Abstract

The inscription of Xidi and Hongcun as UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 2000 marked a pivotal moment in the preservation of Huizhou culture—one of China’s most distinctive regional architectural and cultural traditions. This case study examines the full arc of the UNESCO preservation journey: from the pre-inscription condition of these ancient villages, through the nomination process and inscription criteria, to the conservation framework implemented over the subsequent 26 years. We analyze the governance structures, management outcomes, economic impacts on local communities, and the challenges that have emerged from World Heritage designation. The case of Xidi and Hongcun offers valuable lessons for heritage practitioners, policymakers, and investors interested in how international heritage frameworks interact with living communities in rural China.

Background: Xidi and Hongcun Before UNESCO

Xidi: The Scholar’s Village (西递)

Founded in 1047 during the Northern Song dynasty, Xidi was established by the Hu clan, descendants of Emperor Zhaowu of Tang. The village reached its golden age during the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) when Hu clan members achieved high ranks in the imperial civil service. At its peak in the late Ming, Xidi had over 600 households and 3,000 residents. By the mid-20th century, the population had declined to approximately 600, and many of the grand ancestral halls had fallen into severe disrepair.

Before the UNESCO nomination, Xidi’s conservation status was precarious. The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) had resulted in the deliberate destruction of many carvings, ancestral tablets, and religious artifacts. The village’s memorial archways—stone structures celebrating virtuous ancestors—were particularly targeted, with 32 of the original 44 archways destroyed or severely damaged. By the late 1980s, the village had no formal conservation plan, and residents were making ad-hoc modifications to their homes: installing modern windows, adding concrete extensions, and replacing traditional tiled roofs with cheaper corrugated metal sheeting.

Hongcun: The Water Village (宏村)

Hongcun was founded later than Xidi, established in 1131 during the Southern Song dynasty by the Wang clan. Its claim to fame is the ingenious Feng Shui-designed water system—a network of canals and ponds that brought fresh spring water to every household through gravity flow, a system that remains functional over 890 years later. Hongcun’s population at founding was modest (approximately 200 families), growing to about 1,500 residents by the Qing dynasty.

Like Xidi, Hongcun suffered from neglect and modernization pressures before UNESCO. By the 1980s, the lake at the village entrance had silted up, many canals were blocked with debris, and the iconic Moon Pond was being used as a laundry and washing area by residents—a practical use that accelerated deterioration of the surrounding architecture. Several ancestral halls had been repurposed as factories during the Maoist era, and the building fabric was compromised by industrial use. The village had no formal sewage system, and untreated wastewater was discharged directly into the canal network.

The UNESCO Nomination Process

The nomination of Xidi and Hongcun began in 1996, initiated by the Anhui Provincial Cultural Heritage Bureau (安徽省文物局) with support from the State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) in Beijing. The nomination dossier was prepared over three years, involving extensive documentation of every historic building in both villages, archaeological surveys of the water systems, oral history interviews with elderly residents, and a comprehensive conservation management plan.

The nomination was classified as a “cultural landscape” rather than a collection of individual buildings—a significant distinction that recognized the villages as integrated systems where architecture, water management, land use, and social organization function as a single heritage entity. This classification, recommended by the ICOMOS evaluation team, was ahead of its time and set a precedent for how living agricultural villages could be assessed for World Heritage status.

Outstanding Universal Value & Inscription Criteria

Xidi and Hongcun were inscribed under three of UNESCO’s ten selection criteria:

Criterion (iii): Bear a unique or exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition

The villages bear exceptional testimony to the Huizhou cultural tradition—a regional civilization that maintained distinctive architectural, artistic, and social practices for over 900 years. The Huizhou merchant culture, which funded the villages’ architectural masterpieces, was one of China’s most influential commercial networks, connecting the mountainous interior of Anhui to the trade routes of the Yangtze River Delta. The ancestral halls, memorial archways, and carved residences of Xidi and Hongcun are the most complete surviving material evidence of this tradition.

Criterion (iv): Be an outstanding example of a type of building ensemble

Both villages are outstanding examples of the Huizhou architectural ensemble, characterized by horse-head walls (马头墙), open courtyards (天井), and the “three carvings” (三雕) of wood, stone, and brick. Hongcun’s water system is particularly significant as an example of Feng Shui applied to urban planning at the village scale. The integration of architecture with a functioning hydraulic engineering system is internationally recognized as exceptional.

Criterion (v): Be an outstanding example of traditional human settlement

Xidi and Hongcun represent traditional human settlement patterns that are now endangered world-wide. The villages demonstrate how pre-industrial Chinese communities organized space around clan structures, Feng Shui principles, and agricultural land use. Both villages remain inhabited agricultural communities, maintaining their original economic base of rice cultivation, tea production, and forestry alongside the tourism economy.

Conservation Framework

Legal Protection

Following UNESCO inscription, Xidi and Hongcun were protected under a multi-layered legal framework:

• National level: China’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics (1982, amended 2017) — provides criminal penalties for damage to designated heritage buildings
• Provincial level: Anhui Province Cultural Relics Protection Regulations (2005) — establishes specific oversight procedures for World Heritage Sites in Anhui
• Local level: Xidi and Hongcun Village Protection Regulations (2001, revised 2010 and 2020) — detailed rules covering building modifications, commercial activities, and resident behavior
• Management plan: The Xidi-Hongcun World Heritage Management Plan (2002–2025, updated every 5 years) — the operational document guiding day-to-day conservation decisions

Building Grading System

Every building in both villages is classified into one of three conservation categories:

Traditional Craft Training Program

A cornerstone of the conservation framework is the Traditional Building Crafts Training Program (传统建筑技艺培训项目), established in 2003 in partnership with Anhui Jianzhu University. The program trains local craftsmen in authentic Huizhou construction techniques: lime mortar mixing, brick carving, wood joinery (without nails), and horse-head wall construction. As of 2026, over 800 craftsmen have completed the program, and certified graduates are the only contractors permitted to work on Grade I and Grade II buildings. The program has been recognized by UNESCO as a best practice example of capacity-building in heritage conservation.

Management & Governance Structure

The management structure for Xidi and Hongcun involves multiple stakeholders with sometimes competing interests:

The most significant governance innovation was the creation of the joint Heritage Management Office in 2001, which has a specific conservation mandate independent of the tourism corporations. The Office submits annual monitoring reports to UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre and has the authority to halt construction projects and revoke business licenses that violate conservation rules—though in practice, political pressure from tourism interests has sometimes overridden this authority.

Challenges & Controversies

Demographic Displacement

The most significant and unresolved challenge is the gradual displacement of the original village population. Since 2000, approximately 60% of residents in Xidi and 55% in Hongcun have moved out, either selling their properties to tourism-related businesses or moving to new housing developments outside the village walls.

Root causes:

• Conservation restrictions prevent building modern amenities (private bathrooms, air conditioning units visible from the street, modern kitchens) within Grade I and II buildings
• Tourism commercialization has made daily life inconvenient—narrow streets clogged with visitors, noise from tour groups from 8 AM to 5 PM, loss of privacy
• Younger generations have no interest in maintaining traditional homes and prefer modern apartments in Tunxi or Hefei
• The economic incentive to sell or lease property to commercial operators (annual lease income of 50,000–200,000 CNY) outweighs the desire to live in a heritage building

This demographic shift threatens the “living heritage” that UNESCO criterion (v) specifically sought to protect. When residents are replaced by shopkeepers and guesthouse operators who have no ancestral connection to the village, the intangible heritage—oral traditions, festivals, cooking practices, social customs—begins to erode.

Tourism Pressure

Visitor numbers have grown from approximately 200,000 per year in 2000 to over 4.5 million per year by 2025 (combined Xidi + Hongcun). Peak season (October–November) sees up to 35,000 visitors per day in Hongcun alone—more than 20 times the village’s resident population. The physical impact of this foot traffic on stone paving, building foundations, and the canal system is a growing concern.

Commercialization of Authenticity

UNESCO designation has transformed village economies from subsistence agriculture to tourism services. Over 70% of ground-floor spaces in both villages are now commercial—restaurants, souvenir shops, tea houses, and guesthouses. While this has brought prosperity (average household income has increased 8x since 2000), it has also created a “theme park” atmosphere where authentic daily life competes with staged authenticity for tourist consumption.

Conservation Outcomes (2000–2026)

The conservation metrics are overwhelmingly positive for the physical fabric of the villages. Structural integrity, traditional craftsmanship revival, and the removal of modern intrusions have all improved dramatically. The visible evidence is unmistakable: walking through Xidi or Hongcun today, the architecture looks more “authentically Ming-Qing” than it did in 2000—the restoration work has been meticulous and aesthetically successful.

Economic Impact on Local Communities

The economic transformation of Xidi and Hongcun has been dramatic and largely positive:

The economic benefits have been substantial, but they are distributed unevenly. Residents with properties on the main tourist streets command premium rents from commercial tenants, while those in back alleys with less foot traffic receive minimal tourism income. The ticket revenue sharing scheme—which distributes a portion of entrance fees to all registered residents regardless of property location—was designed to address this disparity but has been criticized as insufficient (8,000–12,000 CNY per year represents only 12–18% of the average household’s total income).

Lessons for Heritage Preservation

The Xidi and Hongcun case offers several important lessons for heritage practitioners, policymakers, and investors:

1. Physical conservation can succeed while intangible heritage declines. The UNESCO framework’s emphasis on material authenticity does not automatically protect the social and cultural practices that give heritage its meaning. Conservation plans must explicitly budget for intangible heritage preservation—oral history documentation, traditional festival funding, and residency incentives.
2. Tourism revenue is a double-edged sword. Increased tourism provides the economic resources for conservation (ticket revenues fund 60% of the Heritage Management Office’s budget), but it also creates pressures—demographic displacement, commercialization, and physical wear—that require active management. The optimal balance appears to be visitor caps in the range of 1.5–2 million per year per village, far below the current 4.5 million.
3. Local community participation is essential but difficult to maintain. The initial UNESCO nomination process included extensive community consultation, but this engagement has declined over time. Regular community feedback mechanisms—annual village assemblies, resident satisfaction surveys, and management plan consultations—must be institutionalized rather than treated as a one-time exercise.
4. Buffer zone enforcement requires political will. The most damaging visual intrusions to the heritage landscape have come not from within the villages but from the periphery: a 7-story hotel built within the buffer zone in 2015 (approved despite Heritage Management Office objections), elevated roads, and telecommunications towers. Buffer zone protection is only as strong as the political independence of the enforcing authority.
5. Adaptive reuse can support conservation. Converting underutilized Grade III buildings into guesthouses, museums, and craft workshops provides economic incentives for maintenance while adding interpretive value. Over 120 traditional buildings in both villages have been successfully adapted for tourism-compatible uses since 2000, generating income that funds ongoing maintenance of the structures themselves.
6. International designation creates accountability but cannot substitute for local governance. UNESCO’s monitoring framework requires annual reporting and periodic reactive monitoring missions, which create accountability pressure. However, the day-to-day decisions that determine conservation outcomes—building permit approvals, infrastructure projects, tourism management—depend on local government capacity and integrity. International designation is a complement to good local governance, not a substitute.

Conclusion

The UNESCO World Heritage inscription of Xidi and Hongcun in 2000 has been, on balance, a remarkable success for the physical preservation of Huizhou architecture. The villages that visitors experience today are structurally more sound, aesthetically more authentic, and better interpreted than at any point in the past 70 years. The revival of traditional crafts, the restoration of the water system, and the removal of modern intrusions represent genuine conservation achievements.

However, the case also reveals the limitations of the World Heritage framework when applied to living communities. The decline in original resident population, the erosion of intangible cultural practices, and the tension between tourism commercialization and cultural authenticity are challenges that the UNESCO designation alone could not—and cannot—resolve. These are not failures of the UNESCO system per se, but rather inherent tensions in any heritage preservation model that attempts to “freeze” a living community in time while simultaneously relying on that community’s economic transformation through tourism.

For heritage investors and cultural tourism developers, the lessons from Xidi and Hongcun are clear: UNESCO designation provides a powerful framework for physical conservation, visitor attraction, and funding mobilization, but it must be complemented by proactive community engagement policies, visitor management strategies, and intangible heritage programs. The villages that succeed over the long term will be those that treat their residents—not just their buildings—as the heritage worth preserving.

References & Further Reading

• UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2000). “Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui — Xidi and Hongcun.” Nomination Dossier. Paris: UNESCO.
• ICOMOS. (2000). “Evaluation of Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui.” Advisory Body Evaluation for World Heritage Committee, 24th Session, Cairns.
• Anhui Provincial Cultural Heritage Bureau. (2002). “Xidi-Hongcun World Heritage Management Plan 2002–2025.” Hefei: Anhui Provincial Government Press.
• Wang, S. & Li, J. (2012). “Tourism Development and Heritage Conservation in Chinese World Heritage Villages: The Case of Xidi and Hongcun.” Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(3), 243–258.
• Zhou, L. (2020). “Twenty Years After UNESCO: Assessing Conservation Outcomes in Xidi and Hongcun.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(4), 389–405.
• UNESCO World Heritage Committee. (2023). “State of Conservation Report — Xidi and Hongcun (China).” 45th Session, Riyadh.