| In recent years,the tourism of world heritage sites continues to heat up,and the commercialization phenomenon that heritage sites are integrated,packaged,and marketed is very common.The exploitation and utilization of natural resources and cultural resources in heritage sites have reached an unprecedented level in the world.Along with a series of human-land conflicts and human-water conflicts caused by tourism development,the sustainable development of economy,society and environment of scenic spots is threatened.The protection of heritage sites and the sustainable development of villagers? livelihood have become the hot topics of regional coordinated development.This paper takes the core scenic spot of world cultural landscape heritage site--Duoyishu scenic spot of Yuanyang Hani Terraces heritage site as the case study object,centering on changes of villagers' livelihood of Duoyishu scenic spot,the paper establishes the sustainable livelihood framework of villagers in Duoyishu scenic spot by using the literature research method,induction and deduction methods,case study method,structured interview,unstructured interview and so on.Nine core villages in Duoyishu scenic spot are generally divided into two categories:inn-type and ecotype.Five inn-type villages are close to the terraced field landscape,and most of them are located on the both sides of the main roads of the scenic spot.There are many inns and restaurants in the villages,and the villagers mainly take tourism management as their main income;There is a certain distance between the four ecotype villages and the terraced field landscape and the main roads of the scenic spots,the four villages are relatively isolated,their main features are the original traditional mushroom house dwellings and folk customs,which are affected by tourism development but less income from participating in tourism.This paper selects the casesinn-type villagesto represent Pugao Laozhai and the ecotype villagesto represent Achenko.With the guidance of the sustainable livelihood framework,the paper compares and analyzes the livelihood strategies,livelihood capital and livelihood results of inn-type and ecotypevillagers,and discusses the similarities and differences oflivelihood results under different tourism management modes.The study found that the inn-type villagers can gain more profits from the development of tourism,and the livelihood strategy changes from pure agriculture type to tourism industry;Ecotype villagers are faced with many restrictions on the protection of traditional villages in heritage sites,and their livelihood strategies change from pure agriculturetype totourism concurrent business type.Through the process of villagers? livelihood changes,the following motivations are concluded: the success of the world heritage application is the starting point for villagers that livelihood changes from traditional livelihood to participate in tourism;Tourism management mode stimulatesthe livelihood changes from the aspects of concept positioning,management mode,benefit distribution mode and other aspects of scenic spot development;Villagers deal with the impact of vulnerability of traditional agriculture and tourism by changing livelihood activities;Tourism development policy,tourism poverty reduction policy and so on promote villagers? strategy to change into participate in tourism;Under the influence of the above factors,villagers constantly adjust their livelihood strategies and obtain a series of livelihood results.The mutual circulation influence of livelihood capital,strategies and results has led to the livelihood change inclined to participate in tourism.The fifth chapter forms quantitative analysis according to the field interview questionnaire,in terms of livelihood capital: the total value of livelihood capital in Pugao Laozhai is 0.474 higher than that of Achenko.Through the comparison of sub-capital,it is found that the human capital,financial capital and material capital of the villagers in Pugao Laozhai are all higher than those in Achenko;The natural capital and social capital of the villagers in Pugao Laozhai are lower than those in Achenko.The study found that due to the different orientation and development level of tourism development,livelihood capital is inclined to participate in tourism,but the inclination of inn-type villagers is more prominent.In terms of livelihood sustainability evaluation: the villagers in the two villages generally recognize economic sustainability,but the villagers in Pugao village(1.93)have higher recognition of economic sustainability than those in Achenko(2.22);The villagers in Pugao village(2.83)maintain a neutral attitude towards the sustainability of the society,while the villagers of Achenko(1.81)generally recognize the sustainability of the society;The villagers of Pugao village(3.15)maintain a neutral attitude towards the sustainability of the environment,and the villagers of Achenko(1.82)generally recognize that the sustainability of the society.The study found that inn-type villagers have higher economic benefits,but the human-land conflicts and human-water conflicts are more serious,and the sustainability of environment is worrying;ecotype villagers have relatively low tourism benefits,but the environment is more sustainable.When the villagers in Duoyishu scenic spot change their livelihood under the influence of tourism,the natural risks of geological disasters,the tourism market risks and social risks in the scenic spot are prominent at the same time.The villagers have strong sensitivity to tourism economy,policies and environment,and the allocation of villagers? livelihood capital is insufficient to resist impact.On the basis of the above analysis,this paper puts forward five aspects of sustainable development strategies of livelihood,including exploring the complementary development of inn-type and ecotype villages,strengthening the ecological protection of heritage sites,reasonably construct intensive livelihood,promoting the establishment ofvillagers tourism-type companies(cooperatives),improving public services in scenic spots and setting the off-season dormancy period of the heritage sites. |
PDF Full Text Request