PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY ›› 2023, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (8): 1501-1513.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2023.08.005

• Risk of Returning to Poverty of Rural Tourism Destinations, Residents' SubjectiveWell-Being, and Placeness Reconstruction • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Risk of returning to poverty of rural tourism destinations and pathways of block the risk under differentiated development models

LI Huiqin1(), PAN Jingyan1, ZHANG Ting2, HOU Yujie1, HUI Yujie1   

  1. 1. School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430078, China
    2. College of Finance, Economics and Tourism, Hubei Polytechnic Institute, Xiaogan 432000, Hubei, China
  • Received:2023-02-28 Revised:2023-05-17 Online:2023-08-28 Published:2023-08-25
  • Supported by:
    National Social Science Foundation of China(19BJY202)

Abstract:

Preventing large-scale return to poverty is of great significance for consolidating the achievements of poverty alleviation and promoting rural revitalization. Taking Enshi Prefecture in the Wuling Mountains region as the research area, four rural tourism development models in poverty alleviation areas were identified: resource-driven, industry-driven, cultural tourism-led, and enterprise-driven. According to the sustainable livelihood theory and the analytical framework of risk and vulnerability, a risk evaluation indicator system of rural tourism area households was constructed, and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method was adopted to effectively identify the risk of rural tourism area households under the differentiated development models, and the pathways of blocking the risk was proposed. The results show that: 1) The risk of returning to poverty of the rural households in the case study area is high in the physical capital and financial capital sense, and the risk of returning to poverty is low in the human capital and livelihood adaptability sense, and the overall level is average, that is, there is a certain risk of falling back into poverty. 2) In the four case study villages with different development models, there are obvious internal differences between the dimensions of the risk of returning to poverty. The risk of returning to poverty is higher for resource-driven and enterprise-driven rural livelihood types than for cultural tourism-led and industry-driven types, the risk of resource-driven rural livelihood type is high in the livelihood background and natural capital dimension, the risk of enterprise-driven rural livelihood type is the highest in the physical capital and financial capital dimension, and the risks of returning to poverty highly differ. 3) We proposed differentiated pathways to stop returning to poverty by focusing on strategies such as improving human capital, enhancing social capital, revitalizing natural capital, and balancing physical capital for the four models. Also, we should give full play to the advantages of resources, industries, and enterprises, expand the scope of prevention and control of groups at risk of returning to poverty, and pay special attention to the people who have been lifted out of poverty and the marginalized population. The study focused on consolidating the achievements of poverty alleviation and provides theoretical guidance and practical pathways for the further revitalization of poverty-stricken rural areas.

Key words: rural tourism destinations, differentiated development models, the risk of returning to poverty, pathways of blocking the risk