The tourism village’s social-ecological system is a complex entity formed by interconnections among people, industry, and land. The system is diverse, dynamic, and unstable, among other notable characteristics (Becken, 2013). As pivotal actors in rural social-ecological systems, farmers play a crucial role in the sustainable development of tourism villages. Tourism villages are affected by tourism development as well as the activities of agricultural workers in sustaining their livelihoods, which together continuously restructure resources, environments, and production relations within these villages (Wang et al., 2021). Ecological resilience, as an intrinsic property of the social-ecological system in tourism villages, enables adaptation of functional structures, leading villages to return to a new state of stability after external disturbances.

The PSR framework is widely utilized in social-ecological research. It is a practical approach to elucidating interactions among human behaviors, the environment, and resources (Chen et al., 2022). This framework may also be utilized to gain systematic insights for ecological resilience research. In this study, pressure (P) characterizes the disturbance of rural ecosystems by the livelihood-related activities of farmers’ households, which specifically manifests in disturbances on villages caused by population pressure, environ-mental pressure, and land pressure. State (S) signifies the horizontal state of farmers’ household livelihood systems after the villages have endured disturbances, encompassing social resources, production land, and living standards. Response (R) refers to the ability of farmers to respond and adapt to external disturbances, ultimately improving the rural social-ecological system. The ecological resilience of tourism villages from the perspective of farmers is the result of combined internal and external disturbances at work in the system. The development of these villages is a dynamic evolutionary process.

Firstly, through various livelihood-related activities, farmers’ households obtain the resources required for survival and development from the rural social-ecological system (Wu et al., 2022). While at the same time exerting pressure on the rural population, environment, and land. Secondly, tourism-related disturbances induce changes in the organization and function of the rural social-ecological system, impacting the livelihoods of farmers and their households through positive and negative feedback. This alters their social resources, production land, and living standards. Finally, farmers’ households enhance their risk resilience and information acquisition capacity through livelihood-related responses, transforming their livelihoods in alignment with the tourism sector, gaining ecological awareness, and managing livelihood-related behaviors in other adaptive ways.

These insights can be applied to the practical management of rural social-ecological systems. The above analysis was utilized to construct a framework for evaluating the ecological resilience of tourism villages from the perspective of farmers (Figure 1).

Based on the above analytical framework (Figure 1), referring to the existing research results of other scholars, and combining the farmers livelihood theory (Wu et al., 2021), resilience theory (Dong et al., 2022), farmers behavior theory (Sok et al., 2021), and the nuances of the case-study villages, the ecological resilience evaluation index system of the tourist villages from the farmers’ perspective was constructed. This comprehensive system includes 18 indexes and three dimensional layers: a pressure layer, state layer, and response layer (Table 1). In this study, rural ecological resilience is understood as a composite of three dimensions: stress index, state index and response index. And the pressure index, state index and response index can be characterized by six indicators. The entropy method was applied to calculate the weights of each index (Qin et al., 2023), facilitating the interpretation of each factor and index layer. The composite index method was used to calculate the level of ecological resilience.

The pressure index layer is a subjective manifestation of farmers’ disturbances within rural ecosystems, reflecting the extent of disruption to the social-ecological system of tourism villages caused by farmers’ livelihood-related activities (Becken, 2013). A higher pressure index indicates more pronounced disturbance to the rural ecology. There is a total of six indices in this layer. Among them, number of family surplus laborers C₁ is an important indicator of population pressure; greater household surplus labor indicates increased resource consumption. Monthly energy costs C₂, transportation mode C₅, and homestead area C₆ reflect the demand for rural resources and the degree of utilization of rural households. Land pesticide costs C₃ and fertilizer costs C₄ specifically express the pressure on the rural environment exerted by farmers’ livelihood-related activities. Higher pesticide and fertilizer costs correlate with stronger disturbance to the rural ecological environmental.

The state index layer represents the objective state level of the rural social-ecological system after disturbances. A higher state index indicates a higher livelihood level for farmers. This layer encompasses six indices. Among them, the type of access to subsidies C₇ directly reflects the social resources available to farm households. Agricultural acreage C₈ and family forest land area C₉ are direct indicators of the land used for production; annual per capita income C₁₀, education level of core family members C₁₁, and total household fixed assets C₁₂ are indicators of the household’s standard of living.

The response index layer gauges farmers’ abilities to respond to tourism-related disturbances, enabling behavioral adjustments to improve the rural social-ecological system (Xiao et al., 2023). A higher response index reflects a stronger ability of farmers to adapt. Once more, there are six indices in this layer. Increasing annual family education expense C₁₃ is a particularly effective measure of farmers’ abilities to withstand risks when faced with external disturbances. Monthly mobile phone communication costs C₁₅ and the type of eco-policy understanding C₁₆ form the basis for strengthening the farmers’ abilities to obtain information, helping them to improve ecological awareness and adapt their livelihood-related behaviors. The number of migrant workers C₁₄, the number of family members engaged in tourism work C₁₇, and the support for rural tourism development C₁₈ can promote the ecological resilience of the farming house-holds. Resilience enhancement serves as a crucial pathway toward sustainable development in this regard.

The Xiangxi region is located in the western part of Hunan Province, China, encompassing the Xiangxi Autonomous Prefecture, Huaihua City, and Zhangjiajie City within its administrative areas. Spanning 78,700 km², the region has a minority population accounting for 80.5% of its inhabitants. Renowned as one of China’s most culturally rich ethnic regions, Xiangxi is home to 395 national level traditional villages showcasing a profound ethnic cultural heritage. The region also hosts seven nation-al-level nature reserves and 28 national AAAA grade or above scenic spots, making it abundant in natural ecological resources.

The Xiangxi region is one of the most famous tourist destinations in China, with the tourism industry accounting for more than 50 percent of regional GDP and contributing more than 70 percent to economic growth, and tourism has become a pillar industry in the Xiangxi region. Currently, hundreds of villages in Xiangxi region have been developed for tourism, and a large number of farmers family have been affected by rural tourism, which plays an important role in promoting regional development and enhancing the livelihoods of farming families. However, while rural tourism has had a profound impact on the livelihoods of local farmers, it has also significantly damaged the rural ecological environment. Particularly in ethnic minority areas, rural tourism has led to the destruction of many traditional buildings, as well as significant changes in the livelihoods of farmers and the gradual extinction of ethnic cultures, with indelible effects on ecological resilience. Following preliminary research and a comprehensive evaluation of factors such as the scale of rural tourism operations, social benefits, and tourism development intensity, eight tourism villages were selected as research subjects: Disun Village and Huangdu Village in Jingzhou County, Huaihua City and Zhushan Village in Fenghuang County, Dehang Village in Jishou City, Shibadong Village in Huayuan County, Laochehe Village in Longshan County, and Luotan Village and Maershan Village in Zhangjiajie City (Figure 2).

These villages were selected not only for their abundant natural resources, significant popularity with tourists, and the notable environmental impact of tourism development they evidence - the livelihoods of farmers in these villages are diverse in type and rich in information, providing a comprehensive reflection of the differentiation in farmers’ household livelihoods and their ecological resilience under the influence of tourism development. Therefore, these eight tourism villages hold strong typicality and representativeness.

To enhance the scientific rigor of this study, a diverse array of data collection methods was employed. Initially, basic information about the case-study villages was gathered from the official websites of each city (state) in Xiangxi Region. Subsequently, we conducted on-site investigations in December 2021, January 2022, and August-September 2022 to obtain detailed data on the livelihoods of farmers’ households in the tourism villages through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire content mainly includes the human capital, social capital, natural capital, physical capital and financial capital of farmers, changes in farmers’ livelihood and farmers’ behavior. Semi-structured interviews were used to investigate farmers’ attitudes toward rural tourism, the process of rural tourism development and rural socio-economic conditions, and to support the questionnaire content. Ultimately, more than 100,000 words of text data and hundreds of hours of voice data were obtained, mainly including farmers’ household livelihood capital, rural socio-economic conditions and farmers’ behavioral activities (Zhao et al., 2023).

We employed a random sampling survey method to conduct a comprehensive survey of the farmers, dedicating 40–50 min per household. The respondents primarily consisted of the core family labor force (Yang et al., 2021), so as to be able to get a true and objective picture of the situation of farming families and rural tourism. The research team also immersed themselves in the daily activities of farmers in each case-study village, living alongside them and participating in farming, other work, and tourism management. This hands-on approach allowed us to experience the impacts of tourism-related disturbances on the rural social-ecological system from the farmers’ perspectives (He et al., 2017). A total of 388 respondents were interviewed, and questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted with all 388 farmers, obtaining 388 questionnaires and interview materials. After excluding abnormal questionnaires and questionnaires with missing information, 373 questionnaires were considered valid, accounting for 96.1% of the sample. The number of questionnaires collected in each case-study village exceeded 40, which satisfies requirements for the validity and representativeness of the research data (Xiao et al., 2023).

To systematically examine the disparities in ecological resilience among farmers, we referred to the classification of livelihood types utilized in a previous study (Wu et al., 2021). We integrated this framework with the specific conditions of our study area with household income as the basis for categorization. The interviewed farmers were classified accordingly into four distinct livelihood types: tourism-led, labor-led, agriculture-led, and part-time-led (Table 2).

In labor-led households, the primary income source is derived from work with a minimal supplement from agriculture. Tourism-led households, on the other hand, garner the majority of their income through engagement in tourism-related work—in these households, income from tourism constitutes more than 60% of the total. Part-time tourism-led households adopt a more diversified approach to livelihood, participating not only in tourism-related work but also in external labor or agricultural activities within the village. In contrast, agriculture-led types are limited to simple agricultural activities, resulting in lower household incomes than other types. These tend to be middle-aged and elderly individuals who have lost their abilities to engage in labor due to physiological reasons (e.g., illness).

Equations 1–4 were applied to compute the farmers’ ecological resilience index and the indices for each dimension of the PSR model. The pressure index, state index, response index, and ecological resilience index were 0.1631, 0.1263, 0.1337, and 0.4231, respectively (Figure 3). The natural breakpoint method was utilized to classify the in-dices of these dimensions into three levels: low, medium, and high. Among them, we observed low (0.0103–0.1186), intermediate (0.1187–0.1821), and high (0.1822–0.2786) levels of the stress index; low (0.0054–0.01040), intermediate (0.1041–0.1721), and high (0.1722–0.2641) levels of the state index; and low (0.0169–0.1110), intermediate (0.1111–0.1845), and advanced (0.1846–0.3068) levels of the resilience index. The ecological resilience low level (0.2087–0.3725), intermediate level (0.3726–0.4704), and advanced level (0.4705–0.7320) were also determined. Statistical analysis indicated that the index of ecological resilience for farmers in tourism villages in Xiangxi Region accounted for 31%, 39%, and 30% of low, medium, and high levels, respectively, with the mean value falling into the medium-level range.

To further explore the nuances of livelihood differentiation and the divergence in ecological resilience among farmers’ households after tourism-related disturbances, we conducted a statistical analysis of the ecological resilience indices of households with varying livelihood types (Figure 4; Table 4). The ecological resilience indices of different livelihood types of farmer households were, in descending order: part-time-led (0.4590), tourism-led (0.4516), labor-led (0.4177), and agriculture-led (0.4001). Specifically, tourism-led farmers showed the highest response index (0.1766) but the lowest stress index (0.1499); part-time-led farmers exhibited a high status index (0.1376) and response index (0.1647), but a low stress index (0.1567). Labor-led farmers showed the highest stress index (0.1636), a relatively low response index (0.1306), and an extremely low status index (0.1216). Agriculture-led farmers exhibited the highest status index (0.1585), a relatively high stress index (0.1636), and the lowest response index (0.078). Overall, the majority of farmers in Xiangxi Region demonstrated medium-level ecological resilience and dimensional indices. Only the response index of agriculture-led farmers was relatively low, and there was substantial convergence of the dimensional indices among farmers of different livelihood types.

The stress indices for various livelihood types were, in descending order: labor-led (0.1655), agriculture-led (0.1636), part-time-led (0.1567), and tourism-led (0.1499). The mean value of the overall stress index fell within the medium range (Figure 5). The lowest stress index observed for tourism-led farmers implies that this type exerts the most significant disturbance on the rural social-ecological system. This phenomenon can be primarily attributed to the variability in livelihood-related behaviors among tourism-led farmers.

Tourism-led farmers’ households exhibited the lowest indices for monthly energy costs C₂, transportation mode C₅, and homestead area C₆, while showing the highest indices for pesticide costs C₃ and fertilizer costs C₄. These results indicate that farmers change their livelihoods through participation in tourism, thereby reducing the environmental impact of agricultural cultivation. However, as their income increases and their quality of life improves, the acquisition of cars, expansion of homes, and more widespread energy consumption exacerbate the disturbance to the rural social-ecological system. Despite these nuances, tourism-led farmers still maintain the lowest overall stress index. Conversely, labor-led farmers do not strictly rely on traditional agriculture and have a lower demand for rural resources, so their overall level of disturbance to the rural social-ecological system is relatively low; therefore, their stress index is the highest.

The state indices for different livelihood types, in descending order, are: agriculture-led (0.1585), part-time-led (0.1376), tourism-led (0.1251), and labor-led (0.1216). The mean value of the overall state index falls into the intermediate range (Figure 6). Agriculture-led households exhibited the highest values for agricultural acreage C₈ and family forest land area C₉, indicating that agricultural livelihoods contribute to maintaining productive land in rural areas and safeguarding the ecological functions of the countryside. In contrast, labor- and tourism-led livelihoods, while enhancing house-hold income, cause damage to the environment through practices such as land abandonment and transfers. The development of tourism has not only contributed to the diversification of farmers’ household livelihoods but has also intensified their exploitation of rural resources and the environment.

The response indices for different livelihood types were, in descending order: tourism-led (0.1766), part-time-led (0.1647), labor-led (0.1306), and agriculture-led (0.0780). The former three types had medium-level response indices while the latter had a low response index (Figure 7). This ranking primarily reflects the farmers’ capacities to access information and adapt their livelihoods to the development of tourism. Tourism-led farmers demonstrated the highest indices for annual family education expenses C₁₃, type of eco-policy understanding C₁₆, and the number of family members engaged in tourism work C₁₇, among other indicators. The substantial impact of tour-ism development on the livelihoods of farmers’ households, resulting in higher in-comes and enhanced awareness, effectively improved the decision-making abilities of these households and influenced their choices of livelihood. Additionally, an influx of tourism capital led to the restructuring of rural social networks, motivating farmers to actively engage in tourism-related work and adjust their livelihood-related behaviors to the benefit of the rural social-ecological system. Agriculture-led households, despite possessing relatively abundant productive land, exhibited a weaker ability to access information and transform their livelihoods. Consequently, they showed the lowest levels of each indicator and the lowest response indices among the farmer types.

The ecological resilience indices of farmers’ households of different livelihood types are, in descending order: part-time-led (0.4590), tourism-led (0.4516), labor-led (0.4177), and agriculture-led (0.4001) (Figure 8). The mean value of the overall ecological resilience index falls into the intermediate range, which aligns with the field research findings. This outcome was primarily shaped by the specificities of the house-holds’ livelihood types. Diversified livelihoods are conducive to securing farmers’ living standards, providing more access to social resources and information (Becken, 2013). Farmers, as the mainstay of rural communities, can enhance their social cognition and behavior through participation in the tourism sector (Wu et al., 2023), contributing to improved state and response indices. Despite fostering diversified livelihoods, tourism development also intensifies the demand for rural resources, alters resource utilization practices, initiates land transfers, and introduces the construction of tourism-related projects, resulting in significant disturbances to the rural ecological environment. Overall, diversified livelihoods contribute more effectively to the sustainability of rural social-ecological systems (Chen et al., 2017). Rural tourism should be planned and developed under the premise of protecting the ecological environment.

The obstacle degree model serves to elucidate the relationships between system factors and reveal the impact of each indicator on the system based on the magnitude of the obstacle degree. In the context of farmers’ ecological resilience, a higher obstacle degree for a given indicator implies a more adverse effect on ecological resilience improvement, and vice versa. Eqs 5, 6 were used to calculate the obstacle degree of each index. A cumulative obstacle degree exceeding 50% can be regarded as indicating a primary obstacle factor (Zhao et al., 2021). In this study, the obstacle factors of ecological resilience were ranked for different livelihood types. We screened the common obstacle factors for different livelihood types accordingly (Table 5).

The number of family members engaged in tourism work, family forest land area, and the awareness of ecological policies emerged as common obstacle factors for different livelihood types. Among them, the number of family members engaged in tour-ism work C₁₇ was the primary obstacle factor for all four types, with obstacle degrees of 18.90%, 26.91%, 28.86%, and 21.76%, respectively. The problem of low participation among households is prevalent in rural tourism development processes. Though farmers’ households can transform their livelihoods and enhance the stability of their livelihood system through participation in tourism-related work, they are often excluded from municipal or regional decision-making due to the weak foundation of their livelihoods (Chen et al., 2022).

Furthermore, as a key element of the rural social-ecological system in terms of maintaining ecological functions, forest land is a critical indicator of ecological resilience. Tourism development often results in significant transfers of rural forest land to construction areas, which adversely affects ecosystem services and directly diminishes ecological resilience. The proactive role of farmers is decisive in rural ecological governance; farmers’ ecological awareness influences their daily activities and livelihood-related behaviors, directly impacting the ecological environment.

In addition to the three common obstacle factors, the education levels of core family members C₁₁ and homestead area C₆ also emerged as significant impediments to the ecological resilience of farm households. The field research data revealed that 54% of the farmers’ households had received only elementary school educations, only 34.4% had received junior high school educations, and only 11.6% had received senior high school educations or above. The inefficiency of rural education resources has led to a relatively overall education quality for farmers’ households, hindering behavior that would be advantageous to the rural social ecosystem. These relatively low levels of education can lead farmers to interfere with or even directly damage the ecological environment in their daily lives—a phenomenon that is commonly observed in under-developed regions (Raleigh, 2011). Simultaneously, rural areas experience significant land resource waste while unregulated construction practices severely damage the natural environment. Therefore, rational planning and development to encourage the effective usage of rural resources are necessary measures to promote enhanced ecological resilience. Obstacle factors impeding ecological resilience across different types of rural households, such as low enthusiasm for participation in tourism development, restricted access to information, and minimal investment in education, were found to be prevalent in the case-study region. These factors significantly impede the improvement of rural areas’ ecological resilience.

Rural tourism has evolved into a pillar industry for the economic development of ethnic areas, creating a significant challenge in terms of achieving synergistic development between the ecological protection of tourism villages and the livelihoods of rural residents (Pjerotic et al., 2017). Within rural social-ecological systems, ecological resilience is not only affected by external social-economic factors but also by the pressure on the environment stemming from farmers’ behavior, the altered state of households’ livelihood systems following tourism-related disruptions, and the responsiveness of farmers in adjusting their behaviors to improve their local areas (Latkova and Vogt, 2012). Integrating farmers’ house-hold livelihoods and behaviors into an analysis framework of rural social-ecological systems can expand the scope of ecological resilience research. Targeted findings from farmers’ perspectives may also deepen ecological resilience research at a conceptual level.

The results of this study revealed an overall low level of ecological resilience among rural residents in tourism villages of Xiangxi Region, primarily attributable to the nascent stage and uneven progress of rural tourism development (Latkova and Vogt, 2012). Infrastructure construction and tourism project implementation, marked by large-scale land acquisition and transfer, have significantly disrupted the ecological environment (Assiouras et al., 2022). However, positive effects on ecological resilience were observed in cases where local governments and community management organizations actively protected rural resources (Lin, 2020). Conversely, farmers’ livelihood-related behaviors may have caused two-way interventions in rural ecosystems, highlighting the dual impact of tourism development on rural ecological resilience and necessitating positive, nuanced policy constraints (Li et al., 2022).

The specificity of certain livelihoods contributes to variability in ecological resilience among different types of farmers (Lin, 2020). Farmers’ participation in tourism development plays a crucial role in enhancing their families’ stability and adapting to tour-ism-related changes in their environment. However, the weak foundation of their livelihoods and unequal positions in local decision-making processes make many tourism villages a “the game of the few” (Xiao et al., 2023). Enhancing rural households’ participation in tourism development and increasing the incomes of agricultural workers are pivotal factors for promoting the ecological resilience of the countryside. Additionally, there is a notable convergence of ecological resilience obstacles across various livelihood types, primarily stemming from the limited options for earning one’s livelihood in an under-developed region (Zhang et al., 2022). Resource constraints hinder regional economic development and rural households’ livelihoods, leading to rural tourism featuring state leadership, tourism-company interventions, and, ideally, the participation of rural residents. However, cases that genuinely benefit farmers are scarce. To achieve sustainable development, rural tourism development must not only provide financial income but also create opportunities for rural households to gain stable livelihoods.

There are various research methods and indicators on rural ecological resilience, however, few scholars have explored rural ecological resilience from the perspective of farmers, and the role of farmers’ livelihoods and behavioral interventions in rural socio-ecological systems has often been overlooked. The main contribution of this study is to introduce the PSR framework into the rural socio-ecological system, emphasizing the important role of farmers’ subjective initiative on rural ecosystems. This study contributes to a more comprehensive assessment of rural ecological resilience, and can provide a new perspective for a deeper understanding and cognizance of the interrelationships between farm households and rural social-ecological systems.

This study constructed a framework for analyzing the ecological resilience of tourism villages from the perspective of farmers, and explored the differentiated characteristics and obstacles of ecological resilience of different types of farmers in a Chinese ethnic minority area. The main conclusions are as follows. First, there are differences in the ecological resilience of different types of farmers. The primary factors contributing to these differences were the immaturity of the rural tourism sector and the un-even level of tourism development across the region. Second, the overall level of ecological resilience in Xiangxi region is sub-par, reflecting the weak foundation for farmers’ livelihoods in ethnic areas. Last, There is a convergence of barriers to ecological resilience among different types of farmers, which is mainly determined by the specificity of the economic backwardness of the Xiangxi region. Therefore, more support needs to be given to ethnic minority villages and farmers in order to realize the sustainable development of tourist villages.

Based on the results of the study, we offer several recommendations for improving the ecological resilience of tourism villages in underdeveloped regions and ethnic areas globally. Firstly, the government should adopt a macro-control role, guided by scientific planning, to ensure tourism development aligns with ecological protection. Adequate policy support and financial support should be provided to create conducive investment and employment conditions for rural tourism. Secondly, community management organizations should leverage regional characteristics and cultural resources to establish a diversified tourism industry chain, enhancing competitiveness and creating more local job opportunities. This would also encourage farmers to remain in (or return to) their hometowns to start their own businesses and bolster the local economy. Finally, farmers should actively engage in rural tourism work, continuously improving their skills and transforming their livelihoods in accordance with the influx of tourism. They should enhance their ecological and environmental awareness, applying this knowledge to rural production and daily living practices to prevent resource wastage and achieve harmonious coexistence with nature.

There are some limitations to this study, such as the small sample size of the study and the lack of research on the dynamics of ecological resilience in tourist villages. We assessed the ecological resilience of tourism villages from farmers’ perspectives using cross-sectional data. However, this approach fell short of fully elucidating the evolutionary characteristics and influencing mechanisms of farmers’ ecological resilience in tourism villages in ethnic areas. Subsequent research efforts should expand the scope of the survey, increase the sample size of the study, as well as follow up on farm household livelihood data over time to enhance the robustness and comprehensiveness of the findings.