism has not only altered the traditional livelihood means of farmers, but has also provided a wide array of new livelihood opportunities (Wu et al 2022), leading to an improved ability to respond to tourism-related disruptions.In effect, farmers have adapted their livelihoods to the tourism context.Of these, six factors changed significantly.The annual per capita income (C 9 ) increased by 80.87%, and the number of family members engaged in tourism (C 14 ) increased by 75.33%.Land

Figure 5 .
Figure 5.The land use in Laochehe Village from 2004 to 2022.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.The interference capability index and response capability index of different types of farmers.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7.The transformation capability index and ecological resilience index of different types of farmers.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8.The evolutionary mechanism of ecological resilience in Laochehe Village.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9.The evolutionary disturbance mechanisms of ecological resilience in Laochehe Village.

Figure 10 .
Figure 10.The evolutionary response mechanisms of ecological resilience in Laochehe Village.

Figure 11 .
Figure 11.The evolutionary transformational mechanisms of ecological resilience in Laochehe Village.

Table 1 .
Summary of the primary data.
(He et al 2017)m incorporates three key dimensions: interference capability, response capability, and transformation capability, as presented in table 4. Specifically, interference capability captures the tangible manifestations of farmers' livelihood dynamics.It reflects the extent to which farmers impede rural ecological resilience in the course of transforming natural resources(He et al 2017).Response Laochehe Village has experienced various stages of governance, including villagers' self-governance, government-led governance, and multi-subject collaborative governance.These stages align with the phases of rural tourism development, specifically, the tourism exploration stage(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008), the tourism development stage(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015), and the tourism transformation stage (2016-present).To analyze the stage-specific characteristics of the evolution of ecological resilience within Laochehe Village across various developmental stages, the years 2004, 2009, 2016, and 2022 were selected as time nodes.The land-use maps of Laochehe Village for different periods were drawn accordingly (figure5).ArcGIS was utilized to calculate the land-use changes occurring in Laochehe Village in different periods (table5).The base year was considered to be 2004, rendering the land-use change for this year as 0. From 2004 to 2022, there were notable transformations in the village's land-use patterns, with cultivated land, forest land, and garden land evolving into construction land, while the water land area slightly increased.The expansion of roads, landscapes, and tourism support facilities has led to a significant shift in the rural land-use structure.A total of 146.63 hm 2 of land transfer area was involved.The area of cultivated land, forest land, and garden land decreased by 97.73 hm 2 , 23.14 hm 2 , and 23.87 hm 2 .The water area first decreased and then increased, with a total increase of 4.01 hm 2 , while the construction land increased by 134.73 hm 2 .
(Xiao et al 2023) the ability of farmers to employ resource endowments to resist risks, stabilize their livelihoods, absorb interference and make continuous progress.Transformation capability represents the proficiency of farmers in acquiring knowledge and skills to transform their livelihoods and forge new paths in response to challenges, as they actively engage in livelihood transformation and risk resistance.Referring to the research results of other scholars, it is posited that disturbance capacity, response capacity, and transformation capacity are equally important for the ecological resilience of farmers, so the weight of each of the three dimensions is 0.3333(Xiao et al 2023).

Table 2 .
Land use data and satellite remote sensing data.

Table 3 .
The classification of the surveyed farmers.

Table 4 .
The evaluation index system of ecological resilience in tourism villages from the perspective of farmers.

Table 5 .
The land-use conversion of Laochehe Village in different periods (unit: hm 2 ).

Table 6 .
The ecological resilience index of Laochehe Village from the community perspective.

Table 7 .
The characteristics of farmers' ecological resilience indicators in Laochehe Village before and after tourism development.

Table 8 .
The characteristics of the ecological resilience index of different types of farmers in Laochehe Village.