Planning Strategies and Design Concepts
Cultural Vitality as a Catalyst for Sustainable Rural Development:
Strategies for Enhancing Public Spaces in Fujian Province, China
2025 Volume 13 Issue 4 Pages 63-82
Details
2025 Volume 13 Issue 4 Pages 63-82
Against the backdrop of China's rapid urbanization and modernization, rural public spaces are undergoing significant changes. This study investigates the cultural vitality of rural public spaces in Fujian Province, focusing on four representative types: activity squares, village parks, village entrances, and ancestral halls. Using a combination of questionnaire surveys and image semantic segmentation, the research develops a comprehensive evaluation framework to assess these spaces across four dimensions: field attribute elements, functional attribute elements,social attribute elements and cultural attribute elements.The findings reveal that activity squares and village parks have high potential for enhancing cultural vitality, while village entrances and ancestral halls require significant improvements. The study proposes specific strategies for optimizing spatial layouts, integrating cultural elements, and promoting community participation to revitalize rural public spaces. Future research should expand the scope of data collection and explore more diverse space types to further enrich the understanding of rural public space creation and cultural vitality enhancement.
In recent years, the rapid urbanization and modernization of China have led to significant transformations in rural areas, particularly in the realm of public spaces. These spaces, which once served as the cultural and social heart of rural communities, are now facing challenges such as declining vitality, loss of cultural identity, and insufficient functionality. Against this backdrop, the "14th Five-Year Plan" and the broader rural revitalization strategy have placed significant emphasis on the development of innovative public cultural spaces, distinct from traditional models. The revitalization of rural public spaces is not only a response to the cultural and social needs of rural residents but also a critical component of achieving sustainable rural development and narrowing the urban-rural divide.
In 2021, China's "Opinions on Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Cultural Services" highlighted the need for new types of public spaces that extend beyond conventional libraries and cultural centers (He, 2023). Furthermore, the "14th Five-Year Plan for Culture and Tourism Development" outlined innovative requirements for creating refined and distinctive public cultural spaces, such as city libraries, cultural stations, cultural halls, and cultural plazas (Gan, 2014). The "14th Five-Year Plan for the Construction of Public Cultural Service System," issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, integrated the innovative development of urban and rural public cultural spaces into the national agenda. It emphasized the establishment of culturally themed and functionally specific spaces in rural areas, including cultural halls, cultural plazas, rural theaters, and intangible cultural heritage learning spaces, tailored to local conditions (Sui, 2021).
In contrast to the traditional model of public cultural spaces—characterized by monotonous designs, limited functions, and government-dominated construction—the future direction emphasizes diversified construction sites, multi-stakeholder participation, integrated elements, and multifunctional business models. This shift aligns with the evolving policy landscape and aims to address the growing demand for vibrant, inclusive, and culturally rich public spaces in rural areas.
The Chinese government has implemented a series of rural development policies, including the New Rural Construction, Beautiful Countryside Initiative, and Rural Revitalization Strategy. These initiatives have significantly enhanced rural public spaces, which serve as crucial elements in rural landscape transformation. Concurrently, national policymakers have emphasized the establishment of an integrated urban-rural public cultural service system, aiming to optimize cultural resource allocation, improve rural cultural infrastructure, and reduce the urban-rural cultural service gap (Zeng, 2021). Rural public spaces function as vital platforms for community engagement and social interaction (Chen, M. and Lu, 2010), facilitating the gathering of diverse social groups and promoting cross-group communication and integration (Xiong and Zhao, 2009). Furthermore, these spaces serve as important venues for villagers to participate in rural cultural construction (Zhou, S. and Long, 2003). The concept of cultural empowerment in public space revitalization can strengthen cultural vitality, enhance rural residents' cultural identity and sense of belonging, and foster community interaction, thereby promoting the sustainable development of rural public spaces.
This study selects four types of representative public spaces in the countryside, namely activity squares, village parks, village entrances, and ancestral halls. These spaces are chosen for their typicality and significance in rural communities. Activity squares are central gathering places for various community activities, such as festivals and markets, and are vital for fostering community cohesion. Village parks provide essential recreational and ecological functions, enhancing the quality of life for rural residents. Village entrances serve as symbolic gateways that reflect the unique cultural identity of a village and are often the first impression visitors have of the community. Ancestral halls are important cultural and spiritual centers, preserving traditional values and heritage. By focusing on these spaces, the study aims to capture a comprehensive picture of rural public spaces and their potential for cultural empowerment. The study establishes an assessment framework applicable to the evaluation of cultural vitality of rural public spaces and conducts a comprehensive evaluation through questionnaire surveys and image semantic segmentation by combining subjective and objective methods. The aim is to explore the paths for creating cultural vitality in different types of public spaces and to provide a reference basis for the future transformation of cultural empowerment of rural public spaces.
The classification of rural public spaces lacks a universally accepted definition, with interpretations varying across disciplines and scholars. In urban planning, research often centers on the physical design of spaces and the cultivation of a sense of place (Dai and Xu, 2010) . For instance, Cao (2005) categorizes rural public spaces into two ideal types: formal public spaces (administratively embedded) and informal public spaces (endogenous), based on the dynamics of rural social structure (Cao, 2005). Li, Y. and Zhao (2007) adopt a temporal dimension, dividing rural public spaces into pre-reform and post-reform type.Wang, D., Wang et al. (2013) differentiate between "new" and "old" forms of public spaces, distinguishing other-organized from self-organized space. Zeng (2021); Zheng, Jin et al. (2009) categorizes physical spaces based on the degree of openness of traditional village public spaces into three major types: open communication spaces, semi-open communication spaces, and semi-private communication spaces. Building on these studies, this research classifies rural public spaces by their physical form and layout, as illustrated in Figure 1, into open spaces (e.g., activity squares, village parks, village entrances), semi-open spaces (e.g., ancestral hall squares), and closed spaces (e.g., private courtyards). This classification is valuable for understanding how different spatial forms affect the activities of rural residents. The study emphasizes optimizing spatial layout by configuring various types of spaces according to villagers' needs to improve space utilization efficiency. It also highlights the importance of fostering social equity by ensuring the public nature of open and semi-open spaces and enhancing the vitality of these spaces through design and management to boost their attractiveness.
This study focuses on typical rural cases in Fujian Province, exploring how rural public spaces can be transformed to meet the demands of the new era and proposing strategies to revitalize these spaces, ensuring they continue to fulfill their social functions. Some scholars have begun to pay attention to issues such as the continuing decline in rural populations (Lee, 2025) and increasingly homogenised development model (Yang and Wang, 2025), which are hindering the process of structure development, rural public spaces facsustainable rural development. The development of rural public spaces has also weakened as a result. In recent years, despite rapid economic growth and extensive infrae several challenge (Wei, Song et al., 2023). First, modernization and shifts in villagers' lifestyles have altered traditional social interactions. Neighborhood relationships are weakening, interpersonal communication is fragmenting, and rural public spaces are no longer central to facilitating social interactions, leading to their decline. Second, rural value systems have been disrupted by urban influences, resulting in the erosion or loss of rural public cultural spaces (Chen, B. and Li, 2021). Third, rural hollowing-out has reduced participation in public spaces, weakened community cohesion, and diminished the cultural functions of these spaces. This has led to a scarcity of public cultural activities and a decline in rural residents' quality of life, underscoring the need for a spatially oriented approach to rural public cultural service system (Zhang and Hu, 2018). Finally, the push for urban-rural integration has led some rural construction projects to adopt urban models, deviating from the essence of rural life. This approach often overlooks the preferences of rural residents and the unique characteristics of local cultural resources, resulting in rural public spaces that lack cultural vitality (Gu, Yu et al., 2019). Some scholars have explored the cultural vitality of rural areas by examining the integration of cultural heritage, eco-tourism, and industrial development, and have put forward some suggestions for spatial planning and improvement (Chen, Y.-S. and Liu, 2017).
Rural public space and cultural vitality: a dynamic relationshipHistorically, research on public spaces in China has been urban-centric, largely neglecting rural areas due to the urban-rural dual structure (Wang, X., Zhu et al., 2021). However, with the emergence of rural development issues and the implementation of policies such as Beautiful Countryside Construction and Rural Revitalization, scholars have increasingly turned their attention to rural areas. In order to promote sustainable rural development, there are studies that look at rural tourism development (Du, Wang et al., 2023; Xie, Meng et al., 2022), rural landscape management (Xiao, Liu et al., 2018), environmental sustainability and rural relationship exploration (Coderoni and Pagliacci, 2018), etc.
The relationship between public spaces and rural cultural vitality has been a focal point of recent research. Related studies have shown that interactions, activities, and utilization of market squares among residents have a positive impact on cultural sustainability (Agboola, Azizul et al., 2018). Scholars have conceptualized cultural heritage as part of dynamic multifunctional landscapes, proposing that linking cultural heritage with social ecosystem thinking can promote sustainable rural development (Bohnet, Bryce et al., 2025). Urban territories in search of inclusive practices that can be ritualized and offer a sense of belonging (Gamba and Cattacin, 2021), and the same applies to rural areas. Zhao (2018) argues that rural public spaces are not only functional areas but also spiritual places that embody nostalgic memories and vernacular culture. Chen, M. and Lu (2010) highlight the correlation between rural cultural spaces and the cultural participation rates of rural residents, noting that traditional rural cultural spaces, rooted in local production and life experiences, attracts through their proximity, tradition, and vernacular appeal. Collective memory is the core element for maintaining community identity and rural space vitality, and its embedding in the design of public space contributes to cultural inheritance and enhances the sense of community belonging (Ardakani and Oloonabadi, 2011).
Studies have shown that public spaces play a crucial role in carrying regional culture and social emotions, serving as platforms for rural governance and social cohesion. The construction and reconstruction of public spaces can reshape social relations, particularly during the spatial co-planning stage, which fosters collaboration among multiple governance actors and strengthens community solidarity (Cai, Wu et al., 2023). Rural public spaces also shape relationships among residents, influence value formation, and facilitate the transmission of customs. High-quality public space tends to attract more residents and a wider range of activities. This enhances the health and well-being of residents, promotes the cohesion of the community, and improves the livability of an area (Francis, Giles-Corti et al., 2012).Ultimately, the preservation and development of rural culture depend on the stimulation of cultural vitality, with public spaces serving as vital platforms for its expression (Bao, Sun et al., 2019).
The cultural empowerment of rural areas can be significantly enhanced by leveraging rural public spaces as platforms. These spaces, characterized by their diverse types, multifunctional characteristics, supportive participant groups, and rich humanistic elements, align well with the direction of public cultural space construction proposed by relevant policies in China. Rural public spaces is a spatial place with physical form, which is a physical carrier for people to carry out various activities, and its spatial composition mainly includes the integration of natural elements and artificial facilities, which has spatial solidity, so field attribute is one of the assessment dimensions. functional attribute is one of the assessment dimensions; at the same time, rural public spaces is an important place for villagers to carry out social interaction, where villagers can promote social interaction and cultivate the public spirit, so social attribute is one of the assessment dimensions; finally, rural public spaces carries the history, culture, folklore and traditional values of the countryside, and is an important place for the inheritance and continuation of rural culture. Finally, rural public spaces carries rural history and culture, folk customs and traditional values, and is an important carrier for the inheritance and continuation of rural culture, so cultural attribute is one of the assessment dimensions.Based on this,to accurately assess the potential of these spaces—specifically activity squares, village parks, village entrances, and ancestral halls—in fostering new public cultural spaces, this study constructs a comprehensive evaluation framework (Table 1). This framework integrates both subjective and objective assessment methods, focusing on four dimensions: field attributes (Chen, B. and Li, 2021),functional attributes,social attribute (Li, M., Yan et al., 2024; Wang, X., Zhu et al., 2021), and cultural attribute (Xu, 2021). By evaluating these dimensions, the system not only identifies and measures the development of new public cultural spaces in rural areas but also reflects the quality of public space development and the overall level of cultural vitality in the countryside, providing a foundation for cultural empowerment and sustainable rural development.
| Elements of Assessment | Selection of Elements | Assessment Sub-elements | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subjective Assessment | Objective Assessment | ||
| Field Attribute Elements Assessment | Landscape Features | Landscape Satisfaction | Percentage of natural environments |
| Percentage of vignette landscaping | |||
| Spatial Layout | Site Utilization Frequency | Percentage of activity venues | |
| Cultural Exhibition Appeal | |||
| Functional Attribute Elements Assessment | Functional Capabilities | Functional Capacity | - |
| Functional Diversity | |||
| Service Facilities | Facility Use Satisfaction | Percentage of each type of public facility | |
| Facility Modernization | |||
| Cultural Facility Richness | |||
| Social Attribute Elements Assessment | Spatial Engagement | Travel Willingness | - |
| Stay Duration | |||
| Cultural Involvement | Cultural Activity Participation Willingness | - | |
| Cultural Attribute Elements Assessment | Daily Cultural Practices | Vernacular Elements Richness | - |
| Daily Cultural Activity Frequency | |||
| Distinctive Cultural Features | Rural Characteristic Elements Richness | - | |
| Special Cultural Activity Frequency | |||
| Village History and Folk Culture Awareness Activities Frequency | |||
This study constructs a comprehensive evaluation system for rural public spaces, focusing on four representative types of spaces: activity squares, village parks, village entrances, and ancestral halls. These spaces are assessed across Four key dimensions: field attribute elements assessment, functional attribute elements assessment, social attribute elements assessment and cultural attribute elements assessment. The evaluation framework (Figure 2) integrates both subjective and objective assessment methods to provide a holistic understanding of the cultural vitality and potential for cultural empowerment in these spaces.
This study focuses on 170 villages by the “Village View Photo” in Fujian Province in 2023 to 2024. These villages were selected as representative cases, encompassing three distinct types: traditional villages, general villages, and new rural communities. This selection captures the diversity of rural development in Fujian Province, ensuring a broad representation of typical rural settings. The data sources are both accessible and comprehensive, primarily drawn from the Ministry of Housing and Construction of Fujian Province's rural construction evaluation platform. From this platform, 400 photos of rural public spaces were initially collected and screened. Figure 3 showcases some typical characteristics and case images of the four types of rural public spaces.
This study employs a combination of subjective and objective methods to comprehensively assess four types of rural public spaces. The subjective assessment relies on questionnaire surveys to gather public feedback on the overall satisfaction with the environment and cultural elements of the space. The objective evaluation uses the image semantic segmentation model to recognize and quantify various environmental elements in batch village scene pictures. This dual approach ensures a comprehensive evaluation of rural public spaces from different perspectives, providing a scientific and objective basis for the construction of new public cultural spaces.
Questionnaire surveyFor the subjective assessment, this study distributed a total of 450 questionnaires and collected 385 valid responses. The questionnaire included sections on the basic information of respondents, their satisfaction with the selected public spaces, participation levels, cultural display in the space, and cultural activities. It focused on villagers' satisfaction with the landscape design, spatial utility, functional flexibility, facility usage, and cultural integration in rural public spaces. Respondents rated four types of public spaces—activity squares, village parks, village entrances, and ancestral halls—on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction, participation, and activity frequency. These scores reflect the potential for each space to be developed into a new type of public cultural space. The average score for each guiding element was calculated. Questions were designed to correspond to elements relevant to the construction of new public cultural spaces in rural areas. For detailed information on the questionnaire, please refer to Appendix A.
CRITIC analysis methodCRITIC analysis is a multi-attribute decision analysis method that calculates weights based on the variability of evaluation indicators and the conflict between indicators. It can effectively measure the relative importance of each evaluation indicator in decision-making, thus providing a scientific basis for decision-making.
The method evaluates the variability of indicators and evaluates the conflict between indicators as criteria for calculation; First: indicator variability is measured using the standard deviation, where the higher the standard deviation the higher the weight;Second: conflictability is measured using the correlation coefficient between indicators; the stronger the correlation between indicators the lower the conflictability and the smaller the weight; Third: informativeness is calculated as the product between indicator variability and conflicting indicators; Fourth: the final weights are calculated by normalizing the amount of information (Zhou, J. and Ma, 2024).
The CRITIC analysis shows that indicators with higher weights have a greater impact on decision-making results. Therefore, in the rural public space development, the method can help decision makers to identify key indicators, and the indicators with high weight can be used as the direction of focusing on the improvement of rural public space or prioritising the allocation of resources.
Image semantic segmentationFor the objective evaluation, images of rural public space nodes were sourced from the "Fujian Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development Rural Construction Evaluation Information Platform." After removing images that were cluttered, blurry, or otherwise substandard, the remaining clear, uniform images were analyzed using the PSPNet model, a leading tool in image semantic segmentation (Figure 4). This model, trained with the ADE20K dataset, classifies each element within an image, providing a detailed breakdown of components such as green plants (representing natural environments), paving and open squares (activity areas), architectural and landscape features, and public service facilities like rest pavilions, public toilets, and fitness equipment. This segmentation allows for a quantitative analysis of each element's proportion within the public spaces, offering insights into their composition and potential improvements.
The subjective evaluation results (Table 2) reveal that among the four types of rural public spaces, activity squares demonstrate potential in terms of space use efficiency and integration of business functions, with villagers showing a relatively high willingness to engage in cultural participation. Specifically, activity squares received a high score for site utilization frequency（3.64）and cultural activity participation willingness（3.58）, indicating their effectiveness in promoting community engagement. However, these spaces scored lower in landscape satisfaction（2.33）and functional diversity（2.35）, suggesting that their landscape design and functional variety could be improved.
Village parks stand out in landscape environment shaping, space use efficiency, functional composite elasticity, and villagers' willingness to participate in both space and cultural activities. These parks received the highest scores across several metrics, including landscape satisfaction (3.62), site utilization frequency (3.64), and cultural activity participation willingness (3.72). Additionally, village parks scored well in functional capacity (3.72) and functional diversity (3.62), indicating their versatility and appeal to the community. The high stay duration score (3.92) further highlights the parks' role as central gathering places.
In contrast, village entrances are weaker in terms of villagers' sense of access, participation, satisfaction, and material element construction. Village entrances received lower scores in site utilization frequency (2.35), functional capacity(2.39), and functional diversity (2.38). The low travel willingness score (2.36) and stay duration (2.42) indicate that these spaces are less frequented and utilized by the community.
Ancestral halls, on the other hand, have a greater advantage in cultural display and the development of special cultural activities. Ancestral halls received the highest score for cultural exhibition appeal (3.73) and special cultural activity frequency (3.65), reflecting their importance in preserving and promoting cultural heritage. However, they scored lower in landscape satisfaction (2.36) and site utilization frequency (2.35), indicating that these spaces are primarily used for specific cultural events and are not as frequently visited for daily activities.
| Elements of Assessment | Selection of Eements | Subjective Rating Sub-element | Assessment Average Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activity Squares | Village Parks | Village Entrances | Ancestral Halls | |||
| Field Attribute Elements Assessment | Landscape Features | Landscape Satisfaction | 2.33 | 3.62 | 2.38 | 2.36 |
| Spatial Layout | Site Utilization Frequency | 3.64 | 3.64 | 2.35 | 2.35 | |
| Cultural Exhibition Appeal | 3.66 | 3.57 | 3.6 | 3.73 | ||
| Functional Attribute Elements Assessment | Functional Capabilities | Functional Capacity | 3.58 | 3.72 | 2.39 | 2.39 |
| Functional Diversity | 2.35 | 3.62 | 2.38 | 2.47 | ||
| Service Facilities | Daily Service Facility Use Satisfaction | 2.44 | 2.27 | 2.38 | 2.42 | |
| Facility Modernization | 2.36 | 2.32 | 2.34 | 2.39 | ||
| Cultural Facility Richness | 2.37 | 2.35 | 2.33 | 2.35 | ||
|
Social Attribute Elements Assessment |
Spatial Engagement | Travel Willingness | 3.67 | 3.87 | 2.36 | 2.34 |
| Stay Duration | 3.62 | 3.92 | 2.42 | 2.39 | ||
| Cultural Involvement | Cultural Activity Participation Willingness | 3.58 | 3.72 | 2.3 | 2.39 | |
|
Cultural Attribute Elements Assessment |
Daily Cultural Practice | Vernacular Elements Richness | 3.65 | 3.67 | 3.61 | 2.29 |
| Daily Cultural Activity Frequency | 3.67 | 3.61 | 2.36 | 2.33 | ||
| Distinctive Cultural Features | Rural Characteristic Elements Richness | 2.35 | 2.38 | 2.35 | 2.32 | |
| Special Cultural Activity Frequency | 2.37 | 2.4 | 2.33 | 3.65 | ||
| Village History and Folk Culture Awareness Activities Frequency | 2.24 | 2.38 | 2.37 | 2.36 | ||
“*This score is 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher levels of satisfaction, richness, participation, and frequency of activities involved.”
Questionnaire data further highlights deficiencies in cultural representation,As can be seen from Figure 5, with the exception of village shrines, which, as sacred spaces, are more often used to organise distinctive cultural activities such as rituals to welcome the gods, all four types of public spaces tend to have negative attitudes in the assessment of the elements of distinctive cultural features.62% of respondents rated rural history displays and folk culture promotion as "insufficient," criticizing the predominant reliance on static signage rather than interactive or multimedia formats. This homogenized presentation fails to foster villagers' cultural pride or strengthen place-based identity, as evidenced by low scores for rural characteristic elements richness (ranging from 2.32 to 2.38) and village history awareness activities frequency (ranging from 2.24 to 2.38).
But tended to be positive in the assessment of the propensity to display culture in all four types of space,About 63% of the respondents hope to use public spaces in rural areas as cultural exhibition venues, indicating that villagers have certain cultural needs in their daily lives, as evidenced by high scores for cultural exhibition appeal (ranging from 3.57 to 3.73).
From the questionnaire data, it can be seen that the four types of spaces have deficiencies in Service Facilities, and the construction level of daily service facilities, modern facilities and cultural facilities is relatively low, and the configuration level of Service Facilities tends to affect the performance of spatial functions, and the diversity of spatial functions is built on the diversity of spatial Service Facilities, and the results of the questionnaire show the correlation(Figure 6). The high Functional Diversity rating of Village Parks is due to the fact that they are outstanding in other elements, which compensates for the negative impact of the lack of service facilities on spatial functions.
The following are the results and performance of the weights of the indicators in the four categories of space obtained through the CRITIC analysis method.Specific results and performance please refer to Table B1,Table B2 and Table B3 of Appendix B.
Compared to other public spaces, activity squares in cultural facility richness,travel willingness and stay duration, which are highly weighted and have high importance in making relevant construction decisions. Among them, activity squares has a higher mean value (0.671) and lower standard deviation (0.314) in terms of Functional Capacity, indicating that it has a better foundation in terms of the potential for functional integration, and activity squares usually serves as the core area for public activities and carries more daily service functions. In terms of willingness to travel to the Travel Willingness site, villagers show positive willingness to travel (mean value 0.666), but the high standard deviation (0.326) indicates that there is a big difference in the willingness of villagers to travel to the activity squares, which, combined with the results of the interview, indicates that some villagers are less likely to travel to the site due to the long distance and other reasons.
Village Parks have higher weights in landscape satisfaction, functional diversity and rural characteristic elements richness, indicating that these indicators are of high importance and dominant for village parks in making related construction decisions. Among them, the villagers' evaluation of landscape satisfaction varies greatly, indicating that there is a large gap between the construction levels of village parks in different villages in Fujian province. In terms of vernacular elements richness, the performance is excellent, but the dominant position is slightly lower. It is recommended to maintain its existing display advantages and further explore its potential to enhance the diversity and richness of the display contents. The importance of functional diversity1 is significantly higher than that of other spaces (39.66%), with the highest mean value (0.655) and lower standard deviation (0.312), which is a more stable performance and a better overall evaluation, which is in line with the conclusion that Village Parks, with its diversified natural landscapes and recreational facilities, is capable of accommodating a variety of functional types. This is consistent with the conclusion that village parks has diverse natural landscapes and recreational facilities and can accommodate a variety of function types. In terms of stay duration, although village parks has a low weighting, it has the highest mean value, indicating that its overall performance is excellent and its current attractiveness should be maintained in planning.
Village entrances are usually the entrances and landmark areas of villages, with strong symbolic meaning and gathering function, which can better display the cultural characteristics and historical heritage of villages. Of these, cultural exhibition appeal and functional capacity are weighted relatively highly.Therefore, future decisions need to prioritise the provision of a diverse range of cultural display spaces and an increased degree of functional complexity for village entrance spaces.
In terms of facility modernisation, ancestral halls has the highest weight (26.34%), and since this space has a unique cultural value and public function in rural society, the construction level of its modernised and intelligent facilities has a more significant impact on the overall development of the countryside. The high weight of Vernacular Elements Richness indicates that this indicator has a certain impact on the development of the shrine, and in the future, the allocation of resources for Vernacular Elements should also be involved in the construction of the shrine.At the same time, ancestral halls has the most outstanding performance in terms of special cultural activity frequency, with the highest weight (28.95%) and the highest mean value (0.662), and moderate standard deviation, indicating that the frequency of its cultural activities is high and relatively stable, and that it serves as an important place for traditional culture and attracts villagers to participate in cultural activities by organising special cultural activities. As an important place for traditional culture, it attracts villagers' participation by holding special cultural activities. As for cultural activity participation willingness and vernacular elements richness, although ancestral halls has the highest weight, the mean value is low, indicating that its potential has not been fully developed. It is recommended to further explore its cultural value and optimise related activities and display contents.
The assessment of the characteristics of the objective elementsThe objective assessment data obtained through image semantic segmentation software reveals differences in the proportion of elements within the same type of rural public space due to varying development stages and design techniques. After eliminating images with significant differences, the retained images were analyzed, and the average proportions of elements were calculated, as shown in Table 3.
| Space Types | Field Attribute Elements Assessment | Functional Attribute Elements Assessment | Other elements | Total proportion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landscape Features | Spatial Layout | Service Facilities | ||||
| natural environments | vignette landscape | activity venues | public facilities | |||
| Activity Squares | 15% | 2.5% | 40% | 10% | 32.5% | 100% |
| Village Parks | 48% | 5% | 2.5% | 18% | 26.5% | 100% |
| Village Entrances | 18% | 5% | 1% | 1% | 75% | 100% |
| Ancestral Halls | 18% | 1% | 40% | 10% | 31% | 100% |
As can be seen from Table 3, the image recognition results align with our initial definitions of the four types of rural public spaces, confirming their distinct characteristics. For instance, village parks, with their high natural environments percentage (48%) and balanced elements, are ideal for promoting ecological and cultural activities. Activity squares, characterized by a large activity venue percentage (40%), serve as vibrant hubs for social and cultural events. Village entrances, with minimal activity venues (1%) and public facilities (1%), function primarily as iconic gateways. Ancestral halls, with a significant activity venue percentage (40%) and limited public facilities (10%), are primarily used for cultural and religious activities. These findings validate our subjective assessments and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each space type, providing clear directions for future improvements to enhance their cultural vitality and community engagement.
Based on the analysis of the assessment results, the advantageous and high-weight elements of the four types of public space are extracted,the degree of spatial suitability is quantified by the number of advantageous elements,these elements are orientated towards four types of public space creation. The spatial characteristics of each type of space are identified according to the advantageous elements (Figure 6), and differentiated spatial creation paths are adopted.
Activity squares are primary venues for daily cultural activities, attracting high participation from rural residents. While they are highly versatile in accommodating various functions, their services and landscape design are relatively underdeveloped. Enhancing the spatial design of activity squares is crucial for boosting cultural vitality, with a focus on daily leisure activities.
Village parks serve as vibrant spaces that enrich rural culture, enticing local residents and visitors alike with their lush greenery and an array of amenities. However, the integration of cultural elements within the space is not prominent. Upgrading the spatial design of village parks is a priority to enhance cultural vitality.
As the gateway space of the village, village entrances are used to display the local landscape and highlight the local cultural characteristics. They have a high degree of effective cultural output. However, due to the special location of village entrances, there is a lack of corresponding activity space, which leads to difficulties in placing functions and a lack of service facilities. As a result, villagers stay in this space for a short period of time and at a low frequency.
Ancestral halls, primarily used for hosting characteristic cultural activities, possess a strong cultural atmosphere. Nevertheless, the traditional functions associated with divine rituals and beliefs have diminished over time. The degree of match for updating the spatial design of ancestral halls to boost cultural vitality is low, with an emphasis on highlighting featured cultural presentations.
Strategies to enhance the cultural vitality of rural public spacesBased on the main features of different spaces extracted and the functional attributes of the original spaces, combined with the humanistic elements, an ideal spatial layout model is proposed for the four types of public spaces, so as to stimulate the cultural vitality characteristics of the existing spaces (Figure 8), followed by specific creation paths for the activity squares, village parks, village entrances and ancestral halls.
Activity squares provide spacious and complete activity areas but often lack spatial variation. The original activity areas are retained, with added landscape and public service zones to support diverse functions. Functional design should address the cultural and leisure needs of all age groups, accommodating various activities and large-scale traditional events like weddings and festivals. Spatial attributes should adapt to social activity needs. To encourage villager participation, landscape and functional variety should enhance the appeal of the space. New technologies like the internet and social media can help villagers express cultural needs and suggestions. Humanistic design should integrate cultural display areas without disrupting activity spaces, using surrounding landscapes for small-scale, connected cultural exhibits.
Village parks feature rich landscapes but scattered activity areas, leading to a dispersed layout of public services and cultural displays. Functional design should focus on cultural spaces centered around natural ecology, supporting activities like research, harvesting, and agricultural experiences to strengthen community cohesion. Villagers should be encouraged to participate in cultural exhibitions and activity planning, enhancing their engagement. Humanistic design should preserve the dispersed layout while flexibly presenting cultural elements and adding cultural landscape pieces.
With limited activity space, village entrances should compensate by enhancing other design aspects. Functional design should highlight local landscapes and core village culture. Villagers should be involved in designing village logos, using digital tools to upload designs and vote, fostering interaction and travel interest. Humanistic design should emphasize rural features and cultural connotations, transforming local customs into symbolic elements to create key cultural landscape nodes.
Ancestral halls, primarily used for worship, often lack landscape and public service facilities. The layout should retain the main building and activity square while adding surrounding landscape and public service areas to improve aesthetics and cultural services. Functional design can adopt an "ancestral hall+" model, blending traditional and modern elements with integrated, digital facilities to create a unique cultural space for sightseeing, learning, and experiencing. Villager participation can be enhanced through traditional cultural activities, providing opportunities for self-expression and interaction. Humanistic design should make ancestral halls a platform for traditional cultural elements, hosting regular cultural activities and exhibitions to showcase village heritage.
This study investigates the cultural vitality of rural public spaces in Fujian Province, focusing on four representative types: activity squares, village parks, village entrances, and ancestral halls. Through a comprehensive evaluation framework that combines subjective and objective assessment methods, the study identifies the key characteristics and potential of these spaces to enhance cultural vitality. The research highlights the unique roles and characteristics of each space type. Activity squares are vibrant hubs for daily cultural activities but require improvements in landscape design and functional diversity. Village parks offer rich ecological and cultural experiences but need better integration of cultural elements. Village entrances serve as iconic gateways but face limitations in activity space and service facilities. Ancestral halls are strong in cultural display but require modernization to enhance their functionality and appeal. The findings suggest that optimizing spatial layouts, enhancing cultural integration, and promoting community participation are crucial for revitalizing rural public spaces. Future research should focus on expanding the scope of data collection, exploring more diverse space types, and developing tailored strategies for different regions. Additionally, leveraging new technologies and community engagement can further enhance the cultural vitality and sustainability of rural public spaces.
At present, there are certain limitations in the collection of picture data for rural public space, this study, and in the future research, the researchers will continue to collect data, expand the types of research objects and the scope of the survey population, and enrich the research on the rural new public cultural space. In the future, we can consider combining village planning, village development objectives and other policy factors to make a comprehensive consideration of the development of rural public space, in addition to the four types of typical space considered in this paper, and how further composite rural public space should be developed.
Conceptualization, Q.Z., X.Y., J.X.; methodology, X.Y. and D.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.Z., X.Y., and D.Y.; writing—review and editing, Q.Z. and P.Y.; visualization, Z.C.; funding acquisition, Q.Z. and P.Y.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of the paper.
This research was funded by the Fund for Humanities and Social Sciences Research of the Ministry of Education (22YJC840041), the Open Fund of the Key Laboratory of Monitoring, Evaluation and Early Warning for Land Spatial Planning of the Ministry of Natural Resources (LMEE-KF2023002), and Fujian Province Science and Technology Plan Project, University Industry-Academia Cooperation Project, Ecological Restoration and Landscape Quality Improvement Technology in Urban Waterfront Areas in Minjiang River Basin (2022Y4019).
