The Process, Mechanism, and Effects of Rural “Production-Living-Ecological” Functions Transformation: A Case Study of Caiwu Village in Yuanyang County, China

Abstract

The research on the optimization and transformation of rural “production-living-ecological” functions (PLEFs) is of great significance for rural revitalization and sustainable development. Existing studies predominantly evaluate rural PLEFs at the macro level, with few micro-village case studies, and particularly empirical studies in China’s plain agricultural areas. This study takes Caiwu Village, a rural revitalization demonstration village in Yuanyang County, Henan Province, China, as a typical case. First, we constructed a village PLEF classification system based on micro-scale land use types. Then, methods such as GIS spatial analysis, actor network analysis, and satisfaction fuzzy comprehensive evaluation were comprehensively used to systematically analyze the process, mechanism, and effects of the rural PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village. Our research indicates the following: (1) Caiwu Village has gone through three stages of transformation: traditional agriculture leading, ecological agriculture starting, and agriculture-tourism integration development, indicating a shift from traditional agricultural production functions to modern production-ecological composite functions. (2) The PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village resulted from the synergy of multiple actors, including governments, cooperatives, villagers, and water-soil resources, through administrative recruitment and market recruitment. Finally, (3) there are significant differences in the effects of rural PLEF transformation based on villagers’ perception. Specifically, villagers report the highest satisfaction with ecological function, followed by living function, and the lowest satisfaction with production function. This study provides empirical evidence for understanding the differentiated transformation of PLEFs in villages in plain agricultural areas. The research results can provide decision-making references for optimizing and improving the PLEFs of Caiwu Village and other similar villages.

1. Introduction

Promoting comprehensive rural revitalization in China has become a major national strategic priority and an important topic in rural geography research [1,2]. Urban and rural areas constitute two coexisting territorial systems with significant functional differences [3,4]. However, traditional agricultural and rural development has often positioned villages primarily as production units that passively serve cities [5,6]. This narrow perspective has neglected their multifunctional potential, accelerating rural decline [7,8]. Rural multifunctionality fundamentally reflects the complex interplay between production, consumption, and conservation values [9]. This concept represents a village’s capacity to provide products and services to meet residents’ needs for survival and development, based on its specific natural endowments and socio-cultural environment [10]. Rural production-living-ecological functions (PLEFs) embody these spatial manifestations, forming the core of rural territorial systems [11]. The optimization and transformation of rural PLEFs involves their orderly and dynamic adjustment throughout the rural revitalization process. The goal is to achieve the comprehensive, win-win development of economic, social, and ecological benefits, thereby providing impetus for the rural revitalization strategy [11,12]. Therefore, investigating the processes, mechanisms, and effects of rural PLEF optimization and transformation is crucial for advancing the sustainable development of rural areas.

Territorial space is the primary platform for high-quality economic and social development, encompassing multiple functions such as production, living, and ecology [13]. These functions involve both material production processes and spiritual-cultural fulfillment, exhibiting the characteristics of synergistic symbiosis [14,15]. As the spatial carrier of rural development, rural PLEFs are manifested as follows: the production function denotes the rural capacity to deliver various products and social wealth; the living function reflects the rural capacity to provide residents with living environments and improve their quality of life; and the ecological function is reflected in the ability of rural areas to provide ecological services and products while maintaining system stability [16].

Recent years have seen significant advances in rural PLEF research. Research on the transformation of rural PLEFs has primarily focused on various spatial scales. Macro-level analyses employ administrative units such as provinces [17,18], cities [19,20,21], counties [22,23,24,25], and towns [26,27], quantifying PLEFs by constructing evaluation index systems [28]. For example, Xiao et al. observed enhanced provincial PLEF synergy with inter-provincial divergence in northern China [29]; Cheng et al.’s county-scale study in the Dabie Mountains noted stable ecological function alongside the dominant living function and improved production function [30]. At the micro-level, studies often focus on tourism and suburban villages as typical cases, conducting research based on the connection between the current land use and the connotation of the PLEFs. Land use data is mainly obtained through participatory land use mapping based on high-resolution images and drone aerial survey data. Research has found that in suburban villages affected by rapid urbanization and industrialization, a large amount of cultivated land has been converted into industrial and commercial land, with production functions increasingly reflecting the characteristics of industrialization and tourism transformation [31,32,33]. Tourism-oriented villages, driven by the tourism market, unique tourism resources, and advantageous locations, demonstrate complex transformations, home stay-dominated living function, tourism-oriented production function, and landscaping-centered ecological function [20,33,34,35,36]. On the whole, the existing research on the rural PLEF transformation mainly focuses on the macro scale, such as the regional and county level, while micro-level case studies of villages remain limited, especially empirical research on typical villages in plain agricultural areas in China. In fact, the plain agricultural area represents a critical and challenging area for implementing China’s rural revitalization strategy, and it is urgent to explore the development paradigm of the regional adaptation of PLEF transformation through the typical case study of the region.

Research on the driving mechanism of rural PLEF transformation primarily uses quantitative methods, such as geographical detectors and regression analysis, to identify macro-level influencing factors [20,33,37]. Research indicates that natural resource endowments, policy direction, market demand, and micro-level stakeholders collectively drive the transformation of rural PLEFs [33,36,38]. However, while these methods effectively depict spatiotemporal patterns and macro-driving factors, they are inadequate for analyzing micro-mechanisms, such as interactions among multiple actors and the evolution of social networks. In particular, they lack explanatory power for implicit processes such as heterogeneous interest games among actors and institutional translation. To address these limitations, some scholars have introduced methods such as actor-network theory [39] and multi-actor game model [35] at the micro-scale. For instance, Yu et al. applied Actor-Network Theory (ANT) to reveal how government decisions, expert knowledge, market capital, and villager cooperation shaped transformation pathways in Zhuquan Village, a tourism-oriented village [40]; similarly, Li et al. used ANT to show that the transformation of Lianhu Village, a suburban integrated village, is driven by both top-down government policy funding support and bottom-up market forces [41]; Wang et al., from the perspective of multi-actor game theory, pointed out that the PLEF evolution results from multi-party games involving policy, capital, society, and organizations [35]. These studies have established an analytical framework for understanding the micro-mechanisms of rural functional transformation. However, most of these case studies focus on tourism-oriented or suburban villages, with limited exploration of the actor-network mechanism of the PLEF transformation in traditional agricultural villages.

Research on the effects of rural PLEF transformation effects primarily uses quantitative analysis methods. For instance, Tan et al. used hot spot-cold spot analysis to explore the spatial imbalance effects of rural functions at the county level in Hunan Province [42]; Fu et al. employed landscape indices to demonstrate living space integration, production space regularization, and ecological quality improvement in Chengdu-Chongqing mountainous villages [43]; Zhou et al. studied how multifunctional transformation enhanced rural resilience in Wushi Village [44]; Chen et al. explored the socioeconomic effects of rural transformation driven by the development of eco-agriculture by quantifying the proportion of migrant workers and per capita income indicators [37]. Overall, existing research tends to focus on quantitative analyses of single effects based on macro indicators, while paying insufficient attention to the comprehensive impacts of functional transformation, especially the villagers’ perception assessment. As the direct beneficiaries of PLEF optimization, villagers’ satisfaction is a key indicator of the transformation’s effectiveness. Research in this area can provide an empirical basis for developing people-oriented optimization strategies.

Based on the shortcomings of the above research, this study takes Caiwu Village, a demonstration village for rural revitalization in Yuanyang County, Henan Province, China, as a typical case. From a micro perspective, a classification system for the rural PLEFs based on land use is constructed, and a comprehensive analysis framework including “transformation process-driving mechanism-perception effect” is proposed. Based on the interpretation data, interview data, and questionnaire survey data of the fourth phase of land use in villages, the processes, mechanisms, and effect of the rural PLEF optimization and transformation are systematically explored. The aim is to provide empirical evidence for understanding the differentiated transformation of the PLEFs of villages in plain agricultural areas, and to offer decision-making guidance for the optimization and improvement of the PLEFs of Caiwu Village and similar villages, and guidance for the practice of comprehensive rural revitalization. This study focuses on Caiwu Village and has four primary objectives: (1) to describe the spatiotemporal characteristics of its PLEF transformation; (2) to analyze the driving mechanisms using actor-network theory; (3) to assess villagers’ perceptions of the transformation’s effects; and (4) to propose recommendations for optimizing its PLEFs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Caiwu Village is located in Henan, a major agricultural province in China that is administered by Taiping Town in Yuanyang County, Xinxiang City (Figure 1). Yuanyang County is located between 113°30′–114°20′ E longitude, 34°50′–35°20′ N latitude. The county is situated on the Yellow River’s alluvial plain in northern Henan Province. It has a vast Yellow River beach and wetland, and is the habitat and migration channel for a variety of waterbirds [45]. The terrain is high in the southwest and low in the northeast. The county has a warm temperate continental climate, fertile soil, and well-developed irrigation systems. It is a major grain-producing county in Henan Province, with wheat, corn, and rice being the main crop types planted [45].

As a representative plain agricultural village, Caiwu Village covers an area of 15 km² and is located 18 km from the county seat and 1.5 km from the town’s administrative center. In 2024, the village had a permanent population of 446 residents in 74 households and managed 124 hectares of cultivated land¹. Historically, Caiwu Village was dominated by its production function, relying on a traditional rice-wheat rotation system that limited farmers’ income growth. Since 2012, guided by the village secretary, Caiwu Village has transformed its traditional rice cultivation model by innovating its farming systems. Applying ecological principles, it developed ecological circular agriculture integrating rice cultivation with loach and crayfish aquaculture while simultaneously establishing agricultural leisure tourism. This approach led to synergistic increases in yields from the rice-aquatic system and enhanced the area’s spatial value. Caiwu’s eco-agriculture rice-aquatic farming model maintains rural ecological function while simultaneously activating the production function and exploring cultural and recreational functions. This process has created a virtuous cycle between agriculture and ecology, leading to its designation as “Provincial Demonstration Village for Rural Revitalization Construction”. As a typical case, Caiwu Village’s experience with PLEF optimization and its transformation process, mechanisms, and effects offer significant theoretical and practical insights for the rural transition and revitalization of China’s plain agricultural regions.

2.2. Conceptual Model and Methods

2.2.1. The Connotation Definition and Classification of the Rural PLEFs

1.. Conceptual Connotation of the rural PLEFs

The "Production-Living-Ecological" (PLE) space refers to distinct areas of production, living, and ecology, representing the dynamic manifestation of “society-economy-natural ecosystem” interactions in land use [46]. The PLEF framework refines and extends the concept of PLE space [15], encompassing production, living, and ecological functions. It is a product of the synergistic coupling between natural and socio-economic systems [14]. Rural socioeconomic development and land use transitions have led to greater diversification and complexity in spatial functions [16]. Building on existing research [47], this paper defines the PLEFs of rural areas in plains as follows: the production function denotes the rural capacity to provide society with agricultural products and other material wealth. It serves as the foundation for national food security and rural economic development, including agricultural, industrial, and service products; the living function denotes the ability of rural areas to provide living space and meet residents’ basic needs. It provides a platform enabling residents to live and work peacefully and maintain local social relationships, encompassing residential support, material security, and spiritual well-being; the ecological function refers to the capacity of rural areas to provide ecological products and services that ensure regional ecological security. It provides the natural environmental support needed for sustainable production and living functions, including ecological products, ecological services, and environmental maintenance. Rural PLEFs constitute an integrated system in which the ecological function provides the foundation, the production function acts as the driving force, and the living function serves as the ultimate goal. These interdependent functions reinforce one another, collectively shaping the spatial patterns and developmental foundation of rural areas in plain agricultural regions (Figure 2).

2.. Classification of the rural PLEFs

Land use type is a direct expression of land function, while land use function reflects the comprehensive result of interaction among various land use types [33]. With the development of activities such as rural tourism and eco-agriculture, a single land use type within a rural area may serve multiple functions. These functions often overlap spatially, making them difficult to distinguish and thus forming composite functions [36]. Therefore, building on existing scholarly methods and based on the relationship between rural PLEFs and land use status [20,23,35,48], relevant theories of PLEF identification [49], and field research in Caiwu Village, we classified the rural functions in the study area into five primary categories: production function, living function, ecological function, production-living composite function, and production-ecology composite function. For each primary category, we also identified corresponding secondary functional categories and their corresponding land use types. On this basis, the connotations represented by each function are clarified (Table 1).

2.2.2. Semi-Structured Interviews

This study focuses on the processes and mechanisms of rural PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village. Interviews were conducted with a diverse range of stakeholders, including Taiping Town government officials, Caiwu Village cadres, members of agricultural cooperatives, and villagers. To cross-validate the data, we adopted a comprehensive approach to construct an accurate depiction of the transformation process from multiple perspectives. Interviewees were selected based on their familiarity with the village’s development and their ability to provide detailed, reliable information. We conducted two rounds of fieldwork on 11–12 October 2024 and 24–25 June 2025. The first phase consisted of semi-structured interviews with Taiping Town government officials and Caiwu Village cadres. These interviews focused on the village’s evolution from an ordinary village into a rural revitalization demonstration site, including its development trajectory, key events, and key actors’ roles. The second phase involved in-depth interviews with village cadres, cooperative members, and representative villagers. These interviews focused on the changes within the village’s production functions (agricultural production and non-agricultural industry development, livelihoods, etc.), living functions (housing, infrastructure, public services, etc.), and ecological functions (farmland ecological environment, living environment, etc.). In total, 11 valid interview materials were obtained (1 from town cadres, 3 from village cadres, 2 from cooperative members, 5 from representative villagers). This primary data was supplemented by” Beautiful Village” planning documents, industrial development reports, cooperative operation records, and study-tour activity plans. The collected materials were then transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed.

2.2.3. Participatory Land Use Mapping

This study employed a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) approach, combining remote sensing interpretation with GIS techniques. This methodology was used to construct a land use database for the case village and to create spatiotemporal maps based on our PLEF classification system. The specific steps were as follows: (1) Identification key time points: Through semi-structured interviews and key event analysis, we identified 2012 and 2017 as critical junctures for the village’s PLEF transformation. (2) Acquisition and interpretation of remote sensing data: First, high-resolution images captured on 24 June 2025, using a DJI drone (The DJI Mavic 4E drone was used in this study. It was manufactured by SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen, China.) were manually interpreted in ArcGIS to generate the current land use base map. Second, historical Google Earth images (0.54 m resolution) for 2002 (earliest available year), 2012 and 2017 were sourced from the BigMAP platform. To ensure accuracy across all periods, village cadres and villager representatives aged over 50 years participated in interpreting, correcting, and verifying the land use data. (3) Constructing the database and mapping: The land use data for 2002, 2012, 2017, and 2025 were integrated into an ArcGIS database. This database was then used to create spatiotemporal PLEFs maps according to the study’s classification system (Table 1).

2.2.4. Land Use Transfer Matrix

The Markov land use transition matrix is a quantitative method, originating from system analysis, that is used to describe system states and their transitions. It is now widely applied in land use change and simulation studies [36,50,51]. This study utilizes the Markov land use transition matrix to analyze the direction and scale of the PLEF transformations in the case village. Sankey diagrams were used for data visualization. The formula is expression as follows:

(1)$S_{ij}=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}{S}_{11}& S_{12}& \dots & S_{1n}\\ S_{21}& S_{22}& \dots & S_{2n}\\ \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots \\ S_{n1}& S_{n2}& \dots & S_{nn}\end{array}\right|$

In the formula, i and j represent the functional types at the beginning and end of each research period, respectively; S denotes the area and S_ij represents the area where the functional type of i is converted to the functional type of j; and n represents the number of functional types.

2.2.5. Actor-Network Theory (ANT)

Actor-network theory (ANT) was developed by French sociologist Michel Callon [52] and other scholars. The theory analyzes the interactions and relationships among various actors in society. ANT posits that societal actors form a complex network through various relationships, mutually influencing one another through processes such as information transfer, resource sharing, cooperation-competition, etc. [53]. The theory is primarily composed of three components: actors, networks, and translation processes, where translation includes four basic steps: problematization, interessement, enrollment, and mobilization [54]. Therefore, using data from semi-structured interviews, this study employs ANT to analyze the driving mechanisms behind the PLEF transformation in the case village.

2.2.6. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation of Satisfaction

Assessing the effects of rural PLEF transformation is a critical method for measuring the effectiveness of rural revitalization, as it systematically reflects the quality, coordination, and sustainability of rural development. Villagers are the primary actors in the rural PLEF optimization and transformation, as well as the direct witnesses and beneficiaries of its outcomes. Therefore, this study adopts the perspective of villagers’ perceptions. Drawing upon relevant literature [46,55] and the specific development context of the case villages, we first constructed a satisfaction evaluation index system to measure the effectiveness of the rural PLEF transformation (Table 2). Based on this system, we then developed a corresponding questionnaire for villagers. Second, the questionnaires were distributed to villagers using a random sampling method. The collected data were then verified for accuracy.

Finally, we applied fuzzy comprehensive evaluation to assess satisfaction using a five-point Likert scale: Y = {5 (Very satisfied), 4 (Relatively Satisfied), 3 (Neutral), 2 (Relatively dissatisfied), 1 (Very dissatisfied)}. The FCE mathematical model of satisfaction is as follows:

(2)$A_j={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{S}_{ij}\times W_{ij}}}{n}}$

(3)$B_m={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^t{A}_i}}{t}}$

In the formula, A_i represents the comprehensive score of the i-th indicator; S_j denotes the fuzzy satisfaction score of the j-th evaluation sample; W_i signifies the weight of the i-th indicator, calculated using the entropy weight method as detailed in Tan et al. [56]; n indicates the sample size; B_m is the comprehensive satisfaction score of the m-th function; and t indicates the number of characteristic indicators for each function. To eliminate the influence of extreme values on entropy weight calculation, this study used box plots to identify and adjust the outliers in indicator data prior to standardization. Outliers exceeding the upper bound of the box plot were replaced with upper bound values, and outliers smaller than the lower bound of the box plot were replaced with lower bound values.

2.3. Data Sources

This study’s data consisted of two main types: field research and spatial data. Field research included the following: (1) Conducting two rounds of semi-structured interviews in October 2024 and June 2025 (refer to Section 2.2.2 for details); conducting a villager questionnaire survey in June 2025 using random sampling and distributing 24 questionnaires (covering 32% of total households), from which 21 valid responses were collected (87.5% validity response rate). Spatial data included the following: (1) Administrative boundary data from Yuanyang County Natural Resources Bureau; (2) land-use data for 2002, 2012, 2017, and 2025, derived from drone aerial photography and historical high-resolution Google Earth images, interpreted manually in ArcGIS. The interpretation of early images was verified through a participatory process involving long-term village residents.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of the Spatiotemporal Process of the PLEFs Transformation in Caiwu Village

3.1.1. The Division of the PLEFs Transformation Stage in Caiwu Village

Based on an analysis of key events, we divided the process of PLEs optimization and transformation in Caiwu Village into three stages: traditional agriculture leading stage, eco-agriculture starting stage, and agriculture-tourism integration development stage (Figure 3).

Traditional Agriculture Leading Stage (before 2011)

During this stage, agricultural production was dominated by a wheat-rice rotation system with low levels of mechanization, which resulted in generally low farmer incomes. Limited by policy and economic conditions, the village’s construction lagged significantly. Housing was dilapidated, basic infrastructure was inadequate, and roads were unhardened. The farmland ecological condition was degraded by the excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, leading to reduced biodiversity. During this stage, the production function dominated, while the living and ecological functions were underdeveloped.

2.. Eco-Agriculture Starting Stage (from 2012 to 2017)

In 2012, Caiwu Village initiated a farmland consolidation project. In the same year, the secretary of the village party established the WangSheng Planting Professional Cooperative, and in collaboration with scientific research units, began experimenting with a rice-aquatic farming model. In 2015, the cooperative successfully expanded the eco-agriculture model of “rice-loach, rice-crayfish, and rice-crab”, with 33.3 hectares of cultivated land transferred. This model achieved simultaneous yield increases for both rice and aquatic products, and registered the “Qiu Mi Xiang” trademark. The "Beautiful Village" initiative spurred initial improvements in infrastructure in the village, enhancing the overall living environment and village appearance. In addition, the eco-agriculture mode effectively reduced the use of pesticides and fertilizers, thereby improving the farmland ecological cycle. During this stage, the production function remained dominant, but the production-ecological composite function began to emerge.

3.. Agriculture-Tourism Integration Development Stage (since 2018)

In 2018, the cooperative expanded its cultivation scale to 333.3 hectares through land transfer. That same year, the “Qiu Mi Xiang” brand gained provincial recognition, and the WangSheng Planting Professional Cooperative was designated a national-level exemplary farmer cooperative. Between 2019 and 2023, the village established a 106.7-hectare demonstration base for rice-crayfish and rice-loach co-culture and completed high-standard farmland construction. As a result of these efforts, the village was named Henan’s “Rural Revitalization Construction Demonstration Village”. In 2021, Caiwu Village established the Yellow Wine Workshop Cooperative to integrate its farming resources with local Yellow River and rice cultures. This initiative gradually led to the formation of an agriculture-tourism development model that combines rural study tourism, farming experiences, and specialty catering. The Rural Revitalization Strategy further promoted the construction of facilities such as roads, drinking water projects, cultural squares and other facilities, significantly improving the living environment. The ecological environment has been continuously improved, and the greening coverage rate has increased. Villagers’ awareness of environmental protection has increased, and they have widely recognized the concept of eco-agriculture development. During this stage, Caiwu Village exhibited a coordinated development of its production, living, and ecological functions. The production-ecological composite function was further strengthened, and a production-living composite function also emerged.

3.1.2. The Spatiotemporal Transformation Process of the PLEFs in Caiwu Village

To analyze the three transformation stages in Caiwu Village, we used participatory land use mapping to generate spatial distribution maps of the PLEFs for Caiwu Village in 2002, 2012, 2017, and 2025 (Figure 4). Based on these maps, we then calculated the structural changes in the PLEFs of Caiwu Village (Table 3).

Between 2002 and 2012, Caiwu Village’s landscape was dominated by traditional agriculture, characterized by conventional wheat-rice rotation systems and minimal change in land use. During this period, the functional land for production slightly reduced (by 70,000 m²) but maintained its absolute dominance (accounting for 84.1% in 2012). This land was contiguously distributed around residential areas; concentrated in the village center, living functional land increased marginally (by 6700 m²) due to the construction of new houses by individual households; the ecological functional land remained stable. Meanwhile, the production-ecological composite functional land saw a slight increase with the emergence of a rice-loach co-culture ecological field, marking the initial practice of eco-agriculture in Caiwu Village.

Between 2012 and 2017, under the leadership of the village secretary, Caiwu Village began transforming its traditional rice cultivation model. Relying on the Wangsheng Planting Cooperative, the village innovated its farming systems and utilized ecological principles to integrate rice cultivation with loach and crayfish farming, thereby developing eco-agriculture with a rice-aquatic model. During this stage, the production-ecological composite functional land (rice-loach co-culture field) expanded rapidly (by 281,400 m², accounting for 25.3%). These fields became spatially concentrated northwest of the irrigation canals. In contrast, the traditional production functional land (ordinary rice field) decreased significantly (by 298,100 m², accounting for 62.9%). Changes in other types of functional land were relatively marginal.

Between 2017 and 2025, influenced by poverty alleviation and rural revitalization policies, Caiwu Village utilized the “Cooperative + Brand + Farmers” model to steadily advance its eco-agriculture development. Simultaneously, the village began to develop rural study-tourism, capitalizing on its eco-agriculture advantages and Yuanyang rice culture. During this stage, the production-ecological composite functional land increased further (by 61,000 m², accounting for 29.7%), while the traditional production functional land continued to decline (accounting for 56.6%). Improvements in infrastructure and public service facilities led to a marginal increase in the living functional land. Coinciding with the development of rural leisure tourism, production-living composite functional land began to emerge, albeit on a smaller scale.

Figure 5 illustrates the characteristics of PLEF land use transitions in Caiwu Village across different periods. From 2002 to 2012, the intensity of the PLEF land use conversion was relatively low, and the landscape was dominated by a single production function. From 2012 to 2017, PLEF transitions intensified significantly. This period was characterized by the alternating growth and decline between production function and production-ecological composite function, marking the village’s shift from traditional agriculture to eco-agriculture. From 2017 to 2025, PLEF transitions accelerated further. This was manifested in the sustained decline of the traditional agricultural production function, the steady expansion of the production-ecological composite function, and marginal growth in both the living function and production-living composite function. This indicates that the rural PLEFs were in a continuous stage of restructuring during this period. However, due to rural tourism still being in its initial stages of development, the production-living composite function did not increase significantly. Overall, Caiwu Village’s land use transitioned from a singular focus on traditional agricultural production function to a modern production-ecological composite function, showing a clear trend towards functional compounding and ecologization.

3.2. Analysis of the Dynamic Mechanism of the PLEFs Transformation in Caiwu Village

Grounded in ANT, this study analyzes the dynamic mechanisms of rural PLEF optimization and transformation by constructing actor networks for different transformation stages. These networks were constructed based on in-depth interviews with Taiping Town government officials, Caiwu village cadres, cooperative representatives, and villagers.

3.2.1. Actor Composition

The actor network mainly consists of both human and non-human actors. The actor-network driving the PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village was jointly constructed by both human and non-human actors (Table 4). Human actors include national units, social organizations, operators, cooperatives, villagers, and external participants. Non-human actors include water-soil resources, natural landscapes, cultural landscapes, and infrastructure.

3.2.2. Actor-Network Translation

1.. Problematization

The PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village involved various actors with divergent interests at different development stages. This necessitated the identification of an Obligatory Passage Point (OPP) to build consensus among all actors (Figure 6). ① During the traditional agriculture-dominated stage, the primary goal of village development was to sustain farmers’ livelihoods and ensure grain production. Villagers were the core actors during this stage. At that time, agricultural production was based on a household-level wheat-rice rotation system, which was characterized by its small scale, low mechanization, and limited profitability. Villagers’ income was derived primarily from farming and off-farm labor. The core issue confronting all actors was “How to increase grain yields while sustaining farmers’ livelihoods”. ② During the eco-agriculture emergence stage, Caiwu Village’s party secretary mobilized villagers to establish the WangSheng Planting Professional Cooperative. This cooperative introduced an eco-agriculture model of rice-aquaculture, which successfully enhanced the efficiency of agricultural production and increased the incomes of participating households. The cooperative, village committee, and villagers were the core actors in this stage. At that time, villagers’ income was still primarily derived from farming and off-farm employment. The core issue confronting all actors was “How to enhance the profitability of agricultural production and increase villagers’ incomes.” ③ During the agricultural-tourism integration stage, governments and village committees, guided by poverty alleviation and rural revitalization goals, vigorously developed rural infrastructure and significantly improved the living environment. The cooperatives focused on developing green and organic ecological rice fields and leveraged Yuanyang rice culture to establish rural study-tourism projects. However, tourism support facilities in the villages urgently needed improvement. Additionally, most villagers had not yet joined the cooperative to participate in the development of eco-agriculture and rural tourism. Consequently, the core issue confronting all actors evolved into “How to utilize the cooperatives to engage more villagers in eco-agriculture and rural tourism, and achieve comprehensive rural revitalization.”.

2.. Enrollment and mobilization

At different stages, the village committee, villagers, cooperative, and government have each played leading roles as core actors. They have employed both administrative mobilization and market-driven mobilization to attract social resources and capital for the village’s development. The primary goals were to improve production efficiency, enhance the appearance of the village, and develop rural tourism. Thus, through processes of enrollment and mobilization across different stages, the actor network for PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village was constructed.

During the traditional agriculture-dominated stage (Figure 7), agricultural production and rural construction in Caiwu Village primarily relied on villager self-organization. Within the framework of the household contract responsibility system, villagers utilized the Yellow River water resources for a household-based, wheat-rice rotation planting model. This traditional agricultural production mode was their primary source of income. Economically advantaged households initiated housing renovations. However, most families still lived in old houses, and the village’s infrastructure remained under developed.

During the eco-agriculture starting stage (Figure 8), Caiwu Village launched a systematic land consolidation project with government administrative enrollment. Concurrently, the village’s party branch mobilized villagers to establish the Wangsheng Planting Professional Cooperative. Subsequently, through market enrollment, the cooperative formed partnerships with multiple agricultural research institutions (including Henan Normal University, Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and Rice Research Institute). Through these collaborations, they jointly developed and promoted eco-agriculture models such as “rice-loach, rice-crayfish and rice-crab”. This marked the official beginning of the eco-agriculture development in Caiwu Village. In terms of rural construction, the “Beautiful Village” policy led to significant improvements in the village’s infrastructure. At the same time, with the increase in villagers’ incomes, under the unified planning and organization of the village committee, villagers built new houses or renovated existing ones. According to established stylistic standards, this led to significantly improvements in the overall living environment and landscape.

During the agricultural-tourism integration development stage (Figure 9), Caiwu Village adopted a development model that prioritized market enrollment, supplemented by administrative enrollment. The cooperative leveraged its distinctive rice-loach co-culture industry to attract social resources, which were then used to develop premium agricultural products and establish regional brands. By utilizing both new and official media platforms to highlight local cultural resources and agricultural features, the cooperative successfully promoted its brand visibility. This increased visibility helped attract study-tour and other tourist groups, effectively advancing agriculture-tourism integration. In terms of rural construction, government investments from special rural revitalization funds were directed toward improving the living environment of the village. Specific measures include upgrading external roads, hardening internal village streets and alleys to enhance transportation convenience, increasing green coverage in residential areas by planting native flora around homesteads and along roads, constructing new cultural squares and village clinics to enrich villagers’ cultural life and improve access to medical service, and addressing essential needs such as providing safe drinking water and renovating sanitary toilets.

3.2.3. Mechanism Analysis

Overall, Caiwu Village’s PLEF optimization and transformation are driven by the organic synergy of four core elements: government guidance, cooperative operation, villager participation, and water-soil resource endowments. The government provides institutional guarantees, the cooperative activates market vitality, the villagers’ involvement determines the success of implementation, and water-soil resources provide the material foundation. The organic linkage and dynamic adjustment among these four elements jointly facilitate the optimization and transformation of PLEFs (Figure 10). Specifically:

The government’s policy guidance mechanism: The government effectively promoted the coordinated development of Caiwu Village’s PLEFs through multi-level policy support and administrative implementation. Specific manifestations were as follows: ① The government implemented land consolidation and high-standard farmland construction projects, which improved agricultural infrastructure and laid a material foundation for agricultural modernization; ② It enacted specialized support policies to support eco-agriculture, helping to build regional brands and guide the transition from traditional rice cultivation to eco-agriculture; ③ By coordinating poverty alleviation and rural revitalization strategies, it implemented projects to improve the human settlement environment, significantly enhancing the village’s infrastructure, public services, and living quality.

The cooperative’s market-based operation mechanism: As a key market intermediary, the cooperative facilitated Caiwu Village’s transition toward composite PLEFs through the following pathways. Specific manifestations were as follows: ① In terms of organizational innovation, the cooperative established the “cooperative + brand + farmer” model to encourage dispersed farmers to develop eco-agriculture; ② In terms of industrial upgrading, it developed a “rice-aquatic” symbiotic system and extended the industrial chain into new business forms, such as the processing of agricultural products (yellow wine, rice wine, etc.) and rural study-tourism; ③ In terms of resource integration, they connected with universities and research institutes for technological support and built a multimedia marketing system for its “Qiu Mi Xiang” brand, significantly enhancing market competitiveness.

Villagers’ participation and feedback mechanism: As core stakeholders, villagers’ participation and opinions play a crucial role in promoting the PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village. Specific manifestations include the following: ① Industrial development participation: Villagers can engage in the cooperative’s operations through land shareholding or labor contributions, and have the right to propose improvements to operational models and benefit distribution mechanisms; ② Human settlement life feedback: Based on their lived experiences, villagers provide feedback to the village committee on deficiencies in infrastructure and public services. This offers a practical basis for village planning and the optimization of living function; ③ Ecological protection co-governance: Through involvement in eco-agriculture and rural tourism, villagers gradually recognize that ecological advantages can be converted into brand value and economic benefits. This enhances their awareness and initiative in ecological protection, thereby promoting the optimization and improvement of rural ecological function.

The supporting mechanism of water-soil resource endowments: As key non-human actors, the water-soil resource system provides essential support for Caiwu Village’s PLEF transformation. Specific manifestations are as follows: ① The foundational role of the village’s natural endowments: Caiwu Village is located in the floodplain area on the north bank of the Yellow River, and is characterized by fertile alluvial soil and a gravity-fed irrigation system supplied by the Yellow River water. These conditions not only create a favorable environment for traditional rice cultivation but also establish the resource foundation for developing eco-agriculture of rice-aquatic farming. ② Efficiency enhancement through engineering renovation: The implementation of measures such as land consolidation and high-standard farmland construction has further improved Caiwu Village’s agricultural infrastructure. This has effectively promoted agricultural mechanization and scale operation. ③ Synergistic effects of the landscape system: A composite landscape system of “irrigation canals-farmland-ponds-residential areas” has formed within the village. This typical Yellow River floodplain landscape not only enhances the village’s livability but also provides a favorable foundation for developing rural leisure tourism.

3.3. Evaluation of Villagers’ Perception Effects on the PLEFs Transformation of Caiwu Village

Villagers are not only the primary actors in the optimization and transformation of rural PLEFs, but are also the direct witnesses and beneficiaries of the transformation’s effects. Therefore, this study employed a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to quantitatively analyze villagers’ perceptions of the PLEF transformation’s effects, based on data from questionnaire surveys.

3.3.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Table 5 reports the demographic characteristics of the sample. Owing to a large number of off-farm laborers in Caiwu village, the actual resident population in the village is less than half of its registered population. Therefore, this study conducted a questionnaire survey with 24 randomly sampled villagers, a sample size representing half of the village’s actual resident population. Overall, the gender distribution of the survey sample was balanced (male 52.4%, female 47.6%), with a majority aged between 45 and 60 (52.4%). The educational level was generally low (66.6% have completed primary and secondary education or below), with farmers comprising 90.5% of the population. Annual household income was concentrated between CNY 20,000 and 50,000 (62.0%), with the primary income sources being farming only (47.6%) and a combination of farming and off-farm laborer (42.9%). These characteristics reflect the local economy, which is dominated by traditional agriculture and off-farm laborers. Furthermore, the low level of education is typical of the permanent population in such rural areas. The sample’s characteristics were consistent with the local population structure, indicating its high degree of representativeness.

3.3.2. Analysis Based on Villagers’ Perception Effects of the PLEFs Transformation

Figure 11a presents the results of the villagers’ satisfaction evaluation concerning the living function optimization and transformation in Caiwu Village. The data show that villagers reported the highest satisfaction with transportation convenience (4.62), followed by infrastructure configurations (4.52), housing conditions (4.38), and public activity spaces (4.24). In contrast, satisfaction with education and healthcare (3.43) and commercial facilities (3.52) received relatively lower ratings. This variation in satisfaction levels is closely related to the focus of village development efforts. The support from rural revitalization policies has driven the upgrading of infrastructure and public spaces, while rising household incomes have led to improved housing conditions. However, due to the village’s geographical location (proximity to the town) and village scale (small population), its provision of medical, shopping, and educational services is insufficient. These factors represent the main obstacles to current living function optimization.

Figure 11b presents the results of the villagers’ satisfaction evaluation concerning the production function optimization and transformation in Caiwu Village. The data indicate that villagers were most satisfied with the degree of agricultural mechanization (4.71), followed by crop yields (4.33), eco-agricultural benefits (4.05), and annual household income (3.62). Conversely, the development of leisure agriculture (3.38), cooperative-driven villager engagement (3.28) and agricultural training opportunities (3.38) received relatively lower ratings. These findings reflect the village’s remarkable achievements in developing production mechanization and eco-agriculture, which have increased the output of agricultural products and farmers’ incomes. However, the integration of agriculture and tourism is still in an early stage, characterized by insufficient supporting facilities and limited villager participation. Furthermore, the role of cooperatives in driving development and technology diffusion also needs to be strengthened.

Figure 11c displays the results of the villagers’ satisfaction evaluation concerning the ecological function optimization and transformation in Caiwu Village. The data indicate that the highest levels of satisfaction were for air quality (4.57), followed by garbage collection and disposal (4.31), aquatic ecological environment (4.24), domestic sewage treatment (4.14), village green coverage (4.05), and biodiversity (4.00). In contrast, the ecological benefits of rice-aquatic farming (3.57) received relatively lower ratings. The villagers’ high satisfaction with the ecological effect stems from several factors. These include low industrial discharge near the village, reliable irrigation and a good ecological aquatic landscape provided by the Yellow River, an improved environment, and enhanced biodiversity due to the reduced use of chemicals in eco-agriculture. The relatively low recognition of the ecological benefits of the rice-aquatic farming model suggests that its ecological value has not yet been fully realized. This highlights the importance of transforming ecological products into ecological value and villagers’ income in rural areas.

Figure 11d presents the villagers’ overall satisfaction evaluation of Caiwu Village’s PLEF optimization and transformation. Overall, villagers were most satisfied with the effectiveness of the ecological function transformation (4.21), followed by the living function (3.87), while the production function transformation received the lowest rating (3.81). This finding clearly reveals that villagers’ perception and evaluation of the transformation’s effects are differentiated based on their livelihoods, a view that aligns with Expectation Difference Theory [57]. First, the highest level of satisfaction with ecological functions can be attributed to remarkable transformation achievements that exceeded the villagers’ original expectations. A sound ecological environment is the foundation for both sustainable agricultural development and livable villages. Caiwu Village has achieved significant environmental improvements through comprehensive renovations of its human settlement environment. It has also completed the transformation from traditional planting modes to ecological circular agriculture. These tangible improvements have greatly exceeded villagers’ expectations, resulting in their strong approval of the ecological function’s transformation. Second, the village invested heavily in the transformation of living function. Renovation of the human settlement environment and infrastructure construction have significantly improved living comfort and convenience. However, such improvements are often regarded as “inevitable” components of modernization. As villagers may already have high expectations for these changes, they had relatively high satisfaction among villagers. However, despite the village’s remarkable achievements in eco-agriculture, the benefits provided by the Wangsheng Planting Professional Cooperative to ordinary farmers remain limited. Most villagers still rely primarily on traditional farming and off-farm labor, and thus have not fully reaped the substantial economic benefits of eco-agriculture. However, their expectations of increased income and greater prosperity remain very high. This “high expectations, low perception” gap results in lower satisfaction with the production function’s transformation.

4. Discussion

4.1. Comparison Between This Study and Relevant Existing Literature

This study takes Caiwu Village, a demonstration village for rural revitalization in China’s plain agricultural area, as a case study. It constructs a classification system for rural PLEFs based on micro-level land use and proposes an analytical framework of “transformation process-driving mechanism-perceived effect”. The study systematically analyzes the process, mechanism, and effects of PLEF optimization and transformation in Caiwu Village.

In the functional transformation process, this study qualitatively identified two key time points (2012 and 2017) and three important stages (traditional agriculture dominance stage, eco-agriculture starting stage, and agriculture-tourism integration development stage) in the transformation and development of the case village through semi-structured interviews and critical incident analysis. By adopting the participatory land use mapping method, the study visualized the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of PLEFs within the village. This qualitative approach differs from existing studies that primarily use quantitative evaluation methods based on functional indicators for macro-level analyses at the county or township scale [22,25,26,27,50]. Our study offers a more detailed depiction of the historical trajectory and spatial differentiation of the village’s development. This study reveals that since the beginning of the new century, Caiwu Village has transitioned from the traditional agricultural production function to the modern production-ecological composite function, demonstrating greater functional complexity and ecological trends. This transformation path differs from the industrialization and tourism transformation of suburban villages driven by rapid urbanization [31,32,33] and tourism villages’ transformation driven by the tourism market, such as the home stay of the living function, the tourism of the production function, and the landscape of the ecological function [20,33,34,35,36]. In contrast, as a village dominated by agriculture in the plain agricultural area, Caiwu Village’s transformation has been more reliant on its water-soil resource endowment, the market-oriented operation of cooperatives, and guidance from government ecological policies. The rural functions show a clear trend toward compound and ecological transformation. This transformation provides important evidence for understanding the sustainability of agricultural systems in plain agricultural areas. The enhancement of its production-ecology composite function has significantly improved the service capacity of the farmland ecosystem and expanded ecological benefits while still ensuring food production. This approach is not only conducive to protecting the village environment and developing sustainable agriculture, but also enables the transition from providing only food to supplying a diversity of food and aquatic products [37]. In addition, although the village is also promoting the integrated development of agriculture and tourism, its production-living composite functions remain relatively weak. The functional compositeness is mainly reflected in the integration of production and ecological functions, highlighting a unique characteristic of PLEF transformation in plain agricultural villages.

To analyze the mechanism of functional transformation, this study uses actor network theory to systematically analyze the process of interest linkage and influence mechanisms between different actors. Consistent with case studies of villages across China, this study finds that although actor networks are complex and diverse, they are invariably shaped by the intervention of administrative and market forces [39,40,41,58]. This study also reveals the key roles of government policy guidance and the cooperative’s market-oriented operations in the PLEF transformation of Caiwu Village. However, unlike previous studies, this study finds that cooperatives, acting as key market intermediaries, are crucial in the development of villages in plain agricultural areas. They can effectively drive agricultural modernization by promoting organizational innovation, industrial upgrading, and resource integration. Nevertheless, cooperatives still face considerable limitations, including inequitable participation, weak resilience to market risks, and high technical thresholds for agricultural practices, which find it difficult to effectively cover and drive the participation of poorer families. Therefore, leveraging the role of cooperatives to link and promote agriculture development is crucial for optimizing rural functions in plain agricultural areas. Additionally, this study demonstrates the important role of water-soil resources in the optimization of PLEFs, especially in plain agricultural areas. As a key non-human actor, water-soil resources play a fundamental supporting role. Protecting these resources and fully realizing their value is therefore essential for improving the quality and efficiency of the agricultural production function.

In functional transformation effects, as the primary actors and beneficiaries of rural PLEF optimization and transformation, the satisfaction of villagers with the transformation results is a key indicator for measuring the transformation’s effectiveness. This study adopts a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and quantitatively analyzes villagers’ perceptions of the PLEF transformation’s effects in Caiwu Village, using questionnaire survey data. Research has found that although Caiwu Village has made significant progress in the process of rural revitalization, villagers report the highest satisfaction with the effectiveness of ecological function transformation, followed by living function, and the lowest satisfaction with production function transformation. Further analysis reveals that there are obvious shortcomings in the satisfaction of each function, which not only provides a basis for our rational understanding of the effectiveness of rural functional transformation, but also points out directions for the optimization of “people-oriented” rural functions. Compared to previous studies that focused on the socio-economic effects, landscape effects, and resilience enhancement effects of rural multifunctional transformation [40,43,44], this study enriches the research dimensions of rural functional transformation effects from the perspective of villagers’ perceptions.

In terms of research paradigms, existing studies on rural PLEF transformation have typically focused on the "process-mechanism" relationship [31,32,33,35,36], while paying little attention to the actual effect of this transformation. This study constructs a systematic analysis framework of the “transformation process-driving mechanism-perception effect”, which not only analyzes the transformation characteristics of Caiwu village from production function to production ecological composite function, but also reveals the formation mechanism of different actors jointly promoting the structural transformation of village function through both government-led and market-driven approaches. Furthermore, by incorporating a humanistic perspective, this study introduces a “perception effect” evaluation based on villagers themselves. This approach links the objective transformation process with the villagers’ subjective experience, thereby more profoundly revealing the complex nature of rural transformation.

This study provides new empirical evidence for understanding the differentiated transformation paths of the rural PLEFs in various regional types. It also addresses a gap in the existing literature by focusing on villages in plain agricultural areas, which have previously received insufficient attention. The case study of Caiwu Village demonstrates that under the guidance of government policies and the market-oriented operation of collaborators, the ecological transformation model relying on local resource endowments can serve as an effective pathway for optimizing and improving the functions of agriculture-dominated villages. This finding not only enriches the theoretical understanding of multifunctional development but also offers valuable insights for rural revitalization practices in similar regions.

4.2. Limitations and Future Work

Although this study has yielded some initial findings, it is not without limitations. Firstly, rural PLEFs, as a core component of the rural territorial system, are characterized by dynamic evolution and significant spatial heterogeneity [11]. Due to the fact that the transformation of the “three lives” function in Caiwu Village is an ongoing process and has not yet reached a stable state, there are certain time limitations in this study’s understanding of its transformation patterns. Future research should continue to track the dynamic patterns of the functional transformation of the village in the process of rural revitalization practice, and explore the process and mechanism of interest linkage among different actors. Secondly, in the analysis of the transformation mechanism, this study lacks an in-depth discussion on the support of government fiscal policy for ecological agriculture and the degree of integration between agriculture and tourism. Future research should incorporate more robust data to support the actor network analysis. Finally, as a case study, although Caiwu Village has the typical characteristics of villages in plain agricultural areas, the generalizability of its conclusions requires further verification. China’s plain agricultural areas are vast and contain diverse types of villages. In the future, more comparative studies of empirical cases are needed to systematically reveal the universal patterns of the optimization and transformation of rural PLEFs in plain agricultural areas, and thus improve the relevant theoretical framework and practical models.

5. Conclusions and Policy

This study systematically analyzes the processes, mechanisms, and effects of PLEF optimization and transformation in Caiwu Village, a demonstration village for rural revitalization in the agricultural plain area of China. The main conclusions are as follows:

(1) The PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village has progressed through three distinct stages: traditional agriculture leading (before 2011), eco-agriculture starting (from 2012 to 2017), and the integrated development of agriculture and tourism (since 2018). This evolution shows a clear trend of transitioning from traditional agricultural production function to modern production ecological composite function. The rural functions exhibit a significant compounding and ecologization trend.

(2) The PLEF transformation of Caiwu village is the result of human actors (e.g., the government, cooperatives, and villagers) and non-human actors (e.g., water and soil resources). This process is driven by mechanisms such as government-led initiatives and market-based approaches. Among these actors, the government provides institutional guarantees, cooperatives activate market vitality, villager participation determines the success of implementation, and water-soil resources lay the material foundation.

(3) The effect of PLEF transformation in Caiwu village from the perspective of villagers’ perception shows significant differences across functions. Villagers are most satisfied with the effectiveness of the ecological function transformation (4.21), followed by that of the living function (3.87), with the production function receiving the lowest rating (3.81). The limited role of cooperatives in linking and leading farmers, coupled with the weak foundation for the integrated development of agriculture and tourism, are the main reasons for the low satisfaction of villagers with the effectiveness of production function transformation.

Based on these findings, this study proposes the following two suggestions for the optimization of PLEFs in Caiwu Village: (1) Improve the cooperation mechanism between the cooperative and farmers. First, strengthen technical support through local universities and research institutions to provide differentiated, full-process technical guidance and training for various farmers. This will lower the technical threshold for rice-aquatic farming and enhance farmers’ ability to participate in the development of eco-agriculture. The second is to innovate the mechanism of interest linkage, avoiding market risks through contract farming, equity dividends, guaranteed purchases, and shared brands. This will help ensure farmers’ incomes and enhance their participation enthusiasm. (2) Promote the deep integration of agriculture and tourism. First, the variety of integrated agricultural tourism formats should be enriched. Based on farming, we should enhance Yellow River and rice culture resources, leveraging rice-aquatic eco-agriculture and yellow wine cooperatives. The goal is to expand the types and contents of study-tourism projects and to create a distinctive study-tourism brand. At the same time, idle homesteads should be utilized to develop home stays and create rural catering services with regionally characteristics. This would help build an integrated “study + leisure + travel” agricultural and tourism industry system and expand opportunities for villager participation. Second, tourism-supporting facilities must be improved. This includes strengthening tourist nodes and improving road connectivity within the village, as well as optimizing infrastructure such as visitor centers, study bases, parking, public toilets, signage systems and smart guides. These improvements will provide enhanced tourism experiences, attract more tourists, and ultimately promote the development of the village’s production function and production-living composite function.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.X., T.C. and R.W.; Methodology, D.X.; Software, D.X. and H.H.; Formal analysis, D.X. and T.C.; Investigation, D.X.; Data curation, X.L., S.D. and H.H.; Writing—original draft, D.X., T.C. and R.W.; Writing—review & editing, D.X., T.C., X.L., Y.L., R.W. and Y.C.; Visualization, D.X., Y.L. and Y.C.; Supervision, T.C. and R.W.; Funding acquisition, T.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data used for the study appear in the data source section of the submitted article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge all colleagues and friends who voluntarily reviewed the translation of the survey and study manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Note

1. The data was obtained through an interview with the person in charge of the village committee of Caiwu village.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Geographical location overview of Caiwu Village.

Figure 2 The composition of the rural PLEF system.

Figure 3 The transformation process of PLEFs in Caiwu Village.

Figure 4 The spatial distribution of the PLEFs in Caiwu Village.

Figure 5 Sankey diagram of PLEFs transitions in Caiwu Village.

Figure 6 The PLEF transformation Obligatory Passage Point in Caiwu Village.

Figure 7 The actor-network during the traditional agriculture-dominated stage of Caiwu Village.

Figure 8 The actor network during the eco-agriculture emergence stage of Caiwu Village.

Figure 9 The actor network during the agricultural-tourism integration development stage of Caiwu Village.

Figure 10 The PLEFs transformation mechanism in Caiwu Village.

Figure 11 Evaluation results of villagers’ satisfaction with the PLEF transformation in Caiwu Village.

Table 1

Classification system of Caiwu Village’s PLEFs based on land use.

Primary Category	Secondary Category	Corresponding Land Types	Functional Description
Production function	Agricultural production function	Ordinary rice field, agricultural facility land, orchard land, field access land	Land for traditional agricultural production such as produces agricultural byproducts and ensuring national food security
	Non-agricultural production function	Industrial land	Land for processing agricultural and byproducts, manufacturing crafts, and other services for industrial production
Living function	Residential living function	Rural residential land	Ensure the basic living space for farmers, including land for ordinary residential buildings, newly constructed residences, and abandoned buildings where villagers live
	Social security function	Public service land, commercial and service facilities land	Land providing organizational management, education, healthcare, cultural and recreational services (e.g., village committee offices, schools, clinics, community centers, plazas, infrastructure)
	Transportation function	Internal road land, external road land	Land for villagers’ passage, communication with the outside world, and transporting tourists
Ecological function	Ecological conservation function	Forestland, water area, Pond	Land for protecting the ecological environment and maintaining ecological balance
	Environmental maintenance function	Unutilized land	Has the potential for transformation into ecological green area, providing the village with flexible development space
Production-living composite function	——	Tourism and catering land, study-tour land	Land used for study and tourism reception, as well as daily living quarters for management personnel
Production-ecological composite function	——	Rice-aquatic co-culture field, green eco-field, irrigation canal	Ecological agricultural land used for developing integrated farming of rice, loaches, crayfish and other aquatic products, as well as land for rice cultivation with green food certification

Table 2

Evaluation index system for the transformation effect of PLEFs.

Type	Satisfaction Index	Weight	Attribute
Living function	Housing conditions (A1)	0.10	+
	Transportation (A2)	0.07	+
	Infrastructure configurations (A3)	0.12	+
	Education and healthcare (A4)	0.31	+
	Public activity spaces (A5)	0.13	+
	Commercial facilities (A6)	0.27	+
Production function	Crop yields (B1)	0.03	+
	Agricultural mechanization (B2)	0.22	+
	Eco-agricultural economic benefits (B3)	0.14	+
	Annual household income (B4)	0.13	+
	Cooperative-driven villager Engagement (B5)	0.23	+
	Leisure agriculture development (B6)	0.07	+
	Agricultural training opportunities (B7)	0.18	+
Ecological function	Aquatic ecological environment (C1)	0.04	+
	Air quality (C2)	0.36	+
	Biodiversity (C3)	0.16	+
	Eco-agricultural ecological benefits (C4)	0.11	+
	Village green coverage (C5)	0.17	+
	Garbage collection and disposal (C6)	0.05	+
	Domestic sewage treatment (C7)	0.11	+

Table 3

The statistics of structural changes in the PLEFs of Caiwu Village.

Type	2002		2012		2017		2025
	Area (104 m2)	Percent (%)	Area (104 m2)	Percent (%)	Area (104 m2)	Percent (%)	Area (104 m2)	Percent (%)
Living function	8.1	5.7	8.7	6.2	9.0	6.4	9.4	6.7
Production function	125.3	89.1	118.3	84.1	88.4	62.9	79.6	56.6
Ecological function	6.2	4.4	6.2	4.4	7.6	5.4	9.3	6.6
Production-living composite function	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.7	0.5
Production-ecological composite function	1.1	0.8	7.5	5.3	35.6	25.3	41.7	29.7

Table 4

Actor composition in the process of PLEF transformation of Caiwu Village.

Type	Category	Actor
Human actor	Core national units and grassroots organizations	Governments at all levels, Village committee
	Non-core national units	Higher education institutions, Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Rice Research Institute
	Cooperative	WangSheng Planting Professional Cooperative, Zhenbang Yellow Wine Workshop Cooperative
	Local	Villagers
	External participants	Tourists
Non-human actor	Water-soil resource	Farmland, Yellow River water, Irrigation canals
	Natural landscape	Yellow River floodplain, Rice fields, Ponds
	Cultural landscape	Residential buildings, Cultural square
	Infrastructure	Roads, Water, Electricity, Communication, etc.

Table 5

Statistics of sample demographic characteristics of Caiwu village questionnaire.

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percent (%)
Gender	Male	11	52.38
	Female	10	47.62
Age	Aged 18–44	6	28.57
	Aged 45–60	11	52.38
	Over 60 years old	4	19.05
Educational level	Illiteracy	4	19.05
	Primary and secondary school	10	47.62
	High school (technical secondary school)	4	19.05
	Bachelor’s degree or above	3	14.29
Occupation	Farmer	19	90.48
	Student	2	9.52
Household Size	2–4 people	5	23.81
	5–6 people	5	23.81
	More than 6 people	11	52.38
Annual household income	1–2 thousand yuan	5	23.81
	2–5 thousand yuan	13	61.90
	5–10 thousand yuan	3	14.29
Income sources	Farming	10	47.62
	Off-farm laborer	2	9.52
	Mixed farming combined with off-farm laborer	9	42.86

References

1. Liu, Y. Research on the urban-rural integration and rural revitalization in the new era in China. Acta Geogerphica Sin.; 2018; 73, pp. 637-650. (In Chinese)

2. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Y. China’s rural revitalization and development: Theory, technology and management. J. Geogr. Sci.; 2020; 30, pp. 1923-1942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-020-1819-3]

3. Chen, X. The core of China’s rural revitalization: Exerting the functions of rural area. China Agric. Econ. Rev.; 2020; 12, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CAER-02-2019-0025]

4. Fan, J.; Li, S.; Sun, Z.; Guo, Y.; Zhou, K.; Chen, D.; Wu, J. The functional evolution and system equilibrium of urban and rural territories. J. Geogr. Sci.; 2022; 32, pp. 1203-1224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-022-1993-6]

5. Fang, Y.; Liu, J. Diversified agriculture and rural development in China based on multifunction theory: Beyond modernization paradigm. Acta Geogerphica Sin.; 2015; 70, pp. 257-270. (In Chinese)

6. Long, H.; Ma, L.; Zhang, Y.; Qu, L. Multifunctional rural development in China: Pattern, process and mechanism. Habitat Int.; 2022; 121, 102530. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102530]

7. Wilson, G.A. From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: Conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. J. Rural Stud.; 2007; 24, pp. 367-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.010]

8. Liu, Y.; Li, Y. Revitalize the world’s countryside. Nature; 2017; 548, pp. 275-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/548275a]

9. Holmes, J. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Interpreting regional dynamics in landscapes, lifestyles and livelihoods. Landsc. Res.; 2008; 33, pp. 211-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390801912089]

10. Qu, Y.; Zhan, L.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, M. Unpacking the ‘supply-utilization-demand’ interplay: Keys to multifunctional sustainability in rural China. Geogr. Sustain.; 2024; 5, pp. 445-458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2024.04.006]

11. Li, F. Rural revitalization and rural functional optimization and transformation in China. Sci. Geogr. Sin.; 2021; 41, pp. 2158-2167. (In Chinese)

12. Zhu, X.; Gao, J.; An, F. Rural multifunctionality: A comprehensive literature review. Prog. Geogr.; 2024; 43, pp. 1233-1246. (In Chinese)

13. Duan, Y.; Xu, Y.; Huang, A.; Lu, L.; Ji, Z. Progress and prospects of “production-living ecological” functions evaluation. J. China Agric. Univ.; 2021; 26, pp. 113-124. (In Chinese)

14. Li, G.; Fang, C. Quantitative function identification and analysis of urban ecological-production-living spaces. Acta Geogerphica Sin.; 2016; 71, pp. 49-65. (In Chinese)

15. Huang, J.; Lin, H.; Qi, X. A literature review on optimization of spatial development pattern based on ecological-production-living space. Prog. Geogr.; 2017; 36, pp. 378-391. (In Chinese)

16. Wang, C.; Tang, N. Spatio-temporal characteristics and evolution of rural production-living-ecological space function coupling coordination in Chongqing Municipality. Geogr. Res.; 2018; 37, pp. 1100-1114. (In Chinese)

17. Liao, G.; He, P.; Gao, X.; Deng, L.; Zhang, H.; Feng, N.; Zhou, W.; Deng, O. The Production-Living-Ecological Land Classification System and Its Characteristics in the Hilly Area of Sichuan Province, Southwest China Based on Identification of the Main Functions. Agric. Week; 2019; 11, 1600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11061600]

18. Yang, W.; Li, W.; Wang, L. How should rural development be chosen? The mechanism narration of rural regional function: A case study of Gansu Province, China. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e20485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20485]

19. Gao, P.; Yang, C.; Liu, Y.; Xin, G.; Chen, R. Evaluating the effect of comprehensive land consolidation on spatial reconstruction of rural production, living, and ecological spaces. Ecol. Indic.; 2024; 168, 112785. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112785]

20. Chen, H.; Su, K.; Peng, L.; Bi, G.; Zhou, L.; Yang, Q. Mixed Land Use Levels in Rural Settlements and Their Influencing Factors: A Case Study of Pingba Village in Chongqing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 5845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105845] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35627384]

21. Yang, X.; Wang, J.; Qiao, N.; Bai, Z. Spatiotemporal variation pattern of production-living-ecological space and land use ecological risk and their relationship analysis: A case study of Changzhi City, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.; 2023; 30, pp. 66978-66993. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27169-w]

22. Hong, T.; Liang, N.; Li, H. Study on the Spatial and Temporal Evolution Characteristics and Driving Factors of the “Production-Living-Ecological Space” in Changfeng County. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 10445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151310445]

23. Jia, J.; Jiang, E.; Tian, S.; Qu, B.; Li, J.; Hao, L.; Liu, C.; Jing, Y. Land-Use Transformation and Its Eco-Environmental Effects of Production-Living-Ecological Space Based on the County Level in the Yellow River Basin. Land; 2025; 14, 427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land14020427]

24. Zhang, R. Spatial Differentiation and Tradeoff-Synergy of Rural Multifunction at the County Scale in Anhui Province in the China’s Traditional Agricultural Areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 13604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013604]

25. Xu, Z.; Ke, F.; Yu, J. Spatio-temporal evolution and influencing factors of rural production-living-ecological function: A case study of mountainous counties in Zhejiang Province, China. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2025; 13, 1495778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1495778]

26. Duan, Y.; Wang, H.; Huang, A.; Xu, Y.; Lu, L.; Ji, Z. Identification and spatial-temporal evolution of rural “production-living-ecological” space from the perspective of villagers’ behavior—A case study of Ertai Town, Zhangjiakou City. Land Use Policy; 2021; 106, 105457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105457]

27. Zhao, Y.; Yuan, X.; Liu, Y. Understanding the transformation of rural areal system from changes in farmland landscape: A case study of Jiaocun township, Henan province. Habitat Int.; 2025; 159, 103358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103358]

28. Xu, K.; Fang, Y.; Zhou, Y. Spatial differentiation of rural functions from the perspective of production-living-ecological functions at the township level: A case study of Shandong Province. Prog. Geogr.; 2023; 42, pp. 644-656. (In Chinese) [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2023.04.003]

29. Xiao, C.; Deng, X.; Wang, Y. Evolution characteristics and driving factors of rural regional functions in the farming-pastoral ecotone of northern China. J. Geogr. Sci.; 2023; 33, pp. 1989-2010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-023-2162-2]

30. Cheng, J.; Fang, S. Spat-temporal evolution of multi-functionality of rural regions in the Dabie Mountains areas in China and its coupling coordination degree. Mt. Res.; 2024; 42, pp. 496-506. (In Chinese)

31. Zhu, L.; Li, L.; Liu, S.; Li, Y. The evolution of village land-use function in the metropolitan suburbs and its inspiration to rural revitalization: A case study of Jiangjiayan Village in Chengdu City. Geogr. Res.; 2019; 38, pp. 535-549. (In Chinese)

32. Liu, Y.; Dai, L.; Long, H.; Woods, M.; Fois, F. Rural vitalization promoted by industrial transformation under globalization: The case of Tengtou village in China. J. Rural Stud.; 2022; 95, pp. 241-255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.09.020]

33. Qiao, W.; Chai, Y.; Wang, J.; Li, C. Land-use transition in tourism villages of metropolitan suburbs and mechanism analysis: A case study of She Village, Nanjing City. Prog. Geogr.; 2024; 43, pp. 1060-1073. (In Chinese)

34. Dou, Y.; Ye, W.; Li, B. Models and Logic of Function Renewal of “Living-Production-Ecological” Space in Tourism-Driven Traditional Villages: A Case Study of Zhang Guying Village, Hunan Province. Trop. Geogr.; 2022; 42, pp. 136-147. (In Chinese)

35. Wang, J.; Sun, Q.; Zou, L. Spatial-temporal evolution and driving mechanism of rural production-living-ecological space in Pingtan islands, China. Habitat Int.; 2023; 137, 102833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102833]

36. Yang, Y.; Hu, S.; Wang, K.; Liu, C.; Liu, D.; Zhou, X. Evolution and Driving Mechanism of “Production-Living-Ecological” Space in Ethnic Tourism Village: A Case Study of Dong Village in Zhaoxing Town. Econ. Geogr.; 2023; 43, pp. 222-230. (In Chinese)

37. Chen, Y.; Yu, P.; Chen, Y.; Chen, Z. Spatiotemporal dynamics of rice-crayfish field in Mid-China and its socioeconomic benefits on rural revitalisation. Appl. Geogr.; 2022; 139, 102636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102636]

38. Wang, Y.; Duan, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, L. Evolution of rural multifunction and its natural and socioeconomic factors in coastal China. J. Geogr. Sci.; 2023; 33, pp. 1791-1814. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-023-2153-3]

39. Cheng, Y.; Wang, T.; Huang, Z.; Hu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, J. Rural Transformation Development Mechanism and Rural Revitalization Path from the Perspective of Actor-network: A Case Study of Dabian Village in the Central Mountainous Area of Hainan Province. Econ. Geogr.; 2022; 42, pp. 34-43. (In Chinese)

40. Yu, W.; Liu, S.; Wang, M.; Zhang, X.; Song, Z. The process and mechanism of tourism-driven rural transformation from the perspective of actor network: A case study of Zhuquan Village, Shandong Province. J. Chin. Ecotourism; 2023; 13, pp. 679-693. (In Chinese)

41. Li, Y.; Shao, L. Reconstruction process and transformation mechanism of ecological characteristic rural space based on Actor-Network Theory: A case study of Lianhu Village in the Qingpu District, Shanghai. Sci. Geogr. Sin.; 2024; 44, pp. 30-39. (In Chinese)

42. Tan, X.; Jiang, L.; An, Y.; Yu, H.; Zhou, Z.; Li, Y. The spatial-temporal evolution and influencing factors of rural functions in traditional agricultural areas in Hunan Province. Sci. Geogr. Sinica. Sci. Geogr. Sin.; 2021; 41, pp. 2168-2178. (In Chinese)

43. Fu, P.; Li, H.; Sun, Y.; Yang, F.; Sun, L. Spatial patterns and models of multifunctional transition in Chengdu-Chongqing Mountain Village. Proceedings of the 2024 China Urban Planning Annual Conference; Hefei, China, 5–8 July 2024; (In Chinese)

44. Zhou, Y.; Gu, H. Enhancing rural resilience through the rural revitalisation strategy in rural China: Evidence from Wushi Village, Hunan Province. J. Rural Stud.; 2025; 113, 103493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103493]

45. Wang, X.; Yang, Y.; Chen, W.; Li, L.; Guan, X. Study on the evolution of cultivated land landscape pattern in the low ground back of the Yellow River in Yuanyang county. J. Henan Agric. Univ.; 2020; 54, pp. 853-861. (In Chinese)

46. Dou, Y.; Ye, W.; Li, B.; Liu, P. Tourism Adaptability of Traditional Village Based on Living-Production-Ecological Spaces: A Case Study of Zhangguying Village. Econ. Geogr.; 2022; 42, pp. 215-224. (In Chinese)

47. Zhou, T.; Wang, J. Classifying and regulation pathway of rural “production-living-ecology” regional area in the Center Plains Urban Agglomeration. Sci. Geogr. Sin.; 2023; 43, pp. 1227-1238. (In Chinese)

48. Wan, P.; Xu, G.; Wan, C. Evolution and simulation of land use functional structure in rural tourism destinations: A case study of Sanping Village in Jiangxi Province. Prog. Geogr.; 2023; 42, pp. 1769-1782. (In Chinese) [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2023.09.009]

49. Qu, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhu, W.; Zhan, L.; Ping, Z. Spatial pattern and coordination optimization mode of multifunction of rural settlements. J. Nat. Resour.; 2021; 36, pp. 659-673. (In Chinese) [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20210310]

50. Zhang, H.; Li, Y. Change of land-use functions in suburbs: A case study of Haohuahong Village in a rural tourist resort of Huishui County, Guizhou Province. Prog. Geogr.; 2020; 39, pp. 1999-2012. (In Chinese) [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.12.004]

51. Cai, T.; Luo, X.; Fan, L.; Han, J.; Zhang, X. The Impact of Cropland Use Changes on Terrestrial Ecosystem Services Value in Newly Added Cropland Hotspots in China during 2000–2020. Land; 2022; 11, 2294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11122294]

52. Callon, M. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociol. Rev.; 1984; 32, (Suppl 1), pp. 196-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x]

53. Liu, H. Actor-Network-Theory: A Keyword in Critical Theory. Foreign Lit.; 2021; 06, pp. 64-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16430/j.cnki.fl.2021.06.006]

54. Yang, R.; Xu, Q.; Zhou, J.; Chen, Y. Mechanism of Rural Space Transformation in Fengjian Acient Village of Shunde District, Foshan Based on the Actor Network. Sci. Geogr. Sin.; 2018; 38, pp. 1817-1827. (In Chinese)

55. Li, X.; Fang, B.; Yin, R.; Xu, X.; Chen, T. Spatial pattern and association of production-living-ecological function and life quality on the village scale: A case of Yangzhong City, Jiangsu Province. Sci. Geogr. Sin.; 2020; 40, pp. 599-607. (In Chinese)

56. Tan, X.; An, Y.; Jiang, L.; Mi, S.; Tan, J.; Zhou, G. Spatial Differentiation and Formal Mechanism of Rural Function Types in Changsha-Zhuzhou-Xiangtan Area. Econ. Geogr.; 2018; 38, pp. 80-88. (In Chinese)

57. Oliver, R.L. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction process in retail settings. J. Retail.; 1981; 57, 25.

58. Yuan, Z.; Ge, D.; Sun, P.; Ni, Y.; Li, Y. Tourism-driven rural spatial restructuring process and mechanism: A case study of Houwei village in Nanjing. Geogr. Res.; 2023; 42, pp. 1680-1696. (In Chinese)