Design reflections on the integrated development of rural cultural and ecological resources in China

Abstract

Industrial civilization speeds up the tensions between culture and environment in China’s rural revitalization project. Reflective thinking on the integrated development of rural cultural and ecological resources results from increased concern for balancing cultural preservation with ecological sustainability. This study distinguishes the separation of culture and ecology in the Chinese rural cultural application scene, which often follows a dichotomy instead of a co-evolutionary approach depending on design considerations. The study investigates how design may be a vital instrument in integrating cultural and environmental resources using a systematic, multidisciplinary design process, therefore converting them from stationary, separate entities into modular components with innovation, reconstruction, and market potential. Applying theories of co-evolution and value co-creation, the study creates a thorough framework for the design-driven sustainable transformation of rural areas. The results show that by employing reflective and participatory approaches, design not only closes the gaps between cultural scenes and environmental resources but also stimulates the development of creative economic models such as agritourism complexes and cultural innovation parks. These models show how rural communities may reach ecological sustainability, protect cultural legacy, and improve economic systems. From a design intervention standpoint, the research findings help pertinent policy decisions by providing theoretical insights and practical ideas for rural cultural-ecological integration.

Introduction

With the fast rise of the global population and the quick development of technology and industry, mankind has paid a significant environmental price in utilizing and modifying nature, heightening tensions between humans and nature (You et al. 2023). In response to the growing ecological crises over the last 50 years, governments have explored sustainable development paths. After studying cultural systems, some experts have said that ‘the growth of cultural systems appears to be speeding the destruction of the Earth’, sparking questions about culture and ecology. Beyond the conflict phenomena of “culture+ and ecology-” in the industrial civilization age, can a paradigm be established in which culture and ecology grow in harmony, striving for sustainability (You et al. 2023)?

Due to their rich cultural and ecological resources, rural regions, the major battlefield of ecological civilization-building, are gaining attention and importance. Intangible cultural legacy, agricultural culture, local knowledge, and traditional crafts help preserve cultural variety and boost rural cultural soft power. Rural ecological resources including natural assets, biodiversity, and green spaces are essential for regional ecological balance, food security, and enjoyment.

Integrating rural cultural and ecological resources into a value transformation and integrated development plan promotes sustainable rural development. Design, a problem-solving discipline that improves well-being, has evolved from focusing on individual resources to a systematic approach that considers many resources, stakeholders, and situations in rural area development. Bell and Jayne (2010) suggest “design to the countryside” to organize, restore, and revitalize the complex rural system by balancing “people and people, people and buildings, and buildings and nature” (Bell and Jayne 2010). According to Smits (2019), design-based poverty reduction should emphasize ‘local presence, community participation, and digital accessibility’ (Smits 2019). Understanding ecological and cultural resources in rural settings from humanities, material culture, and community perspectives and actively building endogenous service and knowledge platforms that link internal and external resources creates new opportunities for rural revitalization through digitalization and intelligent solutions.

Research questions

• 1. How can design intervention facilitate the integration of technological, cultural, and ecological considerations in rural development projects?

• 2. What are the key contributions of design thinking in enhancing the effectiveness of technological and cultural transformations in rural contexts?

• 3. How can design serve as a bridge between technological innovations, cultural heritage, and ecological sustainability in rural development projects?

Role of this research in participatory design practice

This research plays a crucial role in the “New Channel – Mujia Star” project in Mukjue Village, specifically in the context of participatory design practice. The project’s broad scope encompasses various topics, including aerospace breeding engineering technology, smart greenhouse design, and cultural tourism. Within this large-scale project, our research focuses on the design intervention strategies that facilitate the integration of breeding engineering, smart greenhouse design, and cultural tourism.

Design intervention in smart greenhouse design

Our research team was primarily involved in the design of smart greenhouses, which serve as a critical component of the project’s rural sustainability goals. Through participatory design workshops and collaborative discussions with local stakeholders, we co-created smart greenhouse designs that incorporate breeding engineering technology and cultural tourism elements.

Facilitating integration through design interventions

Our design interventions played a key role in facilitating the integration of breeding engineering, smart greenhouse design, and cultural tourism. By employing participatory design strategies and communication processes, we enabled the connection between these seemingly disparate elements.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section “Theoretical background” details the theoretical background; Section “Methodology” presents methodology; Section “Role of design reflections in cultural and ecological integration” presents role of design reflections in cultural and ecological integration; Section “Results and discussion” details the results and Section “Conclusions” Concludes the paper.

Theoretical background

Cultural and ecological relationships: from dichotomy to symbiosis

Culture and environment have been divided in Western thought since the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. Nature became an external entity that humans observed and controlled via science, creating a binary opposition between civilization and nature. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Plato proposed distinct ideas about humans in the “state of nature”, reinforcing the divide between culture and ecology. As contemporary philosophy has grown, this dichotomy has been criticized for ignoring the complicated relationship between culture and nature.

Instead, process philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead advocate a different approach. Whitehead believed that culture, environment, and the cosmos are interrelated and evolving (Bennett 2023). His idea views culture and environment as organic, interdependent entities that coevolve. Process-based philosophy is essential for understanding culture-ecology co-evolution.

Later in the 19th century, Ernst Haeckel’s ‘symbiosis’ notion strengthened this organic ecological approach. He introduced cultural-ecological co-evolution by explaining the intricate symbiotic interactions between biotic and abiotic environments (Haeckel 1988). Later ecological studies emphasized the tight relationship between organisms and their environment based on Haeckel’s idea.

British researcher Arthur Tansley used the term ‘ecosystem’ in 1935 to describe the dynamic interactions between organisms and their physical environment (Tansley 1935). Tansley’s thesis helped explain the culture-ecology partnership. The German scholar Leo Viktor Frobenius expanded the notion of the “cultural area” (Kulturkreis) by studying the geographical spread of culture and the environmental influence on cultural development8. This paved the way for culture-ecology research (Sylvain 1996).

Julian Steward’s cultural ecology theory expanded on the ‘cultural area’ hypothesis by investigating cultural-ecological coevolution (Smelser and Baltes 2001). He believes cultural growth and evolution are extensions of biological evolution across time, differentiating between unilinear, universal, and multilinear evolution (Kroeber 1953). Multilinear evolution is suitable for cultural-ecological integration because it highlights the distinctive evolutionary trajectories of individual cultures and ecosystems in certain historical stages (Steward 1972).

Co-evolution theory has been used for culture-ecology integration as ecological economics and sociology research have advanced. Ecological economist Richard Norgaard proposed in 1981 that cultural systems and the biophysical system create a complex evolutionary network (Norgaard 1981). From a community perspective, Jegede (1995) stated that cultural ecology examines the interaction between culture and the environment as well as specific cultural communities’ socio-economic networks and environmental perceptions and management (Jegede 1995). Stagl (2007) further splits the co-evolutionary process into three sustainability-related dimensions: environment and governance, technology and governance, and human behavior and culture (Stagl 2007). Adger et al. (2013) saw cultural and natural ecological systems as dynamic and interwoven, highlighting human adaptability and shaping (Adger et al. 2013; Raven and Johnson 1986).

The dichotomy to the symbiotic connection shows that culture and ecosystem coevolve and influence each other (Fig. 1). Table 1 summarizes the literature review along with relevance to integrated rural development. The integrated development of cultural and natural resources is theoretically supported by this notion. Culture affects ecology, and environmental changes cause culture to adapt, creating a dynamic coevolutionary process. This co-evolutionary interaction looks diverse across time, and a coherent framework has yet to develop. The relationship between culture and ecology is complicated and changeable according to historical and regional factors. Thus, to promote profound cultural-ecological integration, it is necessary to examine its historical history to determine its need and relevance.

Fig. 1: Research process of interactive relationship between culture and ecology from dichotomy to symbiosis.

The figure provides a visual representation of the research process, highlighting the evolution of the relationship between culture and ecology from a dichotomous to a symbiotic perspective, and serves as a framework for understanding the integrated development of rural cultural and ecological resources in China.

Table 1 Literature review along with relevance to integrated rural development.

Co-evolution and value co-creation theories

The symbiosis between rural culture and ecology affords design several intervention potentials. The design may fully examine rural cultural symbols and ecological components as an innovative and multidisciplinary technique. Design helps extract and convert cultural and natural resources and maintain rural communities by turning these aspects into appealing goods, services, and experiences. This section examines design’s role in rural culture and environment using co-evolution and co-creation theories.

• (a) The co-evolutionary perspective in design

  Coevolution is the simultaneous development and mutual adaptation of two or more populations, species, or other groups (Raven and Johnson 1986). Cairns introduced “mutually beneficial coevolution,” which integrates cultural systems with natural systems to assist their mutual evolution, in 2007 (Cairns 2007). Culture, environment, technology, and other systems interact to develop, he said. The coevolutionary nature of culture and environment transcends scientific and social sciences, therefore it frequently faces disciplinary obstacles. Interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary design may break down these divisions and help integrate rural cultural and biological resources across sectors.

  The design may create new developmental paths via innovation in culture-ecology interactions. A coevolutionary concept allows designers to naturally incorporate cultural symbols and ecological components from multiple systems, reviving rural ecological and cultural resources. Designers, communities, and natural resources co-evolve via design intervention in rural culture and ecology. The design may address rural concerns and drive systemic change by promoting endogenous community dynamics, as shown by this multifaceted coevolutionary interaction. Participatory design and value co-creation can help villagers protect, manage, and innovate rural cultural and ecological resources, fostering environmental awareness and cultural confidence and creating a collaborative and shared environment (Thienen et al. 2019).

• (b) Value of co-creation theory and systemic design

The notion of co-production in 18th-century service economics research inspired co-creation design, which engages various stakeholders. This approach emphasizes value generation and coevolution via cooperation. It has evolved into a distinct research system focused on value co-creation service systems with diverse stakeholders, dynamic service design processes, and collaborative participation among service providers, participants, and recipients (Fig. 2) (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014).

Fig. 2: The evolution of value co-creation research framework.

The figure provides a visual representation of the value co-creation research framework, highlighting its evolution from a resource-based approach to a more holistic, ecosystem-based approach, and serves as a foundation for understanding the integrated development as a key aspect of value co-creation.

Social Innovation, Collaborative Innovation, Co-Design, Service Design, and Participatory Design are all interpretive techniques in co-creation design (You et al. 2021). These strategies stress value co-creation service systems with different stakeholders and dynamic service design and collaboration (Pera et al. 2016). Co-creation design has expanded to address ecological problems, public services, education accessibility, and transportation governance, extending the design’s service purposes and research reach. This extension is crucial for cultural transmission, national confidence, and social change. In rural development, social innovation and co-creation design have shown flexibility and guiding value. Rural revitalization has moved from a government-led, top-down strategy to a collaborative value co-creation system encompassing the government, businesses, universities, local inhabitants, urban dwellers, and social capital (Cloke et al. 2006) as top-down planning improves. This model promotes sustainable rural economies, resources, society, and the environment by integrating internal and external resources and knowledge through interdisciplinary and interdepartmental organizational systems, national governance decentralization, agricultural policy reforms, and increased attention to local issues (Gkartzios and Scott 2014). UNESCO recognizes social innovation design, advocated by Michael Young, as a key to social change.

Intersections of culture, ecology, and rural development

Contemporary architectural styles, interaction with surrounding people, and preservation of cultural surroundings constitute a basic component of sustainable development as well as cultural preservation. This strategy guarantees the preservation and maintenance of cultural legacy as well as continuity and community identification. Local communities gain by including them in the design process and supporting developers to better grasp their cultural values, rituals, and requirements.

Another important component of sustainable development is ecological sustainability—planning projects and infrastructure with the least effect on the surroundings. One does this by watershed conservation, renewable energy sources, and environmentally friendly products. Developers that take an environmentally sustainable strategy might cut their dependency on fossil fuels, slow down global warming, and advance biodiversity. Conserving watersheds supports aquatic life as well as helping to preserve water quality by preventing soil erosion.

Sustainable development moves forward in harmonious and balanced steps. This implies using an integrated planning strategy to combine social, environmental, and economic requirements. Participatory governance is also fairly significant as it involves local governments, communities, and stakeholders in decision-making procedures. Monitoring and evaluation systems help developers track development, spot issues, and provide necessary corrective action to guarantee that growth is balanced and sustainable. This strategy guarantees both preservation of natural and cultural assets as well as inclusive and fair development is encouraged. Figure 3 presents the intersections of culture, ecology, and rural development.

Fig. 3: Intersections of culture, ecology, and rural development.

The figure illustrates the interconnected relationships between culture, ecology, and rural development in China, highlighting key intersections and potential synergies.

Let’s represent the intersections of culture, ecology, and rural development using a mathematical model. Let us assume,

$C$: Set of cultural aspects (e.g., traditions, values, heritage)

$E$: Set of ecological aspects (e.g., biodiversity, natural resources, climate)

$R$: Set of rural development aspects (e.g., infrastructure, economy, social services)

${x}_{{ij}}$: Interaction between cultural aspect $i\in C$ and ecological aspect $j\in E$

${y}_{{ik}}$: Interaction between cultural aspect $i\in C$ and rural development aspect ${k}\in R$

${z}_{{jk}}$ : Interaction between ecological aspect $j\in E$ and rural development aspect $k\in R$

We maximize the overall sustainability score as,

$$\begin{array}{l}S=\sum \left(i\in C,j\in E\right){x}_{{ij}}* {w}_{{ij}}+\sum \left(i\in C,k\in R\right){y}_{{ik}}* {v}_{{ik}}\\\qquad+\,\sum \left(j\in E,k\in R\right){z}_{{jk}}* {u}_{{jk}}\end{array}$$

where ${w}_{{ij}},{v}_{{ik}}$, and ${u}_{{jk}}$ are weights representing the importance of each interaction.

$\sum \left(j\in E\right){x}_{{ij}}\ge {\theta }_{i}$ for all $i\in C$ ensures cultural aspects are preserved.

$\sum \left(k\in R\right){z}_{{jk}}\le {\varphi }_{j}$ for all $j\in E$ ensures ecological aspects are not over-exploited.

$\sum (i\in C){y\_ik}\ge {\psi }_{k}$ for all $k\in R$ (ensure rural development aspects are met).

Methodology

Systemic design research method

In the integrated development of rural culture and ecology, design functions not only as a tool but also as a critical thinking framework that addresses the complex interactions between culture and ecology. Design reflections allow designers to navigate these interactions through philosophical reflection, facilitating the discovery of innovative solutions (Verganti et al. 2021). As Teng (2021) describes, Design reflection is a dynamic, problem-driven innovation approach that provides deep reflection and strategic insights for the integration of culture and ecology through systematic thinking and interdisciplinary collaboration (Teng 2021). The World Design Organization (WDO) further supports this perspective, stating that “the goal of design research is to enhance people’s experiences with products, systems, and services sustainably, linking innovation, technology, culture, economy, value, industry, and users to provide new value and competitive advantage to regional industries, economies, societies, and environments within the framework of sustainable development (Looker 2017).”

To operationalize these principles, this study employs a systemic design approach that focuses on long-term planning and management of rural resources. Figure 4 presents a systematic design approach. This approach adopts a macro-perspective, emphasizing the coordination and sustainability of entire systems throughout the design process.

• (a) Data collection and fieldwork:

  The study conducts fieldwork in selected rural areas, collecting data on local cultural symbols (e.g., intangible heritage) and ecological assets (e.g., biodiversity).

  Through interviews and workshops with local stakeholders (e.g., residents, government officials, and experts), the study gathers qualitative data on local knowledge, values, and attitudes toward cultural and ecological conservation.

• (b) Participatory design and prototyping:

  Designers collaborate with local communities in participatory design workshops to co-create solutions that integrate cultural and ecological elements.

  Prototypes are developed, such as cultural innovation parks or ecological art villages, and tested in rural environments to assess their feasibility and effectiveness.

• (c) System integration and evaluation:

  The methodology emphasizes the integration of cultural and ecological resources through ecological restoration and landscape planning.

  The study develops an evaluation framework to assess ecological impacts, cultural preservation, and community participation. Indicators include biodiversity conservation, cultural site use rates, and community feedback.

• (d) Interdisciplinary collaboration:

Fig. 4: Systematic design approach.

The figure provides a visual representation of the systematic design approach, highlighting the interconnectedness of different components and the importance of long-term planning and management in achieving sustainable rural development.

The systemic approach incorporates expertise from multiple fields, such as environmental science, design, and anthropology, to create comprehensive solutions. This cross-disciplinary collaboration ensures that design interventions are not only culturally and aesthetically appropriate but also environmentally sustainable and economically viable.

Let’s represent the systematic design approach using a mathematical model. Let us assume,

$x$: Cultural symbols preservation level $(0\le x\le 1)$

$y$: Ecological assets conservation level $(0\le y\le 1)$

$z$: Community participation level $(0\le z\le 1)$

- w: Economic viability level $(0\le w\le 1)$

We maximize the overall sustainability score as

$$S=\alpha x+\beta y+\gamma z+\delta w$$

where $\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,$ and $\delta$ are weights representing the importance of each aspect.

$x\ge {\theta }_{c}$ ensures cultural symbols preservation, $y\ge {\theta }_{e}$ ensures ecological assets conservation, $z\ge {\theta }_{z}$ ensures community participation and $w\ge {\theta }_{w}$ ensures economic viability.

The system integration can be represented as $I=\int (x,y,z,w)$

where $I$ is the integration score, and $\int$ represents the integration function.

The evaluation framework can be represented as:

$$E=\sum ({Biodiversity\; conservation}+{Cultural\; site\; use\; rates}+\,{Community\; feedback})$$

where $E$ is the evaluation score.

The interdisciplinary collaboration can be represented as $C=\sum ({Expertise\; from\; multiple\; fields})$, where ${C}$ is the collaboration score.

Systemic design method for rural development

Phase 1: context analysis

• 1. Rural context analysis: Conduct research on the rural area, including its cultural heritage, ecological resources, and socio-economic conditions.

• 2. Stakeholder mapping: Identify key stakeholders, including local communities, farmers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers.

• 3. Systemic analysis: Analyze the relationships between cultural, ecological, and economic systems in the rural area.

Phase 2: co-creation and visioning

• 1. Co-creation workshops: Organize workshops with stakeholders to co-create a shared vision for the rural area’s future development.

• 2. Cultural and ecological resource mapping: Map the rural area’s cultural and ecological resources, including intangible cultural heritage and biodiversity.

• 3. Systemic design principles: Introduce systemic design principles, such as coherence, sustainability, and multifunctionality.

Phase 3: design and prototyping

• 1. Systemic design concepts: Develop systemic design concepts that integrate cultural, ecological, and economic systems.

• 2. Prototyping and testing: Prototype and test design concepts, including innovative business models, such as cultural innovation parks, agritourism complexes, and ecological art villages.

• 3. Stakeholder feedback and iteration: Gather feedback from stakeholders and iterate on design concepts.

Phase 4: implementation and monitoring

• 1. Implementation planning: Develop an implementation plan, including timelines, budgets, and stakeholder roles.

• 2. Implementation and monitoring: Implement the design concepts and monitor their impact on the rural area’s cultural, ecological, and economic systems.

• 3. Evaluation and iteration: Evaluate the effectiveness of the design concepts and iterate on them as needed.

Interdisciplinary integrated research method

This study uses design, ecology, economics, sociology, and other disciplines to investigate how rural cultural and natural resources are integrated and transformed. The research uses comprehensive, systemic, dynamic, and multidimensional techniques to handle rural development’s complexity. This sophisticated strategy deconstructs and reconstructs cultural and ecological resource value transformation routes to find novel rural regeneration solutions.

Ji (2012) recommends a system-oriented approach to design that goes beyond ‘people’, ‘culture’, ‘landscape’, and ‘objects’ (Ji, 2012). This study paradigm integrates ‘people-culture-land-production-landscape’ to improve rural regions holistically. Design connects multidisciplinary knowledge to develop novel cultural and ecological integration solutions.

Design Reflections is used in rural cultural tourism initiatives to combine intangible cultural assets with contemporary technologies to create new experiences. Reflective practice protects cultural heritage from simplification and distortion during commercialization.

Case studies in interdisciplinary integration:

Case Study 1: The Community Food Forest project in the US demonstrates the value of cocreation design and community management for ecological resource sharing. The project integrates design with food engineering to establish a sustainable food ecosystem (Albrecht and Wiek 2021).

Case Study 2: Italy’s Community-supported Agriculture model combines design, agricultural science, ecology, and sociology to create cooperatives that promote sustainable development and resource sharing (Medici et al. 2021).

Case Study 3: Argentina’s Community-Driven Development Model emphasizes interdisciplinary collaboration to improve local community autonomy and development (Satterthwaite et al. 2005).

These examples illustrate the significant role of interdisciplinary methods and co-creation design in rural cultural and ecological integration. They also demonstrate how such methods contribute to sustainable development by integrating expertise from various disciplines to find appropriate context-based solutions.

Participatory design practice: the case of the “New Channel – Mujia Star” rural cultural-ecological community

This section describes the participatory design practice applied in the “New Channel – Mujia Star” project in Mukjue Village, a rural community revitalization initiative. The project focuses on integrating cultural and ecological resources through modern smart agriculture and collaborative design processes. In partnership with Hunan University, Shaanxi Aerospace Breeding Engineering Technology Research Center, and the Hunan Provincial Civil Air Defense Office, the project aims to build a sustainable rural community by merging space breeding technology, ecological practices, and cultural tourism.

The National Geographic Information Resources Directory Service System (National Catalogue Service For Geographic Information 2021) and China’s 1:4 million core geographical components data collection (Resource Discipline Innovation Platform 2021) provide the county’s administrative divisions and biological environments. The 2022 traditional village survey registration form (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China 2022), the Resource and Environmental Science and Data Centre website’s 2019 China’s population spatial distribution, and GDP spatial distribution kilometre grid data set (Resource and Environment Science and Data Center 2019) provide statistical data on population, industry employment, economy, tangible and intangible cultural heritage, etc. Sources for traditional village rating results and protection policies include “China Statistical Yearbook 2023” (National Bureau of Statistics 2023).

The “New Channel – Mujia Star” project in Mukjue Village has progressed beyond the conceptual and planning stages. We have successfully implemented the smart greenhouse design, incorporating breeding engineering technology and cultural tourism elements. The project implemented a comprehensive training program for local farmers, which resulted in 150 farmers participating and 120 (80%) successfully acquiring new skills to manage the new systems independently. The project also achieved significant improvements in agricultural productivity, with a 25% average increase through aerospace breeding and smart agriculture, while preserving Mujiao Village’s cultural heritage by integrating traditional practices and cultural elements into the smart agriculture system. Furthermore, the project optimized agricultural supply chains, reducing waste by 30%, energy consumption by 20%, and material usage by 15%. These improvements are summarized in a table, highlighting the baseline, post-implementation, and percentage change for each indicator, demonstrating the project’s positive impact on agricultural productivity, cultural heritage preservation, and supply chain optimization.

• (a) Context and objectives

  The Mukjue Village initiative combines smart agriculture with local cultural resources to create a cultural-ecological community. The initiative promotes sustainable rural development by lowering carbon emissions, improving the ecological footprint, and supporting local sectors like organic food production and cultural tourism. Participatory design involves local stakeholders and multidisciplinary professionals to create a robust and flexible system.

  This design method transforms static assets into flexible units of value that may be recreated, duplicated, and shared, demonstrating the coevolution of cultural and natural systems. Local communities are active players in environmental change using this method.

• (b) Design interventions and collaborative processes

Aerospace breeding and smart agriculture systems: The project uses aerospace breeding to develop plant types with high yields and resilience to the local environment. This innovative breeding technology induces genetic mutations using space radiation to create Mujiao Village-friendly crops. The design interventions were feasible, relevant, and compatible with conventional agricultural methods since local farmers selected and tested these crops. Local knowledge and foreign skills were used to co-create sustainable agriculture practices.

The initiative also used sensors, drones, and data platforms to monitor soil health, crop development, and weather in real-time. Farmers made resource-efficient and environmentally friendly choices with these data-driven tools. The integration of such technology shows that design-led techniques may develop adaptable, environmentally aware agriculture.

Ecological-cultural landscape planning: Cultural-ecological landscapes reflecting Dong culture were also designed. Residents collaborated to design and build picturesque places and infrastructure that retained ancient architectural types like drum towers and stilted dwellings. This method strengthened the village’s culture and supported green construction.

A community-designed smart greenhouse was a highlight. Modular greenhouses save money and match the local architecture. The greenhouse’s energy-efficient LED lighting and temperature control systems show how combining contemporary technology with local customs may improve culture and the environment. The 3D model of “New Channel·Mujiao Star” Smart Greenhouse Design is presented in Fig. 5. Figure 6 interprets the difference between Conceptual design and proposed 3D model of smart greenhouse.

• (c) Community engagement and co-creation

  The project relied on community input throughout the design phase. Participatory workshops gathered farmer and resident input on agricultural and ecological issues to tailor solutions to community requirements. This participative approach empowers the community and aligns design solutions with the local environment for long-term sustainability.

  Training initiatives gave local farmers the knowledge to handle the new systems autonomously. By actively engaging in design and execution, community people developed a deep connection to the treatments, which improved their efficacy and durability. This co-creation shows how participatory design may transform rural development.

• (d) Outcomes and reflections

Fig. 5: The 3D model of “New Channel·Mujiao Star” smart greenhouse design.

The 3D model in the figure demonstrates the potential for smart greenhouses to enhance agricultural productivity, reduce environmental impact, and promote sustainable rural development in China.

Fig. 6: Conceptual design and proposed 3D model of smart greenhouse.

The figure demonstrates the potential for smart greenhouses to enhance agricultural productivity, reduce environmental impact, and promote sustainable rural development in China. By leveraging technologies like 3D modeling and IoT monitoring, smart greenhouses can optimize resource usage, improve crop yields, and support eco-friendly practices.

The project “New Channel – Mujiao Star” shows how participatory design integrates rural culture and ecology. The initiative boosted agricultural output via aerospace breeding and smart agriculture while conserving Mujiao Village’s culture. The effort demonstrated that participatory design may adapt contemporary advances to rural communities by merging technology and traditional customs. Digital twins and smart logistics systems improved agricultural supply networks, decreasing waste and improving efficiency. These developments have economic and environmental advantages, demonstrating the need to combine technological advances with ecological and cultural concerns in design. This instance shows how design interventions entrenched in the local environment and supported by community engagement may create sustainable and culturally appropriate development models. These findings prepare for the following segment, which will examine Design Reflections’ role in co-evolution and sustainable rural revival.

Including technological developments helps to link design bridges between ecological sustainability, cultural heritage, and technology. The design incorporates modern technology like digital platforms, sustainable materials, and renewable energy systems to optimize the benefits of technological advancements. Respect and inclusion of local cultural inheritance, practices, and values ensure design that technological and environmental changes are appropriate and responsive. The design provides ecological sustainability high importance to ensure that technological and cultural developments are ecologically responsible; so, it helps to minimize environmental repercussions and supports environmentally good actions.

Contributions of design intervention

• Design intervention helped stakeholders to co-create and engage, thereby guaranteeing inclusive, responsive, effective technological and cultural transformations.

• Design participation provides a comprehensive grasp of the local context, thereby enabling the development of ecologically friendly and respectful cultural solutions.

• Design intervention creates full and sustainable solutions using a systems thinking approach, analyzing the interconnection of technological, cultural, and environmental systems.

Strategies derived from design thinking

Emphasizing sympathetic design and addressing the interests, values, and concerns of local stakeholders, design thinking sought to provide culturally sensitive and workable solutions. To guarantee that solutions were effective, durable, and culturally relevant, design thinking promoted prototyping and testing, hence allowing the iterative creation and refining of ideas. Design thinking promotes group projects combining stakeholders from all backgrounds to co-create solutions including technical, cultural, and environmental factors employing collaborative design.

Role of design reflections in cultural and ecological integration

This section examines the “Mujiao Star” project’s participatory design outputs from the perspective of cultural-ecological integration ideas. Mujiao Village’s design-driven route shows how participatory design may revolutionize rural revival via coevolution and value co-creation (Fig. 7). Design is a thoughtful process that naturally combines cultural and ecological resources via new methods, not just a problem-solving technique. Co-creation and systemic design promote multistakeholder cooperation, rural culture and ecological integration, and sustainable development approaches. The results confirm the hypothesis that design-driven cultural and ecological integration revitalizes rural communities by applying theory.

Fig. 7: Design-driven pathway for cultural and ecological resource integration in Mujiao Star Project.

The figure demonstrates the importance of a design-driven approach in integrating cultural and ecological resources, promoting sustainable development, and enhancing community well-being in rural areas.

Design Reflections’ primary value is the multidimensional integration of rural cultural and ecological resources via contemplation and creativity. The participatory design technique emphasizes rural ‘Three Living’ (producing, living, and ecological) settings. The design process transforms cultural and ecological resources from static, isolated components into dynamic, modular units that may be developed, rebuilt, copied, shared, and changed by profound contemplation of their potential and new possibilities. This transition helps find and grow value.

It describes design-driven innovation to identify, repair, and turn rural cultural and natural resources into sustainable development value streams. This road starts with resource discovery and excavation, then value transformation and innovation, and finally sustainable business strategies. The essential components of this graphic and their conformity with the theoretical frameworks mentioned in the preceding material are examined below.

• (a) Excavation and restoration of cultural and ecological resources.

  The first step is cultural and ecological resource excavation and restoration. Local assets including traditional crafts, folklore, and natural landscapes must be valued in rural cultural-ecological integration. These resources are vital for development due to their regional and historical relevance. The Design Reflections method lets designers fully interact with these features and use current design tools to create viable products and services that encourage rural development.

  Mujiao Star’s excavation and restoration approach is reflective rather than resource-based. Designers must comprehend cultural and natural resources’ historical and geographical context to innovate. For instance, using traditional Dong craftsmanship and sustainable design principles, the initiative created goods that preserved culture while satisfying environmental criteria. It increased cultural confidence and ecological consciousness, which boosted regional growth and the economy.

• (b) Cross-sector integration and innovation in new business models

  The second stage stresses the cross-sector integration of cultural, ecological, and economic resources to create new business models. Designer thoughts demonstrate their transdisciplinary creativity in integrating these resources. Through reflective practice, cultural and natural resources become integrated, creating new commercial potential.

  Cross-sector collaboration helped Mujiao Village build agritourism and cultural innovation parks. These programs created diverse and sustainable rural economies via cultural experiences, ecological tourism, and creative enterprises. The initiative boosted the region’s economic and cultural worth by tying tourists to cultural treasures including Dong drum towers and traditional agriculture. This method creates multidimensional business models that improve regional growth and sustainability by merging ecological protection with economic development.

• (c) Community co-creation and systemic development

The final step emphasizes community co-creation in sustainable systems. Designers create rural development initiatives and encourage community cooperation in participatory design. The co-creation paradigm enables community-driven rural redevelopment.

The Mujiao Star initiative shows that community co-creation improves rural sovereignty and ecological management. Designers worked with locals to create community-led cultural and ecological resource management systems to preserve culture and the environment. The co-creation methodology encourages communities to own their history and construct self-sustaining development systems beyond the design intervention. The initiative promoted cultural education and ecological awareness to instill environmental responsibility in the community, contributing to sustainable cultural and ecological growth.

Results and discussion

Mujiao Village’s participatory design approach shows how design can alter rural communities. Cultural and natural resources co-evolve, as shown by empirical data. This case’s findings will be examined in the context of rural cultural-ecological integration to determine how design might maintain rural revival.

Evolution of rural cultural and ecological relationships

After establishing the intersection of culture and ecology, historical analysis shows that human culture has developed with our awareness of natural ecological processes and techniques for using them (Kahn and Gibbons 1997). Hunter-gatherer civilizations gave way to agricultural civilizations, industrial civilizations, and ecological civilization (Cantlon and Koenig 1999).

Cultural forms, economic goals, production strategies, and human-nature interactions have changed throughout this social revolution. Table 2 shows how culture and environment have developed from symbiosis to conflict to peaceful coexistence throughout human history. This progression follows Confucian principles of “harmony between heaven and humanity” (Li 2023), which promote peaceful coexistence.

Table 2 Evolution of the relationship between human culture and ecology.

Table 2 shows the ongoing change of natural and cultural systems as well as their ability for harmonic cohabitation over the following phases:

Human-gatherer civilization: Human civilization began during this period when people lived in harmony with the environment and depended on its resources for sustenance. The cultural traits of this stage, which show a harmonic cohabitation between people and nature, include respect for nature and preservation of a symbiotic interaction with the surroundings.

Agricultural civilization: A major activity became agriculture as human civilization developed. Land farming, crop planting, and respect for natural cycles define this period. This stage set the groundwork for sustainable resource use even if it signaled the start of environmental damage including land deterioration and soil erosion.

Industrial civilization: The Industrial Revolution brought about a major change in human society as urbanization and mass industrial output took the front stage. Environmental damage including air pollution, water pollution, and soil contamination does, however, also define this stage. Dependency on fossil fuels is added to aggravate environmental issues.

The newest phase of human civilization, ecological civilization stresses sustainable growth and ecological equilibrium. Understanding the complexity of ecosystems and a dedication to preserving and restoring ecological services define this stage. Emphasizing biodiversity preservation, ecosystem restoration, and resource recycling as well as the development of sustainable energy sources like solar and wind power show a fresh dedication to peaceful cohabitation between people and the environment.

• (a) Hunter-gatherer civilization: symbiotic relationship between humans and nature

  Ecological resources were essential to human existence throughout the hunter-gatherer period. Culture and nature were interdependent at this point. Hunter-gatherer cultures valued nature and protected the environment. The California Indians worshiped “natural spirits.” Julian Steward noted the interconnection of people, animals, plants, and natural forces. This example also showed how cultural and productive practices like overgrazing may harm the environment (Steward 2005). The Australian Aboriginal “Dreamtime” worldview system saw people as one element of a global community. This cultural system showed strong ecological awareness and human-nature harmony (Hobohm 2021).

• (b) Agricultural civilization: management and utilization of nature

  Culture and ecosystem shifted from dependency and symbiosis to beginning control and development when people became agricultural (Moffatt and Kohler 2008). Humans couldn’t change nature much at this time. They eventually understood natural cycles and planned agriculture and animal husbandry. Agriculture relied on natural resources, but unlike hunter-gatherer tribes, people regulated nature to boost output. As a leading agricultural nation, China has a solid agricultural and ecological base. Ancient Chinese books like the Book of Rites show how solar terms affect agricultural output, emphasizing natural cycles. Ancient Egypt’s periodic Nile flood produced lush plains that fostered agriculture and a cultural and religious framework. Egyptian religion and culture embraced this natural event.

• (c) Industrial civilization: domination and maximization of nature’s utilization

  The shift from agriculture to industry altered ecosystems (Cumming et al. 2014). The industrial age was marked by the exploitation of natural resources, as increasing industrialization saw nature as a source of riches. This time saw the height of the culture-ecology conflict, with large-scale land expansion, mining, and fossil fuel consumption driving economic growth and structural changes. This revolution also brought worldwide uniformity in social forms and institutions, changing the interaction between people and natural systems and producing serious environmental challenges. The late nineteenth-century London smog crisis showed how industry harms the environment.

  Humancentrism dominated the industrial period, causing opposition (Yang 1998). At this period, natural resources were considered inexhaustible and the environment was a trash dump (Bridge 2009). This predatory attitude caused ecological degradation and resource depletion, making this time “anti-ecological” (Bennett 2017).

• (d) Ecological civilization: the return to symbiosis between culture and ecology

After the industrial environmental problems, mankind rethought its connection with nature. Given the interconnectivity of people and ecosystems, Cairns (2007) suggested mutually beneficial co-evolution (Cairns 2007). In ecological economics, Faber et al. (1996) and Giampietro (2003) suggested that cultural evolution, like biological evolution, influences and adapts to ecological environments through social learning and cultural transmission (Faber et al. 1996; Giampietro 2003). The focus on ‘harmonious co-existence between people and nature’ in ecological civilization shows appreciation for natural systems’ complexity and emphasizes culture and ecology’s important role in co-evolution. Taylor believed that a ‘cultural return to nature’ incorporates nature’s beauty with culture to make civilization more sustainable (Germic 1997). This integrated form is popular in philosophy and requires excellent design tools to implement. The participatory design method of ‘New Channel – Mujiao Star’ shows how cultural and natural resources may be merged into a rural community to support sustainable development. This integration revitalizes local sectors like organic agriculture and tourism and safeguards Dong culture via community-led ecological landscape planning. These findings show how participatory design’s coevolutionary method may make rural communities viable and culturally alive, paving the way for rural revival.

The project’s design intervention and stakeholder communication efforts yielded significant results, with 85% of stakeholders reporting improved communication among team members and with the design team, and 90% finding the design intervention tools, such as participatory workshops and co-design sessions, effective in facilitating communication (Tables 3–5). The eight participatory workshops conducted with 120 participants, including farmers, residents, and local authorities, revealed key insights, with 75% identifying the need for sustainable agricultural practices, 60% emphasizing the importance of preserving local culture, and 50% highlighting the need for improved infrastructure. Strategies derived from the workshops included implementing organic farming practices, creating community-led initiatives, and developing eco-tourism programs. Farmers and residents expressed concerns about water scarcity, soil degradation, and climate change, and reported facing challenges in accessing markets, credit, and new technologies. However, 90% reported being satisfied with the design intervention process, and 80% found the participatory workshops helpful. The project also identified barriers, including accessing funding, limited institutional support, and coordinating with local authorities, and proposed solutions, such as establishing partnerships with local organizations, seeking funding from government agencies, and developing community-led initiatives.

Table 3 Design intervention and stakeholder communication.

Table 4 Participatory workshops.

Table 5 Farmers’ and residents’ opinions and concerns.

Conclusions

Rural areas are crucial for ecological civilization’s economic, cultural, and environmental growth due to their natural resources and cultural history. The industrial civilization dichotomy of “culture+” and “ecology−” creates tensions between cultural preservation and ecological protection in rural areas, making it difficult to balance cultural development with ecological conservation for high-quality rural development.

This study carefully reviews the philosophical journey from the Western “dichotomy of culture and ecology” to ecological civilization’s integrated, symbiotic relationship. This coevolutionary theory technique explains how cultural and environmental resource development may be coordinated. By tracing rural culture and ecology from hunter-gatherer societies to ecological civilization, this study provides a context for cultural-ecological integration, emphasizing its importance for modern rural revitalization.

This paper describes a collaborative design approach that implements these ideas. The study introduces co-creation design and systemic design using a coevolutionary method to show that design may link and harmonize cultural and natural resources as well as solve problems. Through intensive engagement with these resources, the design fosters cross-sector integration, value transformation, and sustainable rural industrial growth. A community co-creation strategy helps design and allows locals actively manage and conserve cultural and environmental assets, fostering sustainable development.

Design can revolutionize rural development, as seen in this inventive path. Design boosts rural economies, cultural identities, and ecological sustainability by better harnessing natural resources. The study illustrates how design-driven approaches may encourage high-quality regional growth, giving a theoretical and practical framework for rural development.

Design driven by coevolutionary principles provides a solid platform for integrating rural cultural and natural resources, enabling their harmonious expansion. Designers innovate beyond problem-solving to unlock rural resources’ value. Design-driven innovation will be widely applied and validated across a variety of rural rehabilitation projects, propelling rural landscape regeneration.

Limitations

The research may encounter difficulties in precisely defining and operationalizing “integrated development.” Diverse interpretations and methodologies of integration (e.g., geographical, economic, social, cultural) may result in misunderstandings within the study. Attaining a peaceful equilibrium between the advancement of cultural resources and the conservation of the natural environment may be challenging. The research may encounter difficulties in addressing any conflicts or trade-offs between these two aims. Acquiring extensive and dependable data on cultural and biological resources in rural China presents significant challenges. Historical data about cultural assets may be deficient, whereas ecological data may lack requisite geographical and temporal resolution.