Author
Listed:
- Zheng Chen
(School of Tourism, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China
Key Laboratory of Integration Effect of Anhui Regional Culture and Smart Tourism, Huangshan 245041, China)
- Qiyue Zhang
(School of Educational Science, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China)
- Yinlong Jiang
(School of Tourism, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China)
- Zhuoting Gan
(School of Tourism, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China)
Abstract
Rural heritage villages in China face compounding pressures from heritagisation policies, tourism marketisation, and digital platform logics, which together threaten the cultural integrity of lineage-based communities. While existing scholarship has shifted from treating authenticity as a fixed property to viewing it as a negotiated construct, a critical gap persists: the literature does not explain how local actors operationally manage the simultaneous demands of external governance compliance and internal cultural continuity. Drawing on multi-sited ethnography conducted across ritual spaces, tourism settings, and digital platforms in Huizhou lineage villages (March–August 2025)—including over 30 h of in-depth interviews with 18 cultural practitioners and two years of online community ethnography (2023–2025) within Huizhou traditional village cultural liaison groups—this study examines the micro-level strategies through which communities respond to Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD). The study introduces the concept of Versioned Governance: a community-enacted mechanism through which cultural authenticity is strategically differentiated into ritual, performative, and pedagogical versions. Through spatial partitioning, temporal staggering, and linguistic encoding, lineage groups create cultural buffer zones that mediate between sacred practice and public display without compromising ethical coherence. This framework reframes authenticity not as an essential property nor as mere negotiated perception, but as a processual and political achievement—continuously produced through the interplay of structural discipline and local agency. The findings contribute to critical heritage studies and offer practical implications for cultural land-use and heritage governance policy in non-Western rural contexts.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:8:p:3913-:d:1920677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.