This paper takes the most representative ethnic regions in China as the research area. Xiangxi Prefecture is located in the northwest of Hunan Province, China. It is a national cultural and ecological protection and national tourism demonstration area, with rich natural and cultural resources that provide the basis for ecocultural tourism development. Xiangxi Prefecture has a subtropical monsoon climate and abundant water resources. The major rivers are the Yuan, You, Wu, and Mengdong Rivers (Figure 1). Because Xiangxi Prefecture has abundant wood resources, wooden Tujia-style houses with Xiangxi characteristics are extremely common. Xiangxi Prefecture is one of the most famous ethnic regions in China. The population of ethnic minorities accounts for 77.21% of the total population of the prefecture. Xiangxi Prefecture has a World Heritage Site, 12 national key cultural artifact protection units, 12 Hunan Province cultural artifact protection units, and 11 A-class scenic spots. The area has rich natural landscape resources and cultural sites, which provide a basis for tourism development. In the past, Xiangxi Prefecture was economically backward and belonged to a poor area because of its remote location. However, with the support of the national tourism poverty alleviation policy, it has vigorously developed ecological cultural tourism to promote regional economic development. At present, 181 villages in Xiangxi Prefecture have carried out tourism development. Ecocultural tourism has become the pillar industry of Xiangxi Prefecture and the most effective way to promote farmers’ sustainable livelihoods.

We conducted ecocultural tourism field research in Xiangxi Prefecture, considering village roads, traffic, village features, population, economic performance, and industry scale. Six ecocultural tourism villages were selected for the survey: Yongshun County’s Shuangfeng Village, Fenghuang County’s Lahao Village, Jishou City’s Dehang Village, Longshan County’s Laoche Village, Guzhang County’s Longbi Village, and Huayuan County’s Shibadong Village. A location map of these villages is provided in Figure 1 and Table 1 presents an analysis of their resources. These villages are selected as case studies as they are rich in natural and cultural resources and have the characteristics and manifestations of ecocultural tourism villages, such as traditional buildings, customs, and costumes, as well as natural scenery, which are suitable for the development of rural ecocultural tourism. Secondly, the development of ecocultural tourism in these villages has increased the annual per capita income of farmers from less than 2000 yuan (300 US dollars) to 15,000 yuan (2500 US dollars), alleviating poverty in these areas. Thus, it can be observed that the ecocultural tourism industry has had a profound impact on farmers’ sustainable livelihood, with high social awareness and economic benefits. Finally, these villages include different tourism development models (government-led development, tourism enterprise-led development, village-led development) and farmers of different livelihood types, which largely represent the livelihood characteristics of ecocultural tourism farmers in ethnic areas.

A variety of data collection methods were adopted to ensure the richness of information, improve the credibility and preciseness of the research, and promote a triangular relationship between methods and research effectiveness (Baxter and Eyles, 1996). First, the basic information of the six villages was obtained through the official websites and policy documents of the local governments. Field research was then carried out in the six villages from July to September 2022. These included structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, as well as farmers’ livelihood data, which was obtained in detail. The survey content mainly included the livelihood capital of farmers and their participation in and attitude toward ecocultural tourism. Farmers and families were considered as a unit, and the survey time for each household was 45–60 min. The interviewees were mainly the heads of households or the main labor force of families, and they could refuse to answer any questions that were uncomfortable for them (Liu et al., 2022). This part of the survey was mainly achieved through snowball sampling (Baxter and Eyles, 1996). First, we conducted a detailed interview with the main leaders of each village and asked for referrals after the interview. As the snowball sampling method may be affected by self-selection bias, we also conducted a random sampling survey of farmers to overcome these limitations and ensure data objectivity. In addition, researchers lived with villagers and learned about ecocultural tourism from their perspective, including farmers’ daily livelihood behavior and how they participate in rural tourism activities. A total of 350 questionnaires were issued, and 350 were returned. After removing the missing and abnormal values of key variables, 327 valid farmers’ sample data were finally obtained, accounting for 93.4% of the sample. The number of questionnaires in each village was more than 50, meeting the requirements for reliability, validity, and representativeness of data.

SLF is a practical tool that is widely used in the analysis of farmers’ livelihood diversity and regional poverty reduction. The framework includes five concepts: fragile environment, livelihood assets, transformation structure and process, livelihood strategy, and livelihood results (Scoones, 1998; DFID, 2000). Among them, livelihood assets are the ability to build livelihoods and resist livelihood risks and the rights forming the basis of livelihood strategy selection. The background of vulnerability refers to the external environment composed of specific conditions, trends, shocks, etc., which affects the availability and controllability of assets. Livelihood strategies are the activities and choices to achieve livelihood goals, while livelihood output is the yield and results of engaging in livelihood strategies. Policies, institutions, and processes refer to the systems, organizations, policies, and relevant legal norms that affect livelihoods, which will influence the exchange conditions between different types of capital and the choice of livelihood strategies.

While SLF provides standardized tools and systematic research concepts for the study of farmers’ livelihoods, it still has some limitations in the context of ecocultural tourism (Liu et al., 2022). First, it ignores the important value of cultural factors on farmers’ sustainable livelihoods. Especially in ethnic areas where tourism is developed, traditional culture is an important factor in increasing tourism attraction and promoting the sustainability of farmers’ livelihoods (Daskon and Binns, 2010). As such, cultural factors should be included in SLF as important livelihood capital. Secondly, SLF does not fully consider farmers’ community participation and sustainable livelihood responses. (Shen, et al., 2008). For ethnic villages, ecocultural tourism is not only responsible for economic development but also for cultural heritage and ecological protection, in which farmers play a key role (Quandt, 2018). Tourism development has affected the livelihood assets of farmers and also led to changes in their livelihood behavior. These changes are mainly reflected in the ecological behavior of farmers. Therefore, it is also necessary to include the ecological capital of farmers in the analysis (Wang, et al., 2014). The modified SLF, with the additions of “cultural capital” and “ecological capital,” is shown in Figure 2. On this basis, the sustainable livelihood response index system of farmers’ ecocultural tourism is constructed to improve the reliability of the evaluation results.

Investigation of farmers’ sustainable livelihood responses to ecocultural tourism in minority areas requires consideration of a clear subject, sustainable livelihood participants, and the means through which farmers can achieve such livelihoods. Farmers’ sustainable livelihoods are a crucial issue for rural revitalization through the development of rural ecocultural tourism. Tourism disturbance affects the livelihood of farmers, prompting them to choose livelihood strategies or change their livelihood methods. The livelihood capital owned by farmers provides the basis for farmers to resist livelihood risks and formulate livelihood strategies. The types, levels, and factors of farmers’ sustainable livelihood responses are analyzed based on the theory of sustainable livelihood and combined with the actual situation of the study area. These data are then employed to construct an evaluation index system of sustainable livelihood responses of farmers’ ecological and cultural tourism in Xiangxi Prefecture from the perspective of farmers’ livelihood capital response with seven primary indicators and 23 secondary indicators (shown in Table 2).

The seven criterion-level indicators are natural, material, financial, workforce, social, ecological, and cultural capital. Natural, material, social, workforce, and financial capital are the five basic livelihood capitals in the study of the sustainable livelihood of farmers, which are universal elements of farmers’ livelihoods. Ecological capital is the ecological endowment that farmers can use to develop ecocultural tourism and is also the main basis forming the appeal of rural tourism. Cultural capital is the unique essence of ecocultural tourism development and the core of constructing ecocultural tourism characteristics. Together, they constitute the resource background for the rural development of ecocultural tourism. The “high-speed” development of industry, workforce, organization, ecology, and culture requires the support of the corresponding five major basic types of livelihood capital to achieve the “high-quality” development of ecocultural tourism. Research on farmers’ sustainable livelihood response can guide farmers to make reasonable choices that are practical and incur lower risks when affected by ecocultural tourism or other disturbances to livelihood. Thus, farmers can achieve the steady development of their sustainable livelihoods and promote the orderly implementation of rural revitalization strategies through their responses to ecocultural tourism.

The participatory rural appraisal method was employed for field research on rural ecocultural tourism in Xiangxi Prefecture. The Delphi method, analytic hierarchy process, and expert grading method were used to determine the weights of 23 indicators, including agricultural land areas (Wang, et al., 2021). Principal component analysis was used for dimension reduction of the 23 indicators, which were transformed into nine comprehensive indicators, and the principal components were extracted for analysis (Wu, et al., 2018). To determine the types of response of farmers to ecocultural tourism in Xiangxi Prefecture, cluster analysis was used to analyze the nine comprehensive indicators, and six livelihood response types, such as the balanced development type, were identified. Stepwise analysis was then employed to analyze the elements (Wu, et al., 2020). Tourism income was used as the dependent variable, and other factors were used as the independent variables. Finally, the factors affecting farmers’ response to sustainable livelihood were analyzed.

The overall response values of the six response types were calculated according to the indicators, and the response levels were determined through evaluation (Figure 3). The order of the overall response values, from high to low, was as follows: complete response type, balanced development type, cultural network type, ecology-dominant type, developmental delay type, and resource advantage type. The overall response values of the six response types were between 2.01 and 2.50; thus, the response levels had generally no response. The response value of the complete response type was higher than 2.51; therefore, the response level was general response. The response values of the balanced development, ecology-dominant, and cultural network types were between 2.01 and 2.50, indicating generally no response. The response values of the resource advantage and developmental delay types were between 1.51 and 2.00, indicating no response.

Certain similarities and dissimilarities were found in the response levels of the six response type factors (Figure 4). Regarding the natural capital response, farmers with a balanced development response have superior cultural capital but lack human capital. Such farmers have superior cultural capital and ecological capital but lack financial capital and human capital. This is because such farmers lack sufficient funds to participate in ecocultural tourism activities, most of their family workforce choose to go out to work, and tourism participation is low. Although cultural resources are rich, they cannot be converted into economic benefits. Therefore, it is necessary to increase financial support for such farmers and attract more cultural inheritors to participate in ecocultural tourism. Farmers with a complete response type have rich financial capital and cultural capital, and other capital indexes are relatively high without obvious disadvantages. Only social capital and human capital are relatively lacking in this case. Such farmers have good livelihood foundations and diversified livelihood options. As ecocultural tourism is not an important type of livelihood for them, their tourism participation is not high. For such farmers, skills training should be enhanced to encourage participation in ecocultural tourism. Farmers with an ecology-dominant response type are rich in material capital and ecological capital but are short of other livelihood capital. Such farmers mainly rely on the agriculture and planting industry for their livelihood. While their ecological awareness and behavior are good, the impact of tourism development is very low as they lack the appropriate skills to participate in tourism activities. Of course, such farmers still have certain advantages. In this case, the government and tourism decision-makers should consider them more attentively, provide some financial support, and expand the farmers’ source of livelihood by purchasing agricultural products. Farmers with a cultural network response type have rich cultural and material capital, but other capital is relatively lacking. This is because material capital is the basis of their livelihood. Although they can use cultural capital to create income, the overall income level is low, which is an important reason why many young people are unwilling to learn traditional folk culture. Therefore, it is necessary to give more attention and formulate welfare policies for this type of farmer, as well as encourage more young people to learn cultural skills and participate in ecocultural tourism. Farmers with a resource advantage response type are relatively rich in material capital but lack other livelihood capital. Such farmers are typical “Chinese farmers,” who are mainly engaged in traditional agricultural production activities and generally have low acceptance of emerging methods. They have a single source of livelihood, with high vulnerability. Thus, the government needs to give them support, and buying their agricultural products could effectively promote their livelihoods. Farmers with a developmental delay response type lack all kinds of livelihood capital. This type of farmer faces poor economic conditions and has an insufficient capacity to carry out livelihood transformation. They not only lack livelihood capital but also need to improve their livelihood awareness. Thus, the government should consider both their material concerns and lack of awareness, as well as establish long-term tracking and security mechanisms to improve their livelihood.

The above comparison indicates that different types of farmers have different responses to various livelihood capital. First, the livelihood assets owned by farmers determine their position in tourism activities (Huang, et al., 2021). Rural tourism requires a certain livelihood basis; Farmers with good family conditions can seize tourism development opportunities and become the main decision-makers or beneficiaries of tourism activities; Farmers with poor family conditions are disadvantaged or unable to participate in tourism activities, perpetuating conditions in which “the poor are poorer, and the rich are richer”(Gautam and Anderson, 2016). Secondly, the livelihood characteristics of farmers determine the way they participate in tourism. Therefore, it is imperative that farmers formulate appropriate livelihood strategies according to their own livelihood characteristics (Dai et al., 2020). For example, farmers with balanced and complete response types should give full play to their livelihood advantages, invest more capital and human resources, and improve their enthusiasm to participate in ecocultural tourism. Farmers with a cultural network response type should fully utilize their cultural advantages, actively innovate forms of cultural expression, and transform intangible cultural resources into tangible cultural capital. Farmers with ecology-dominant and resource-advantage response types should explore new agricultural development models and rely on characteristic agricultural products to improve their livelihood. Of course, the government’s support cannot be ignored in this process. It is necessary to provide targeted help to different types of farmers according to local conditions (Liu et al., 2022), especially for farmers with a developmental delay response type. Such farmers should also actively engage in contact with the outside world and transform their perspectives by learning advanced technologies and concepts to improve their livelihood.

Certain differences were found in the response levels for the seven capital types (Figure 5). Regarding the natural capital response levels, farmers with balanced development, ecology-dominant, resource advantage, or developmental delay response types exhibited no response, and farmers with a complete response and cultural network response type exhibited generally no response. This is because farmers with complete response and balanced development response types have good livelihood bases. Agriculture is not the main source of livelihood, and they are not highly dependent on natural capital. The other four types of farmers have poor livelihood bases and limited natural capital. Therefore, although different farmers have different livelihood conditions, their overall response to natural capital is not high. It is necessary to encourage them to plan and use the homestead and cultivated land. Regarding material capital response levels, farmers with any of the six response types exhibit a general response. This indicates that, in rural ecocultural tourism, these farmers respond to material capital. Farmers’ sustainable livelihoods can reach a steady state when disturbed by rural ecotourism. Regarding the financial capital response levels, only the farmers with a complete response type have a general response, and the other five types of farmers have absolutely no response. This result indicates that although ecocultural tourism has greatly improved the livelihood of farmers, the overall livelihood of farmers is still at a low level, and they cannot make large-scale investments in rural tourism. In addition, the low awareness of farmers’ participation in tourism is another important reason for the low responsiveness of financial capital. Regarding the workforce capital response levels, only the farmers with a complete response type have generally no response, and the other five types of farmers exhibit absolutely no response. This is because the income most farmers can obtain from rural tourism is limited, and they cannot maintain the daily living expenses of their families. Thus, going out to work is their first choice of livelihood. Therefore, it is necessary to give more employment opportunities to farmers and improve their position in tourism development in order to encourage farmers to actively participate in ecocultural tourism. Regarding the social capital response levels, farmers with a cultural network type have generally no response, and farmers with a complete response type exhibit no response; the other four types of farmers have absolutely no response. The main reason is that farmers’ enthusiasm to participate in rural tourism is lacking. Thus, it is necessary to increase the enthusiasm of farmers to participate in social management, strengthen the relationship between farmers and relevant organizations, and provide professional skills training for farmers to improve the sustainability of their livelihoods. Regarding the ecological capital response levels, farmers with a cultural network and resource advantage response type exhibit no response, and the other four types of farmers have generally no response. This result shows that farmers’ ecological awareness is relatively weak on the whole, and they should strengthen their environmental awareness, improve their production, living, and tourism facilities, and promote tourism. Such actions can support the adoption of a more technically advanced and reasonable lifestyle to achieve the sustainable development of rural tourism. Regarding the cultural capital response levels, only the farmers with a resource advantage type response have generally no response, and the other five types of responses are relatively strong. Cultural capital is the unique livelihood foundation of farmers in ethnic areas and a critical resource advantage for developing ecocultural tourism in such areas. Most farmers have mastered these traditional skills. Determining how to make full use of this advantage and transform cultural resources into the source of farmers’ livelihood is crucial.

It can be seen from the above comparison that different types of farmers may have the same response form to the same livelihood capital. First, except for cultural capital, farmers’ response to the other six types of livelihood capital is relatively low. This is because Xiangxi Prefecture was formerly a poor area, and the overall livelihood level of farmers is not high, meaning the livelihood basis for participating in tourism is limited (Wu et al., 2018). Thus, it is necessary to give financial support to farmers and encourage them to participate in tourism. Secondly, the participation of six types of farmers in tourism is not high. The reason is that the government and tourism enterprises are the main organizers and activity subjects of ecocultural tourism, and farmers are in a disadvantaged position in the process of tourism development (Chen et al., 2020). As they can only obtain a small portion of the benefits, their enthusiasm is reduced. To address this, farmers should be given more rights so that they participate in rural tourism more, profit from it, and their enthusiasm is enhanced. Finally, the gap between the rich and poor is an important issue that cannot be ignored in the development of ecocultural tourism in ethnic regions. While some farmers have better livelihood options and are unwilling to participate in tourism development, most farmers are still in an awkward situation where they want to participate in tourism but have no livelihood basis (Gautam and Anderson, 2016). How to balance the conflict of interest and contradiction between the two groups of farmers is an issue that managers need to pay close attention to.

Due to the continual development of ecocultural tourism, farmers’ responses to sustainable livelihood are no longer influenced by only a single aspect. The tourism industry and other industries are integrated and mutually influencing, disturbing the steady state of farmers’ sustainable livelihoods. Therefore, we conducted an analysis targeting the factors affecting the responses to sustainable livelihood of farmers facing ecocultural tourism in Xiangxi Prefecture.

Tourism income was selected as the dependent variable, the stepwise analysis method was used, and five variables were identified (Table 6). The regression function of farmers’ responses to sustainable livelihood based on rural ecocultural tourism is as follows: Y = 1.015 X 1 + 0.328 X 2 + 0.178 X 3 − 0.128 X 4 + 0.078 X 5 + 0.027 (1)

According to the results of Eq. 1, tourism income is influenced by five factors: the number of family members participating in tourism, investment in rural tourism, number of relatives and friends, family members participating in social affairs, and ethnic buildings. The influence on tourism income can be divided into that from strong-influence factors (β ≥ 0.3), moderate-influence factors (0.1 < β < 0.3), and weak-influence factors (β ≤ 0.1). The number of family members participating in tourism is a workforce capital factor and a strong-influence factor, with β = 1.015. This factor denotes the number of people in a farming family that work in tourism-related industries, including parents and children. Tourism income is based on the accumulation of funds. The larger the number of participating family members, the more favorable the fund accumulation and the higher the service quality for tourists.

Investment in rural tourism is a financial capital factor and strong-influence factor, with β = 0.328; it denotes the government’s support for rural ecocultural tourism. The development of rural ecocultural tourism must be supported through funding, and a lack of financing limits the development of rural tourism. For rural areas, the larger the fund provided by the government for ecocultural tourism, the higher the rural infrastructure level and the attraction for tourists. The number of relatives and friends is a workforce capital factor and a moderate-influence factor, with β = 0.178. For tourist attractions, promotions and public reputation are crucial means of attracting tourists, in which word-of-mouth promotion from farmers’ families and friends is an essential promotion method. The larger the number of a farmer’s family and friends, the larger the range of promotion and the greater the customer flow to tourist attractions.

Family members participating in social affairs is a social capital factor and a weak-influence factor, with β = −0.128. Ideally, family members work in government institutions, villages, or other social organizations. Thus, the state of tourism and tourist needs can be understood in time through family members’ participation in social affairs. Such participation also helps farmers improve their service and management abilities. Ethnic building conservation level is a cultural capital factor and a weak-influence factor, with β = 0.078. For tourists, the more complete the conservation of ethnic buildings, the more attractive the destination, and the stronger the cultural adaptability of the tourist attraction. This creates a climate of high cultural conservation awareness and supports rural cultural revitalization. Above all, the workforce, financial, social, and cultural capital factors have the strongest influences on farmers’ responses to sustainable livelihood based on rural ecocultural tourism.