Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

RETRACTED: Synergistic development of intangible cultural heritage and tourism industry: Empirical experiences from Jilin, China

Retraction

The PLOS One Editors retract this article [1] due to concerns about potential manipulation of the publication process. These concerns call into question the validity and provenance of the reported results. We regret that the issues were not identified prior to the article’s publication.

All authors either did not respond directly or could not be reached.

23 Feb 2026: The PLOS One Editors (2026) Retraction: Synergistic development of intangible cultural heritage and tourism industry: Empirical experiences from Jilin, China. PLOS ONE 21(2): e0343268. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343268 View retraction

Abstract

This study focuses on the Jilin region of China, conducting a multidimensional assessment of the current state of the synergistic development between Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and the tourism industry in the area. The objective is to explore the issues surrounding the coordinated development of ICH and the tourism sector. The findings are as follows: 1) The overall coupling degree between the ICH and tourism systems in the Jilin region is 0.7851, with 91.99% of the indicators falling within the high correlation range and 8.01% within the very high correlation range, indicating a strong coupling effect between the two systems; 2) Structural coupling analysis shows that the coupling degree is highest in Changchun City and weakest in Baicheng City. In Changchun, the proportions of indicators in Quadrant I (maintain current status) are 50%, 50%, and 54.84%, respectively, while in Baicheng, the proportions in Quadrant II (priority improvement) reach 50%, 63.5%, and 47.5%, respectively; 3) Dynamic coupling analysis reveals that from 2008 to 2022, the ICH and tourism systems in the Jilin region exhibited a trend of coordinated development. This study not only confirms the synergistic relationship between ICH and the tourism industry, enriching theoretical research in this field, but also provides practical guidance for other regions seeking to achieve coordinated development between ICH and tourism, thereby holding significant practical value.

Citation: Lv J, Chai Y, Hu X (2025) RETRACTED: Synergistic development of intangible cultural heritage and tourism industry: Empirical experiences from Jilin, China. PLoS ONE 20(1): e0313421. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313421

Editor: Andrea Antonio Guido Caragliu, Politecnico di Milano, ITALY

Received: June 4, 2024; Accepted: October 23, 2024; Published: January 16, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 Lv et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was supported in part by the Science and Technology Research Planning Project of Jilin Provincial Department of Education (Grant No. JJKH20230351KJ). This fund provided essential conditions and resources for the research, although it was not directly utilized in the writing of this manuscript. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

With the diversification of tourist consumption demands, the tourism market is transitioning from a single focus on sightseeing to a model that integrates leisure vacations with sightseeing [1]. In this context, cultural tourism has emerged as a new trend in the development of the tourism industry [2]. The synergistic development of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and the tourism industry demonstrates the dual advantages of both cultural and tourism industries, contributing to the building of a culturally strong nation while meeting the diverse consumption needs of tourists, aligning with current tourism development trends [3]. ICH refers to the various traditional cultural expressions passed down through generations, regarded as part of a nation’s cultural heritage. These resources include oral traditions and expressions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe, and traditional craftsmanship, as well as the physical items and places associated with these cultural expressions [4]. As a representative of the orderly transmission of traditional culture, ICH encapsulates the achievements of a nation’s civilization and holds significant historical and cultural value, garnering considerable international attention [5]. In 2003, UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH, and since then, it has been joined by 178 member states [6]. In 2016, China issued the "Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of ICH," proposing a protection policy focused on "protection first, rescue as a priority, rational utilization, and strengthened management" [7]. By the end of 2022, China had 1,557 national-level representative ICH projects and 42 projects listed in UNESCO’s Representative List of the ICH of Humanity, ranking first in the world. Additionally, a four-tier protection system at the national, provincial, municipal, and county levels has been established [8]. The synergistic development of ICH and the tourism industry refers to the promotion of ICH protection and transmission through the development of the tourism industry, while the unique charm of ICH enhances the attractiveness of tourism. This synergistic development model not only promotes the effective utilization of cultural resources but also drives sustainable economic growth, achieving a win-win situation for both culture and the economy [9]. Therefore, exploring the issue of ICH and tourism industry synergistic development holds significant practical importance. By verifying the synergistic development relationship and mechanisms between ICH and the tourism industry, this study aims to better guide the coordinated development of these sectors, providing valuable insights for policymakers and related industries. Focusing on this issue, the present study takes the Jilin region of China as the research subject to deeply explore the mechanisms and pathways for the synergistic development of ICH and the tourism industry.

Research on the development of ICH and the tourism industry has long been a focal point in academic circles. As research perspectives continue to broaden, analyses have become more in-depth, and research methods have diversified, leading to significant achievements in related fields. However, while there has been some exploration of the coordinated development of ICH and the tourism industry, these studies are often fragmented. They tend to focus on individual aspects such as the value elements of ICH and tourism [10], the intrinsic driving mechanisms behind the integration of culture and tourism [11–14], and theoretical discussions on the synergistic development models of ICH and tourism [15–17]. Systematic and quantitative analyses in this area remain relatively scarce. The coupling development of ICH and the tourism industry involves the interplay of numerous indicators and factors across both systems, making quantitative research critically important.

In light of this, the present study employs a multi-model coupling evaluation approach, focusing on the Jilin region. Specifically, the study integrates the Grey Relational Model, the CPA Model, and the Entropy Change Model to comprehensively evaluate the coupling development of the ICH system and the tourism industry system from the perspectives of relational coupling, structural coupling, and dynamic coupling. The Grey Relational Model is a quantitative tool used to analyze the interrelationships between various factors within systems. By calculating the grey relational degree among these factors, the model assesses the impact of different factors on system changes, thereby determining the level of relational coupling [18]. The CPA Model, on the other hand, is used to evaluate the importance and actual performance of different indicators within a system. This model helps to understand the contribution of various indicators to the system’s coupling development and identifies directions for improvement, thereby determining the level of structural coupling [19]. Finally, the Entropy Change Model is a quantitative method for analyzing the order and disorder within a system. By calculating the changes in the system’s entropy values, this model assesses the system’s stability and structural changes, which are used to determine the level of dynamic coupling [20]. Compared to existing research, this study emphasizes a quantitative research approach that combines these three models to analyze the coupling development mechanisms between ICH and the tourism industry from multiple perspectives. This research approach contributes to enriching the theoretical framework of studies on the synergistic development of ICH and the tourism industry, offering new analytical insights and methodological support for future research. Additionally, this approach provides policymakers and managers with new decision-making perspectives and a solid basis for promoting the development of ICH-related tourism, making it highly significant for advancing ICH tourism.

2. Literature review

2.1 Research on the protection of ICH

Since the promulgation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH, there has been a growing body of research on ICH globally. While different scholars approach the study of ICH protection from various perspectives, most recognize the critical importance of protecting ICH [21–23]. The concept of cultural diversity is widely acknowledged among scholars, with many agreeing that safeguarding ICH is a key method for preserving cultural diversity [24,25]. Building on this concept, related research further emphasizes the role of ICH in promoting mutual understanding and respect between different cultures [26,27].

In terms of specific protective measures, traditional approaches can be categorized into three main types: museum-based protection, policy and institutional-based protection, and legislative protection. Museum protection is one of the most common methods for safeguarding ICH, particularly for tangible ICH items. Museums are regarded as one of the most effective means of protection. Numerous studies affirm the crucial role of museums in ICH preservation and emphasize that museums can enhance public awareness and participation in ICH protection. With the advancement of technology, the protective capabilities of museums for ICH are expected to increase further [28–30]. Regarding policy and institutional-based protection, these measures tend to focus on creating an environmental foundation for ICH protection. Research has confirmed that systematic management policies and institutional frameworks are essential for ensuring effective ICH protection. Ma & Guo (2023) analyzed the dynamic changes in China’s ICH protection policies, underscoring the critical role of government in safeguarding ICH [31]. Similarly, Ma (2023) recognized the importance of the government’s role in ICH protection and systematically analyzed the management roles and strategies employed by the government [32]. On a different note, Zhang et al. (2023) explored the policy dimension by focusing on the training of ICH inheritors, offering policy recommendations in this area [33]. Legislative protection, as a mandatory and highly effective protective measure, has attracted considerable scholarly attention. The study by Li & Zheng (2020), for instance, focused on the protection of China’s Grand Canal and proposed several legislative measures [34]. Unlike studies that focus on the legislative protection of specific ICH, other research tends to systematically review the current legal frameworks supporting ICH protection and propose suggestions for improvement [35,36].

Traditional protective measures have provided essential support for the preservation and development of ICH, but their limitations have gradually become apparent. With the deepening of globalization, an increasing number of scholars have started to focus on protective measures that involve development-oriented approaches, leading to a growing body of research in this direction. In recent years, scholars have begun exploring how to protect and transmit ICH through cultural industry development and commercialization strategies. These studies mainly focus on the fields of cultural industries, tourism development, and digital technology, aiming to find a balance between the preservation and utilization of ICH in modern society. In the realm of tourism development, research by Luo et al. (2022) suggests that integrating ICH with local economies through the tourism industry can not only promote cultural dissemination but also generate economic benefits for local communities [37]. This win-win situation has made tourism development an important strategy for ICH protection. However, scholars also caution that excessive reliance on commercialized tourism development may lead to the commodification and distortion of cultural heritage [38,39]. Therefore, an important current research topic is how to balance the preservation of cultural authenticity with the economic potential of ICH. The rise of the cultural industry offers new avenues for the sustainable development of ICH. Through market-driven operations, the cultural industry can provide financial support for ICH protection while also extending its cultural significance through innovative business models. Yuan et al. (2022) [3] examined the coupling mechanisms and development models for integrating and revitalizing ICH through cultural tourism in Hunan Province, China. While this study shares some similarities with the present research, it primarily focuses on analyzing the spatial relationships between ICH and the cultural tourism industry. The advancement of digital technology has introduced even more possibilities for ICH protection. Tang & Zhang (2023) pointed out that digital methods can not only preserve and disseminate ICH more efficiently but also enhance public engagement [40]. However, this approach also faces challenges, such as maintaining the authenticity and cultural value of heritage during the digitization process. Therefore, digital protection measures need to complement traditional methods to ensure the continued transmission of ICH in modern society.

The concept of protecting ICH through development-oriented approaches has increasingly gained the attention of scholars, particularly in the context of the synergistic development of ICH and the tourism industry. This approach is recognized as an effective strategy for ICH preservation and has become a focal point of academic research. This study is grounded in the unique value of this development approach, which is why it adopts this perspective as its entry point. By employing quantitative methods, the study aims to enrich the research perspectives in this field and propose win-win strategies that promote both ICH protection and the development of the tourism industry.

2.2 Research on the synergistic development of ICH and the tourism industry

The issue of synergistic development between ICH and the tourism industry has increasingly attracted significant attention from scholars, leading to a proliferation of related studies. Scholars hold two distinctly opposing views on the impact of this synergistic development. Those with a negative perspective, such as Christina et al., argue that tourism development can damage cultural resources [41]. Similarly, Luo et al. believe that there is an inherent conflict between preservation and development [42]. On the other hand, some scholars advocate that tourism development has a positive impact on ICH projects and the socio-economic development of local communities. They argue that ICH holds substantial economic value, and tourism development can provide it with the necessary space for survival, thereby promoting its protection and transmission [43,44]. The relationship between ICH tourism development and its preservation and transmission is seen as mutually reinforcing. Properly balancing the relationship between preservation and development can contribute to the effective protection and transmission of ICH [45].

As the tourism value of ICH gradually becomes more evident, an increasing number of ICH projects have been identified and transformed into resources that drive the development of the tourism industry. However, not all ICH projects are suitable for tourism development [46]. Consequently, scholars have begun to conduct in-depth studies on the tourism development potential of ICH resources. They explore the value of ICH tourism development from various perspectives, primarily focusing on the economic and social benefits of ICH projects. Barrio et al., for instance, studied traditional festival-related ICH and developed a tourism value assessment index system based on metrics such as management efficiency, economic impact evaluation, and individual value distribution [47]. In contrast, Ferretti Valentina approached the issue from the perspective of stakeholders. She established an evaluation framework for cultural and natural heritage systems based on multi-attribute value theory and conducted empirical research on specific tourist destinations and ICH projects [48]. The implementation of ICH protection through tourism development is widely recognized by scholars not only as an effective means of promoting regional economic growth but also as a necessary measure for cultural transmission and the formation of cultural identity. This broad consensus underscores the dual role of tourism in supporting both economic and cultural objectives.

Building on this foundation, scholars have proposed various models for the synergistic development of ICH and tourism from different perspectives. These models include "museum + tourism," thematic development, festival integration, and historical village cultural experiences. Utilizing museum tourism to showcase the intangible value of ICH is a common synergy model. Many countries have implemented similar approaches, such as cultural centers dedicated to displaying ICH [49], Robben Island-themed ICH tours [50], and rural cultural museums [51]. The thematic development model is also widespread and includes initiatives such as ICH-focused culinary tourism [52], folk life tours [53], creative ICH tourism [54], and the dual-themed promotion model of "natural heritage + ICH" [55]. These models not only enrich the content of tourism products, increasing the visibility and transmission of ICH, but also bring new impetus to local economic and cultural development. The festival integration model develops ICH tourism through various festivals. Some scholars have pointed out that ICH can be showcased through live performances, local markets, and folk festivals, which can attract tourists and enhance the tourism appeal of ICH [56,57]. Specific themed festivals, such as music heritage tourism festivals, can draw large numbers of targeted tourist groups, contributing to a substantial audience base [58]. The historical village cultural experience model is also prevalent. Countries such as Portugal, the Marshall Islands, and Spain have developed different types of cultural experiences in historical villages, attracting numerous tourists. Portugal, for instance, has restored ancient castles and houses, hosting traditional festivals and handicraft demonstrations to attract visitors to experience medieval culture [59]. The Marshall Islands combine ecological and cultural elements, showcasing indigenous lifestyles and traditional crafts [60]. Spain integrates historical architecture, art, and cuisine to create culturally rich tourism routes that allow visitors to explore historical sites while enjoying authentic local food and cultural performances [61]. These models not only enhance the diversity of tourism products and promote the protection and transmission of local culture but also provide new growth points for local economies.

As the integration of ICH with the tourism industry continues to advance, research in this area has deepened, leading to the emergence of new integration models and linkages, such as artificial intelligence, tourism IPs, and geographical indication brands. These models are gradually becoming more mature. However, a review of existing research reveals that most studies remain at the theoretical level, broadly discussing the synergistic development models of ICH and the tourism industry. There is a notable gap in research that quantitatively analyzes the level of synergy between ICH and the tourism industry and uses this analysis to verify the mechanisms of their interaction. Such an approach is crucial for offering more targeted policy recommendations. In light of this, the present study adopts a quantitative approach to analyze the level of synergistic development between ICH and the tourism industry in the Jilin region of China. By doing so, the study aims to identify effective pathways for enhancing the synergy between these two sectors, ultimately contributing to the formulation of strategies that can better promote both ICH preservation and tourism development.

3. Research methodology

3.1 Research variables

3.1.1 ICH development level.

Drawing on existing research in the field and considering the development status of ICH in Jilin Province, a comprehensive evaluation index system was developed to quantify and analyze the development level of ICH in the region, which includes aspects such as its protection, utilization, transmission, and sustainable management. The purpose of constructing this system is to provide a necessary foundation for measuring the level of synergy between ICH and the tourism industry in subsequent analyses. Adhering to the principles of comprehensiveness, quantifiability, and data availability, the index system is organized into four primary indicators: Development Level, Development Quality, Public Services, and Support Level. Each primary indicator is further subdivided into two secondary indicators, resulting in a total of eight secondary indicators. These are further broken down into 31 tertiary indicators. The specific details are presented Table 1 in S1 Appendix.

  1. (1) Development Level

The development level, as a primary indicator, aims to assess the promotion and utilization of ICH projects. This indicator was chosen because the development level directly reflects the extent of ICH dissemination and its economic benefits, which is crucial for evaluating its commercial value and sustainable development potential. The development level consists of two secondary indicators: Scale of development (f1) and Economic benefits (f2). These two indicators reflect the overall scale and outcomes of ICH development and utilization from different perspectives, while also assessing its ability to provide public cultural services. The development scale includes three tertiary indicators: value of total ICH output, value added of ICH output, and ICH gross production taxes. These indicators collectively evaluate the economic contribution and impact of intangible cultural heritage in society. The economic benefits indicator includes three tertiary indicators: total labor productivity in ICH production,ICH production efficiency growth rate, and ICH output margin. These indicators directly reflect the production efficiency and profitability of ICH projects.

  1. (2) Quality of development

Quality of development is an objective assessment of the prospects and feasibility of ICH industry development. This indicator was chosen to comprehensively reflect the market potential and resource allocation of ICH, which is important for evaluating its sustainable development capacity. Development quality consists of two secondary indicators: market development (f3) and Cultural resources (f4). Market development assesses the degree of marketization of intangible cultural heritage projects, while cultural resources measure the distribution and structure of resources associated with ICH projects. By evaluating market potential and resource status, development quality can be reflected. Market development includes four tertiary indicators: the number of ICH-based business units, the number of ICH industry cluster villages and towns, the number of traditional enterprises, and demonstration zones and cultural and ecological reserves. These indicators collectively reflect the marketization level and economic activity of ICH. Cultural resources include six tertiary indicators: density of national and world-class ICH resources, provincial ICH resource density, municipal ICH resource density, ICH resource density at district (county) level, spatial access to cultural resources and spatial proximity of cultural resources. These indicators collectively assess the richness of ICH resources and their spatial distribution.

  1. (3) Public services

Public services refer to the services provided to the public through ICH projects, aimed at promoting the dissemination, protection, and utilization of intangible cultural heritage, as well as enhancing public awareness and participation. Public services were selected as a primary indicator to measure the social impact and outreach of ICH, which is crucial for assessing its social benefits. Public services are composed of two secondary indicators: cultural services (f5) and infrastructure (f6). Cultural services evaluate the presentation and participation levels in ICH projects, while infrastructure measures the environment for showcasing and researching ICH. Cultural services include four tertiary indicators: exhibitions organized, the number of participants, ICH exhibition visitors, and ICH training course shifts. These indicators collectively reflect the promotion and dissemination of ICH in public cultural services. Infrastructure includes four tertiary indicators: the number of ICH museums, the number of ICH research institutes, the number of cultural centers and stations, and ICH exhibition and performance area. These indicators together assess the hardware support and infrastructure development for ICH.

  1. (4) Protection Level

Protection level aims to assess the financial and human resources necessary for the protection and development of ICH. This indicator was chosen because the support level directly impacts the sustainable development and protection effectiveness of ICH, making it critical for evaluating its long-term development. The support level consists of two secondary indicators: financial guarantee (f7) and human resources support(f8). Financial support assesses the extent of government attention to the protection and development of ICH, while human resources support evaluates the level of human resources dedicated to ICH protection and development, including practitioners, researchers, and apprentices. Financial support includes three tertiary indicators: central government grants to local ICH projects, fiscal subsidies, and financial support for heritage transmission. These indicators collectively reflect the government’s financial investment in ICH protection and development. Human resources support includes four tertiary indicators: the number of ICH practitioners, the number of heritage transmitters, the number of ICH research scientists, and the number of apprentices trained in training courses. These indicators collectively assess the support provided for talent cultivation and the transmission of ICH.

3.1.2 Tourism development level.

With the deepening of the tourism industry and the innovation of new business models, this study constructs a comprehensive tourism development evaluation index system. This system is based on the principles of index system construction, drawing on the strengths and methodologies of existing tourism industry evaluation frameworks developed by relevant scholars. Considering the current development status of the tourism industry and various factors influencing its growth, a relatively complete evaluation system for the comprehensive development of the tourism industry has been exploratively constructed. The purpose of this system is to quantify and analyze the development level of the tourism industry in the Jilin region, providing a necessary foundation for subsequent measurement of the synergy between ICH and tourism development. The system is composed of four primary indicators: Economic Development Level, Environmental Carrying Capacity, Construction Support Level, and Sustainable Development Level. These are further divided into 12 secondary indicators and 62 tertiary indicators (Table 2 in S1 Appendix). The specific content is as follows:

  1. (1) Level of economic development

The level of economic developmentis a key indicator for assessing industry status and competitiveness. This metric is chosen to comprehensively evaluate the economic returns, market scale, and development status of core enterprises within the industry, thereby reflecting the tourism sector’s contribution to regional economic development. The level of economic development is composed of three secondary indicators: industry benefits (l1), market size (l2) and core enterprises (l3). Industry benefits measure the economic returns of the sector and the operational status of tourism organizations, while market scale assesses the competitiveness of urban tourism and the current market supply-demand dynamics. Core enterprises evaluate the competitiveness and sustainable development of the tourism industry. Industry benefits include eight tertiary indicators: revenue from out-of-country tourism, domestic tourism revenue, annual growth rate of industry revenue, revenue as a proportion of GDP, industry share of the tertiary sector, overall labor productivity, total number of employees, and employment contribution rate. These indicators collectively evaluate the economic benefits and social impact of the tourism industry. Market scale includes eight tertiary indicators: festivals co-organized by national ministries, festivals organized by municipal governments, festivals organized by district and county governments, number of inbound tourists per year, annual domestic tourist arrivals, annual tourism promotion participants, number of performing arts organizations, and number of performances by performing arts organizations. These indicators collectively reflect the scale and attractiveness of the tourism market. Core enterprises include eight tertiary indicators: number of hotels, proportion of themed and specialty hotels, number of star-rated hotel rooms, annual occupancy rate, number of budget and social hotel rooms, number of travel agencies, number of entertainment venues, and number of shopping venues. These indicators collectively assess the development status and market position of core enterprises.

  1. (2) Environmental Carrying Level

The environmental carrying level provides resources, dynamics and facilities for the tourism industry and is key to promoting the development of tourism attractions. This indicator is chosen because the environmental carrying level directly affects the attractiveness, sustainability and tourist experience of tourism destinations. The environmental carrying level consists of three secondary indicators: tapped tourism resources (l4), environmental quality (l5) and facilities services (l6). Among them, the quality of tourism resources affects the selection of tourism destinations and industrial development, the quality of the environment is related to the survival and healthy development of the tourism industry, and the facilities and services are the basis for the development of the tourism industry. Tapped tourism resources include six tertiary indicators: the density of scenic spots of 4A and above, the density of scenic spots of 3A and below, the number of national ecotourism demonstration zones, the number of national tourist resorts, the number of national historical and cultural cities (towns and villages), and the spatial proximity of resources, which together reflect the richness and uniqueness of tourism resources. Environmental quality includes three three-level indicators: green space per capita, urban road area per capita, and the number of days with good atmospheric quality, which together assess the quality and sustainability of the tourism environment. Facilities and services include 5 three-level indicators: the number of distribution centers, the number of service centers, the number of toilets per 10,000 people, the number of self-driving tourism service organizations and the level of image construction, which together assess the degree of improvement of tourism infrastructure and services.

  1. (3) Construction security level

Construction security level measures the capacity and coverage of the tourism industry to provide services to the public and is the basis for the healthy development of the industry. This indicator is chosen because the level of construction security directly affects the service capacity, coverage and overall development of the tourism industry. The level of construction guarantee is composed of three secondary indicators: transportation guarantee (l7), talent guarantee (l8) and financial guarantee (l9). Among them, transportation security includes the assessment of transportation facilities and services, talent security includes the assessment of human resources required for industrial development, and financial security includes the assessment of financial inputs for industrial development. Transportation security includes seven tertiary indicators: highway density, railroad density, highway passenger traffic volume, railroad dispatch volume, number of urban public transportation lines, proximity to transportation facilities and access to transportation, which together assess the coverage and convenience of tourism transportation facilities and services. Talent security includes 5 three-level indicators: the number of students enrolled in majors, the degree of professional relevance of employees, the percentage of employees with tertiary education or above, the number of licensed tour guides and the number of people trained for tourism positions, which together assess the quality and training of employees in the tourism industry. Financial security includes three three-level indicators: the amount of investment in fixed assets, the amount of special funds and the amount of foreign investment, which together assess the financial support of the state and society for the development of the tourism industry.

  1. (4) Level of sustainable development

The level of sustainable development is used to assess the long-term development potential and sustainability of the tourism industry and is an important indicator for ensuring the healthy development of the tourism industry. This indicator is chosen because the sustainability level can comprehensively reflect the performance of the tourism industry in terms of tourist satisfaction, willingness to revisit and future development potential. The sustainable development level consists of three secondary indicators: tourism satisfaction (l10), the capacity degree of tourists’ repeat tourism rate (l11) and tourism development potential (l12). Among them, tourism satisfaction is used to measure tourists’ sense of acquisition and happiness, as well as local residents’ sense of cultural security and satisfaction with the tourism industry, tourists’ revisit rate capacity degree is used to measure tourism development potential, which is a guarantee to improve tourism satisfaction and enhance its own sustainable development, and tourism development potential is used to measure the sustainable development capacity and future potential capacity of the tourism industry. Tourism satisfaction consists of three three-level indicators: traveler satisfaction, local residents’ support for tourism, and satisfaction with the handling of tourism complaints, which together assess the satisfaction of tourists and local residents. Tourist revisit rate Capacity includes 3 three-level indicators: spatial capacity index, ecological capacity index and economic capacity degree, which together reflect the carrying capacity and sustainability of the destination. Tourism development potential includes 3 three-level indicators: source market attractiveness, comprehensive resource potential and potential economic support, which together assess the potential development capacity and future growth opportunities of the tourism industry.

3.2 Data sources

The data for this study were mainly obtained from the statistical yearbooks and cultural yearbooks of Jilin Province and prefecture-level cities, including the statistical data of Changchun City, Jilin City, Siping City, Liaoyuan City, Tonghua City, Baishan City, Songyuan City, Baicheng City, and Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture. In addition, some of the data come from the propaganda departments, statistics bureaus, culture and tourism departments at the provincial and prefectural levels, as well as websites such as Tourism.com. These data comprehensively reflect the development of the tourism industry in Jilin Province and prefecture-level cities. Data on ICH come mainly from the Jilin Provincial Department of Culture and Tourism, the culture and tourism bureaus of prefecture-level cities, the Jilin ICH Protection Center and the protection centers of prefecture-level cities, as well as from the Culture Yearbook and the ICH Research Center. Since the safeguarding of ICH was initiated in 2005 and the first national lists were recognized in 2006, the statistics have been gradually improved. This study systematically examines the integrated development trajectory of ICH and tourism industry in Jilin Province.

Data from Jilin Province and nine prefecture-level cities from 2008 to 2022 were selected to analyze the level and spatial and temporal evolution characteristics of the integrated development of ICH and tourism industry. For missing data or statistical outliers, the difference correction method of neighboring years is used to supplement.

3.3 Model construction

3.3.1 Coupled evaluation model of relevance.

To analyze the relational coupling level between the ICH and tourism industry systems, we employed the Grey Relational Model. This model is used to calculate the grey relational degree between the various elements of the systems, thereby exploring the coupling relationships between them. It allows for the analysis of the main stressors or constraints within the systems and the overall degree of correlation. The reason for choosing the Grey Relational Model lies in its ability to quantify the relationships between systems, providing an objective coupling evaluation that helps identify the key factors influencing the coordinated development of ICH and the tourism industry in the Jilin region. This analysis not only reveals the strength of the coupling interactions between the two systems but also offers a scientific basis for optimizing policy formulation and resource allocation, thereby promoting the sustainable and coordinated development of ICH and the tourism industry in Jilin.

  1. (1) According to the index system of ICH and tourism industry, the grey correlation between elements is calculated after standardizing the data:

Where ξij(t) is the grey correlation between the ICH indicators and the tourism industry indicators; and are the standardized values of the two types of evaluation indicators; ρ is the discrimination coefficient, which takes the value of 0.5.

  1. (2) Next, the gray correlation is calculated according to the mean value of the sample number k, so as to construct the gray correlation matrix, which concentrates on the interconnection level of the elements of ICH and tourism industry system. The value of γij in the matrix is between 0 and 1. The larger the value, the stronger the correlation between elements and the higher the coupling; the smaller the value, the weaker the correlation between elements and the lower the coupling. The arithmetic average and ranking of the results of the gray correlation can identify the main influencing factors of the coupling effect of the ICH system on the tourism industry system and the main influencing factors of the coupling effect of the tourism industry system on the ICH system, respectively.
  2. (3) Calculate the coupling degree between the systems to determine the coupling association between the ICH system and the tourism industry system in Jilin Province. The coupling degree C(t) is calculated as follows:

3.3.2 Structural coupling evaluation models.

Based on the analysis of the relationships between the various criteria layers and specific indicators within the systems, we drew on the Performance Analysis (PA) method to study the structural coupling between the two systems. Structural coupling is not traditionally limited to the statistical observation values of the research objects as the sole analytical standard. Instead, it simultaneously considers the degree to which these indicators influence the coupling effect between the systems. This approach is an analytical method based on two-dimensional combined structural data.

The core of the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) method lies in analyzing the I-P combination of the research objects, namely the importance and actual performance within a four-quadrant matrix. This study introduces this concept by combining the primary, secondary, and tertiary indicators of the systems with their actual performance, forming a C-P combination, which is then used to evaluate the structural coupling between the two systems. This approach is referred to as the Combination-Performance Analysis (CPA) method. We employed the CPA model to analyze the structural coupling level between the ICH and tourism industry systems. The rationale for using the CPA model lies in the fact that traditional coupling evaluation methods typically consider only statistical observation values, which may not fully reflect the relative importance of the indicators. The CPA model integrates both the actual performance of the indicators and their relational degree, providing a more comprehensive coupling evaluation that helps to identify key factors influencing the coordinated development of ICH and the tourism industry in the Jilin region.

In the CPA structural coupling analysis matrix, the Y-axis represents the relational degree, while the X-axis represents the actual performance or statistical observation values, with the intersection point being the arithmetic mean of the study period for both systems. In the CPA structural coupling matrix (see Fig 1), the indicators are divided into four quadrants, each representing different states of relational degree and actual performance: Indicators in the first quadrant ("Keep up the good work") have a high relational degree and perform well, indicating that they are performing excellently under current conditions and should be maintained; indicators in the second quadrant ("Concentrate here") have a high relational degree but poor actual performance, suggesting that these indicators require focused improvement to enhance their performance; indicators in the third quadrant ("Low priority") have both low relational degree and poor actual performance, indicating that these indicators can be treated as low priority and do not require urgent improvement; and indicators in the fourth quadrant ("Possible overkill") have a low relational degree but perform well, suggesting that these indicators are currently performing well and can be allowed to develop naturally. Through this analysis, the priority and direction for improvement of each indicator within the quadrants can be clearly determined, thereby enabling more targeted resource allocation and policy formulation.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. CPA structural coupling matrix diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313421.g001

3.3.3 Coupled evaluation model for dynamics.

To analyze the dynamic coupling level between the ICH and tourism industry systems, we employed the Entropy Change Model. This model assesses the coupling coordination state between the two systems at different time points by calculating the rate of change and speed difference within the systems, thereby identifying the developmental trends and shifts between them. The reason for using the Entropy Change Model lies in its ability to dynamically monitor the coordination state of systems over time, making it particularly suitable for large-scale empirical research and practical applications. Through this analysis, it is possible to uncover the long-term development trends between the ICH and tourism industry systems in Jilin, providing a scientific basis for policy formulation and resource allocation, thus promoting the coordinated development of culture and economy within the region.

Based on the matrix model idea, the coupled entropy change discriminating standard of ICH and tourism in Jilin Province is constructed, and the standard contents are as follows:

Quadrant I is the coupling coordination zone, i.e., when both ΔL(t) and ΔC(t) are positive, both systems of ICH and tourism industry are in an upward trend. Quadrant III is the decline zone, i.e., when both ΔL(t) and ΔC(t) are negative, both systems are in decline. In addition, when one of the quadrants is zero and the other is negative, then one of them remains unchanged and the other is in recession. There are two different combinations of scenarios in Quadrant II and Quadrant IV. The first case is the Basic Harmonization Zone, in which ΔL(t)>0,ΔC(t)<0 and |ΔC(t)/C(t−Δt)|<ε, or ΔL(t)<0,ΔC(t)>0 and |ΔL(t)/L(t−Δt)|<ε, when ε takes the value of 15%. In the former case, the ICH system is in an upward trend, while the tourism industry system is in a slight downward trend; in the latter case, the ICH system is in a slight downward trend, while the tourism industry system is in an upward trend, and the two systems are still in the direction of orderly upgrading in general. In addition, when one of ΔL(t) and ΔC(t) is zero and the other is positive, the development of the two systems is considered to be in a state of basic coordination. The other case is the conflict zone, which is ΔL(t)>0ΔC(t)<0, and |ΔC(t)/ΔC(t−Δt)|>ε, or ΔL(t)<0 and ΔC(t)>0, and |ΔL(t)/ΔL(t−Δt)|>ε. In the former case, the ICH system is in an upward trend, but the tourism industry system is in a significant downward trend; in the latter case, the ICH system is in a significant downward trend, but the tourism industry system is in an upward trend, which leads to the overall development of the two systems in the direction of disorderly decline.

When specifically evaluating the coupled development changes between ICH and tourism industry systems, the rate of change and speed difference are important indicators, which are important considerations for measuring the development dynamics of the two systems. The measurement formula can be expressed as:

The rate of change is:

Absolute speed difference:

Relative velocity difference:

4. Analysis of results

4.1 Relevance coupling evaluation results

Based on the comprehensive data of the indicators of ICH and tourism industry system in Jilin Province, China, during the study period of 2008–2022, the grey correlation model was used to statistically analyze the indicators of the two systems, and to assess the coupling association between the two systems. Referring to the existing research classification of association strength, the degree of association of the elements of ICH and tourism industry system in Jilin Province, China, was judged. When the value of γij is between 0 and 1, the specific classification of the degree of association is as follows: when γij = 1, it indicates that the correlation between the research objects is extremely strong, the coupling effect is significant, and the trend of the two changes is completely consistent; when 0<γij≤0.35, it indicates that the correlation between the research objects is low, and the coupling effect is weak; when 0.35<γij≤0.65, it indicates that the correlation between the research objects is medium level, and the coupling effect is moderate; when 0.65<γij≤ 0.85, it indicates that the correlation between the research objects is high and the coupling role is strong; when 0.85<γij≤ 1, it indicates that the correlation between the research objects is extremely high and the coupling role is very strong. The specific values and results are detailed in Table 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Relevance and rank of relevance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313421.t001

According to the results of the gray correlation matrix, the combined value of the gray correlation between the comprehensive development system of ICH and the comprehensive development system of tourism industry in Jilin Province, China, is 0.7851, indicating that there is a strong coupling between the two systems. The correlation matrix contains 1992 data points, with the highest value of 0.9654 and the lowest value of 0.6616. The coupling type of most of the elements is high correlation level, specifically, there are 1,768 correlations between 0.65 and 0.85, accounting for 91.99%; and there are 154 extremely high correlation levels between 0.85 and 1, accounting for 8.01% of the total, and the data indicate that the correlation and coupling between the two systems are generally strong.

Highly coupled correlators between the ICH system and the tourism industry system were identified by ranking the mean values of the gray correlation matrix among the system elements in Jilin Province, China. The gray correlations of the ICH level indicators ranged from 0.7753 to 0.7963, with a mean value of 0.7830, showing its strong coupling effect on the tourism industry system. The specific ranking is as follows: public service F3 (0.7963)>development quality F2(0.7844) > development and utilization F1 (0.7793) > protection level F4 (0.7753).

The gray correlation of the secondary indicators ranges from 0.7637 to 0.7988, with a mean value of 0.7842, indicating that the coupling correlation strength is high and the cooperation effect on the tourism industry system is significant. The rankings of the secondary indicators are: cultural services f5 (0.7988), financial security f7 (0.7955), economic benefits f2 (0.7942), infrastructure f6 (0.7819), cultural resources f4 (0.7841), market development f3 (0.7781), human resources security f8 (0.7701), and development scale f1 (0.7637).

The three-level indicators of ICH also showed high coupling association strength. Natural fracture points were classified into five categories using ArcGIS software: strong, moderately strong, moderate, moderately weak, and weak. The statistical results show that 18 program-level indicators have reached the stronger and higher grades, which have significant coupling effects on the tourism industry system in Jilin Province. In descending order, they are: the number of ICH exhibitions and performances held f51 (0.8107), the area of display and performance f64 (0.8043), the number of research and scientific researchers f83 (0.8040), the number of people in the workforce f81 (0.8030), the productivity of all production staff f21 (0.8029), the profit rate of production value f23 (0.8024), the degree of spatial proximity of resources f46 (0.8020), number of exhibition visitors f53 (0.8016), number of cultural centers and stations f63 (0.8016), number of national and world-class ICHs f41 (0.7981), value of total output f11 (0.7979), demonstration zones for the cultural industry f34 (0.7970), number of training courses f54 (0.7950), and total profits and taxes from production f13 (0.7949), Financial subsidies for the practice f73 (0.7930), special funds for central subsidies f71 (0.7929), income from financial subsidies f72 (0.7919), number of participants in the organization of folklore activities f52 (0.7910).

The gray correlation of the tourism industry level indicators ranges from 0.7689 to 0.8023, indicating that there is a strong coupling between it and the ICH system. The ranking of each criterion level is as follows: sustainable potential level L4 (0.8023), construction guarantee level L3 (0.7986), economic development level L1 (0.7768) and environmental carrying level L2 (0.7689).

The gray correlation of the secondary indicators in the tourism industry ranges from 0.7498 to 0.8203, showing a high coupling correlation strength, and the coupling effect on the ICH system is obvious. l2 The sub-criteria layers are ordered as follows: tourism capacity degree l11 (0.8203), environmental quality l5 (0.8087), transportation guarantee l7 (0.8041), tourists’ satisfaction l10 (0.8001), financial security l9 (0.7977), core industry l3 (0.7969), tourism development potential l12 (0.7945), talent security l8 (0.7933), industrial efficiency l1 (0.7788), facilities and services l6 (0.7712), market scale l2 (0.7507), and tourism resources l4 (0.7498).

The third-level indicators of the tourism industry are highly correlated and have a significant coupling effect on the ICH system. The indicators are categorized into five levels through the natural cleavage point grading method of ArcGIS software. The statistical results show that there are 35 program level indicators reaching the stronger and higher grades, and these indicators have more significant influence on the coupling effect on the ICH system. In descending order, they are: spatial proximity of resources Y46 (0.8404), proximity of transportation facilities l76 (0.8399), number of tourism toilets per 10,000 people l63 (0.8396), annual growth rate of revenues l13 (0.8278), annual occupancy rate of star-rated hotel rooms l34 (0.8260), share in the tertiary industry l15 (0.8238), ecological capacity index l112 (0.8215), highway densityl71 (0.8205), highway passenger trafficl73 (0.8202), number of students enrolled in majorsl81 (0.8200), economic capacity indexl113 (0.8195), professional relevance of practitionersl82 (0.8163), per capita area of urban roadsl52 (0.8152), and the annual number of inbound touristsl24 (0.8142), Spatial capacity index l111 (0.8141), number of days with good air quality above Grade 2 l53 (0.8110), amount of special funds l92 (0.8106), level of image building l65 (0.8097), amount of investment in fixed assets l91 (0.8095), area of green parks per capita l51 (0.8095), attractiveness of the source market l121 (0.8094), complaint handling Satisfaction ratel103 (0.8090), local residents’ support for tourisml102 (0.8064), number of lines operated by urban public transportationl75 (0.8039), tourism’s share in GDPl14 (0.8030), railroad densityl72 (0.8027), number of star-rated hotel roomsl33 (0.7980), total number of hotelsl31 (0.7980), number of entertainment venuesl37 (0.7971), number of travel agenciesl36 (0.7971), number of rooms in budget hotels and social hostelsl35 (0.7966), number of performing arts groupsl27 (0.7966), tourist satisfactionl101 (0.7933), potential support for the tourism economyl123 (0.7929), and the proportion of theme hotels and specialty restaurantsl32 (0.7920).

4.2 Structural coupling evaluation results

On the basis of the data measurement in Jilin Province, China, in the 2021 degree, the results of the average scores of the statistical values of the first-level, second-level, and third-level indicators of the relevance and ICH system were mapped to the CPA charts in the form of coordinates to obtain the four-quadrant dot plots containing all the factors, respectively (see Fig 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. CPA model of structural degree of indicators at all levels of intangible cultural assets in Jilin Province, China.

(a) Tier 1 indicators. (b) Secondary indicators. (c) Tertiary indicators.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313421.g002

According to the same measurement, the results of the average scores of the statistical values of the correlation and tourism industry system guideline layer, sub-criteria layer, and program layer were mapped to the CPA charts in the form of coordinates to get the four-quadrant dot plots containing all the factors, respectively (see Fig 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. CPA model of the structural degree of indicators at all levels of the tourism industry in Jilin Province, China.

(a) Tier 1 indicators. (b) Secondary indicators. (c) Tertiary indicators.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313421.g003

Based on the CPA results of ICH and tourism industry in China’s Jilin Province, the structural coupling between the two systems of ICH and tourism industry in China’s Jilin Province is obtained, as shown in Table 2.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Results of CPA analysis of structural coupling of ICH and tourism industry in Jilin Province, China.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313421.t002

From the results in Table 2, it can be seen that the ICH system in Jilin Province, China, is divided into four quadrants: quadrant I covers the development and utilization of ICH (F1) and public services (F3), including the scale of development (f1), market development (f3), and infrastructure (f6), as well as 12 programmatic layers (f11, f12, f13, f21, f31, f32, f33, f51, f54, f62, f63, f72), accounting for 50%, 37.5% and 38.7% of the corresponding layers. The above indicators are highly correlated with the tourism industry system, performing well and need to be continued. Quadrant II includes the quality of ICH development (F2), economic benefits (f2), cultural resources (f4) and financial security (f7), as well as 10 programmatic tiers (f22, f23, f34, f41, f42, f46, f71, f73, f81, and f83), which accounted for 25%, 37.5% and 33.3% of the corresponding tiers. These indicators are highly relevant but underperforming and need to continue to be improved. Quadrant III contains the level of safeguards for the development of ICH (F4), cultural services (f5) and safeguards for human resources (f8), and includes six programmatic strata (f43, f44, f52, f53, f82, f84), accounting for 25%, 25% and 19.4% of the corresponding strata. These indicators have low correlation and poor performance and can be prioritized. Quadrant IV includes three programmatic strata (f45, f61, f64), which account for 9.7% of the corresponding strata. These indicators have low relevance but good performance and can be processed as they are. In the tourism industry system of Jilin Province, Quadrant I covers tourism construction guarantee power (L3), core industry (l3), tourism resources (l4), talent guarantee (l8) and tourism capacity degree (l11), as well as 20 tertiary indicators (l14, l17, l28, l34, l37, l38, l41, l42, l43, l51, l52, l71, l81, l83, l91, l92, l102, l111, l112, l113), representing 25%, 33.33% and 35.5% of the corresponding tiers. These indicators are highly correlated with the ICH system and perform well and need to be continued. Quadrant II includes the carrying capacity of the tourism environment (L2), environmental quality (l5) and transportation security (l7), and 12 programmatic strata (l13, l15, l24, l46, l53, l63, l65, l73, l76, l82, l103, and l121), which account for 25%, 16.7% and 19.4% of the corresponding strata. These indicators are highly correlated but underperforming and require continued improvement. Quadrant III covers Tourism Sustainability Potential (L4), Tourism Satisfaction (l10) and Tourism Development Potential (l12) and includes 7 programmatic strata (l25, l26, l27, l85, l101, l122, l123), accounting for 25%, 17.0% and 11.3% of the corresponding strata. These indicators have low relevance and poor performance and can be prioritized. Quadrant IV contains the tourism economic development force (L1), industrial efficiency (l1), market scale (l2), facilities and services (l6), and financial security (l9), and 23 programmatic layers (l11, l12, l16, l18, l21, l22, Y23, l31, l32, l33, l35, l36, l44, l45, l61, l62, l64, l72, l74, l75, l77, l84, l93), accounting for 25%, 33.3%, and 37.5% of the corresponding strata. These indicators are poorly correlated but well behaved and can be treated as such.

After analyzing, it was found that the comparison of structural coupling of ICH and tourism industry systems in nine cities in Jilin Province, China, was different. Among them, Changchun City has the strongest structural coupling, with 50%, 50% and 54.84% of the ICH system quadrant I (continue to be maintained) and 50%, 57.22% and 42.05% of the tourism industry system quadrant I (continue to be maintained) at all levels of indicators respectively. Bai Cities have the weakest structural coupling, with the ICH System Quadrant (Improvement Priority) having a high percentage of 50%, 63.5%, and 47.5%, and the Tourism Industry System Quadrant (Improvement Priority) having a high percentage of 50%, 48.5%, and 32.5% at all levels of the indicator. The other cities are in between. According to the comprehensive ranking of the structural coupling of the three-level indicators, the structural coupling strengths, in descending order, are: Changchun, Jilin, Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, Siping, Tonghua, Liaoyuan, Baishan City, Songyuan, and Baicheng City.

4.3 Dynamicity coupling evaluation results

According to the coupling coordination type division of coupling coordination area, proximity coordination area, non-coordinated development area, and extremely uncoordinated development area, the entropy change model evaluation results of the coupling development between two systems of ICH and tourism industry in Jilin Province, China, from 2008 to 2020 were obtained, which are shown in Table 3.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Evaluation results of entropy change model for coupled development of ICH and tourism industry in Jilin Province, China, 2008–2022.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313421.t003

From the analysis in Table 3, it can be seen that between 2008 and 2022, the intangible cultural heritage (ICH) and tourism industry systems in Jilin Province, China, as a whole, exhibited coordinated development. Between 2008 and 2021, both systems were in an upward phase. However, the impact of COVID-19 had a significant effect on both systems. The evaluation value of the Integrated Comprehensive Development System (ICDS) for ICH dropped significantly by 0.1524, or 16.09%, from 2021, exceeding the 15% threshold. The ICDS for the tourism industry also declined by 0.1161, or 13.01%. In terms of development speed, the ICH system’s development speed was significantly faster than that of the tourism industry during the 15-year period, with absolute development speed leading in 9 years and relative development speed dominating in 13 years.

In order to deeply analyze the development direction of ICH and tourism industry system in nine cities in Jilin Province, China, based on the variable model evaluation method of the coupled development of the two systems in Jilin Province, the entropy variable model of the coupled dynamic development of ICH and tourism industry system of the nine cities from 2008 to 2022 was derived, which is shown Table 3 in S1 Appendix.

As can be seen through the results in Appendix Table 3, from 2008 to 2022, the entropy change evaluation of the coupled development of ICH and tourism industry systems in nine cities in Jilin Province shows that the annual evaluation points are mainly concentrated in Quadrant I of the coupling coordination zone, indicating that the integrated development of the two systems is generally on the rise. However, in 2022, the evaluation points of all nine cities fall into Quadrant III, and the impact of the Xin Guan epidemic on the two systems is significant, leading to a synchronized and substantial decline, which destroys the benign coupled development trend, and ultimately puts the evaluation points in the extremely uncoordinated development zone. Except for 2022, the coupling status of each city behaves as follows: the evaluation points of Changchun City in all the years from 2008 to 2022 are located in Quadrant I of the coupling coordination zone; Jilin City, Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, and Siping City have one year of near-coordination status, and the rest of the years are all in Quadrant I. Tonghua City has two years of declining evaluation values, and the rest of the years are all in Quadrant I. The evaluation values of Shangqiu City in 2015 and 2017 are respectively in the tourism industry and non-materials development zone, and the evaluation points are all in Quadrant II. values declined in tourism industry and ICH, respectively. Liaoyuan City, Baishan City and Songyuan City had three years of declining assessed values, with the rest of the years in Quadrant I. Baicheng City had four years of declining assessed values, with the rest of the years in Quadrant I. In terms of the speed of development, Changchun, Tonghua and Baicheng Cities had the advantage of comprehensive development of ICH in terms of both absolute and relative speeds of development, while Jilin, Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and Siping were comparable to the two systems in terms of absolute speeds, with ICH prevailed in terms of relative speed; Liaoyuan City and Baishan City were comparable between the two systems in terms of absolute and relative speed; and Songyuan City prevailed in terms of integrated development of the tourism industry in terms of absolute and relative speed.

5. Discussion

This study, based on an empirical analysis of the Jilin region, explores the synergistic development mechanisms between ICH and the tourism industry. Utilizing the Coupling Coordination Degree Model for quantitative analysis, along with the Grey Relational Model and Entropy Change Model, the study comprehensively evaluates the coupling dynamics from three dimensions: relational coupling, structural coupling, and dynamic coupling. The findings indicate that the overall development of the ICH and tourism systems in Jilin has been on an upward trend, but the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant decline in the coupling development in 2022.

Previous research, such as that by Yuan et al. (2022) [3], examined the coupling mechanisms of ICH and cultural tourism integration in Hunan Province and proposed development models. This study empirically tests the applicability and effectiveness of these mechanisms in the Jilin region. Compared to prior studies, this research employs three distinct quantitative models to analyze the coupling development mechanisms of ICH and the tourism industry from different dimensions. This approach not only enriches the theoretical framework of ICH and tourism synergy studies but also provides policymakers and managers with new decision-making insights and evidence, bearing significant theoretical and practical implications.

Moreover, the study analyzes the coupling status of ICH and the tourism industry across various cities in Jilin Province over different years. The findings reveal that Changchun City consistently falls within Quadrant I of the coupling coordination zone from 2008 to 2022, indicating a stable and coordinated development. In contrast, Jilin City, Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, and Siping City display states near coordination. These results align with the conclusions of Wang & Xiao (2021) [9] on the innovative development of ICH tourism, suggesting that positive interactions between ICH and the tourism industry can drive sustained regional economic growth.

In terms of dynamic coupling, the analysis shows significant differences in the coupling degree between ICH and the tourism industry in different years, which is consistent with Stepanov et al. (2022) [2] regarding the trends in international cultural tourism development.

The contributions of this study are as follows: On a theoretical level, this research integrates the Grey Relational Model, CPA Model, and Entropy Model to systematically analyze the coordinated development of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and the tourism industry in the Jilin region from different dimensions. Such a comprehensive approach is rare in previous studies, not only supplementing the quantitative analysis perspective on the synergy between ICH and the tourism industry but also enhancing the dimensionality of quantitative research by selecting appropriate models for systematic analysis. On a practical level, this study reveals the current state and trends of the coupling development between ICH and the tourism industry. Although the Jilin region has placed significant emphasis on the integration of ICH and tourism, and has pursued this through various ICH-themed events, increased ICH-related educational initiatives, and explored policy-driven approaches to promote cultural and tourism integration, the existing policies lack specificity. They do not account for the differing development conditions of ICH and the tourism industry across various cities, resulting in inconsistent interpretations and implementations of these policies, thereby hindering the overall effectiveness. The identification of coupling differences among cities in this study is beneficial for the Jilin region, as it allows for the development of targeted measures based on the varying levels of coupling development, thereby enhancing the strength of the coupling.

6. Conclusion

Based on the empirical research of ICH and tourism industry in Jilin region, this paper systematically analyzes the synergistic development situation of ICH and tourism industry by adopting the coupling coordination degree model, gray correlation model and entropy change model. The main research results are as follows:

  1. (1) Overall coupling degree analysis: the comprehensive coupling degree of the ICH and tourism industry system in Jilin region is 0.7851, indicating a strong coupling between the two systems. In the correlation matrix, 91.99% of the indicators are in the range of high correlation, and 8.01% of the indicators are in the range of very high correlation, showing the strong correlation between the two systems.
  2. (2) Structural coupling analysis: through CPA structural coupling evaluation method, the structural coupling status of the non-heritage system and tourism industry system in Jilin Province at all levels of indicators was comprehensively analyzed. The results show that Changchun City has the strongest degree of coupling, while Baicheng City is weaker. The proportion of Quadrant I (continue to maintain) reached 50%, 50% and 54.84% of the indicators at all levels in Changchun City, while the proportion of Quadrant II (focus on improvement) in Baicheng City was as high as 50%, 63.5% and 47.5%, respectively.
  3. (3) Dynamic coupling analysis: between 2008 and 2022, the non-heritage and tourism industry systems in the Jilin region as a whole showed a coordinated development trend, but the COVID-19 had a significant negative impact on the coupled development of the two systems. in 2022, the evaluation value of the comprehensive development system of non-heritage declined by 0.1524, and the level of the comprehensive development of the tourism industry declined by 0.1161, which led to the development of the two systems being in an extremely uncoordinated zone.
  4. (4) Inter-city differences: among the nine prefecture-level cities in Jilin Province, Changchun City has the best coupling development, Liaoyuan City and Baishan City perform relatively well, while Baicheng City has the weakest coupling. These results reflect the differences between different cities in the synergistic development of non-heritage and tourism industries.

This paper systematically reveals the coupled development situation of non-heritage and tourism industry in Jilin region through the quantitative analysis method of multi-model combination. The study demonstrates that the sustainable development of non-heritage tourism can effectively enhance the protection and transmission of intangible cultural heritage, while promoting regional economic development. However, there are some limitations in this paper, such as the data source is limited to public statistics, there may be some indicators of missing data or statistical bias; the study area is limited to Jilin Province, failing to cover a wider range of areas, future research can be carried out in a wider range of areas and a longer time span, in order to further improve the theoretical framework and practical strategies for the synergistic development of the ICH and the tourism industry.

References

  1. 1. Cooper M., & Buckley R. (2021). Tourist Mental Health Drives Destination Choice, Marketing, and Matching. Journal of Travel Research, 61, 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211011548.
  2. 2. Stepanov V. Y. (2022). The main trends in the development of international cultural tourism. Вестник Херсонского национального технического университета, (3 (82)), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.35546/kntu2078-4481.2022.3.24.
  3. 3. Yuan C., Gan L., & Zhuo H. (2022). Coupling mechanisms and development patterns of revitalizing intangible cultural heritage by integrating cultural tourism: The case of Hunan Province, China. Sustainability, 14(12), 6994. Sustainability, 14(12), 6994. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14126994.
  4. 4. Qiu Q., Zuo Y., & Zhang M. (2022). Intangible cultural heritage in tourism: Research review and investigation of future agenda. Land, 11(1), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010139.
  5. 5. Beznosiuk O., Liubitseva O., & Popovych S. (2021). Intangible cultural heritage as a resource for cultural tourism: the case of embroidery and carpet weaving in Ukraine. Studia Periegetica, 35, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.6952.
  6. 6. Ortiz S. L., & Jiménez de Madariaga C. (2021). The UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage: a critical analysis. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 28, 327–341. -DOI:
  7. 7. Xu Y., Tao Y., & Smith B. (2021). China’s emerging legislative and policy framework for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 28, 566–580. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 28, 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2021.1993838.
  8. 8. Popova A., & Fomenko E. (2022). The Place of Intangible Cultural Heritage in the State Policy of China, 1 (11), 42–53. Культура и искусство. https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0625.2022.11.38835.
  9. 9. Wang X., & Xiao X. (2021, September). Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Innovation and Development Education. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Digital Technology in Education (pp. 176–181). https://doi.org/10.1145/3488466.3488487.
  10. 10. Xiao L. (2022). Intangible Cultural Heritage Reproduction and Revitalization: Value Feedback, Practice, and Exploration Based on the IPA Model. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2022. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2022. pmid:35983133
  11. 11. Tian M., Zhu Y., & Zhao Q. (2023). Research on the Heterogeneity and Driving Force of Cultural Tourism Integration in Western China under the New Normal—A Case Study of Shaanxi Province. Tourism Management and Technology Economy, 6(6), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.23977/tmte.2023.060601.
  12. 12. Tao L., Luo D., & Wu Y. (2023). Research on the Dependency Mechanism of the Tourism Industry on Local Cultural Resources——An Exploration Based on Grounded Theory. Advances in Economics and Management Research, 7(1), 86–86. https://doi.org/10.56028/aemr.7.1.86.2023.
  13. 13. Liu B., & He S. (2022, December). The impact of Internet on the integration of culture and tourism and its spatial effects. In Proceedings of the 2022 5th International Conference on E-Business, Information Management and Computer Science (pp. 249–253). https://doi.org/10.1145/3584748.3584790.
  14. 14. Zhang R., & Bai Y. (2022). [Retracted] Development Path and Mechanism of Cultural Tourism Integration Based on Deep Learning Mobile Big Data Analysis. Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2022(1), 4116659. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4116659.
  15. 15. Lan T., Zheng Z., Tian D., Zhang R., Law R., & Zhang M. (2021). Resident-tourist value co-creation in the intangible cultural heritage tourism context: The role of residents’ perception of tourism development and emotional solidarity. Sustainability, 13(3), 1369. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13031369.
  16. 16. Zhao H., Zhao X., Elahi E., & Wang F. (2022). Policy evaluation of drama-related intangible cultural heritage tourism for boosting green industry: An empirical analysis based on quasi-natural experiment. Sustainability, 14(9), 5380.
  17. 17. Fu Y., & Cheng W. (2023). Research on the integrated development of intangible cultural heritage and tourism under the background of rural revitalization Strategy—A case study of rural non-cultural heritage in Lu’an City, Anhui Province. Tourism Management and Technology Economy, 6(6), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.23977/tmte.2023.060603.
  18. 18. Wang F. (2021). Research on the model and application progress based on grey relational analysis theory. Adv. Educ. Technol. Psychol, 5, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.23977/AETP.2021.52006.
  19. 19. Guo T., & Rega G. (2021). Modal dynamics of boundary-interior coupled structures. Part 1: a general approach using components Green’s function. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 149, 107230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107230.
  20. 20. Wang C., & Wang Y. (2021). Stability analysis of discretized structure systems based on the complex network with dynamics of time‐varying stiffness. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 44, 13344–13356. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.7629.
  21. 21. Xu Y., Tao Y., & Smith B. (2021). China’s emerging legislative and policy framework for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 28, 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2021.1993838.
  22. 22. Besmonte E. (2022). Identification and safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) of Tabaco City, Philippines, through cultural mapping. Journal of Education, Management and Development Studies, 2(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.52631/jemds.v2i2.106.
  23. 23. Salazar N., Chamizo-Nieto F., Conejo-Arrabal F., & Rosa-Jiménez C. (2023). Intangible cultural heritage as a tool for urban and social regeneration in neighbourhoods. Participatory process to identify and safeguard ICH in the city of Malaga, Spain. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 29, 524–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2023.2201821.
  24. 24. Wahed W. J. E., Saad N., Yusoff S. B. M., & Pitil P. P. (2021). Please stay, don’t leave!”: A systematic literature review of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in the fourth industrial revolution. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit, 29(3), 1723–1744. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.3.14.
  25. 25. Yan W. J., & Chiou S. C. (2021). The safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage from the perspective of civic participation: The informal education of Chinese embroidery handicrafts. Sustainability, 13(9), 4958.
  26. 26. Akash A. (2023). Promoting Intangible Heritage for Peace and Identity in Conflict Zones: A Case Study of Bastar, Chhattisgarh, India. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research, 5 (6), 01. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2023.v05i06.8461.
  27. 27. Wulf C. (2021). Bilder des Anderen. Immaterielles kulturelles Erbe als Weg zur interkulturellen Verständigung (Images of the Other. Intangible Cultural Heritage as a Way to Intercultural Understanding). Immaterielles kulturelles Erbe als Weg zur interkulturellen Verständigung (Images of the Other. Intangible Cultural Heritage as a Way to Intercultural Understanding)(March 4, 2021).
  28. 28. Ferrer-Yulfo A. (2022). Transforming museum education through intangible cultural heritage. Journal of Museum Education, 47(3), 319–330.
  29. 29. Kandil M. (2023). The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage Through Documentation Practices (Master’s thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago).
  30. 30. Mastenitsa E. (2022). Museum and Cultural Heritage: "Tangible Signs of Intangible Relations". Proceedings of Altai State Academy of Culture and Arts, 1(3), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.32340/2414-9101-2022-3-28-35.
  31. 31. Ma Z., & Guo Y. (2023). Leveraging intangible cultural heritage resources for advancing China’s knowledge-based economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–33.
  32. 32. Ma M. (2023). Research on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Acad. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci, 6, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.25236/ajhss.2023.060211.
  33. 33. Zhang J., Cai X., & Zhan Z. (2023). Reflections on establishing a system for cultivating intangible cultural heritage inheritors in the new era: Based on the survey in Fujian Province. Sustainability, 15(11), 9088. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119088.
  34. 34. Li Y., & Zheng N. (2020). Integral protection of cultural heritage of the Grand Canal of China: A perspective of cultural spaces. Frontiers, Society, and Science and Technology, 2, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00998-x.
  35. 35. Kono T. (2019). The Legal Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in Japan. The Legal Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Comparative Perspective, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72983-1_4.
  36. 36. Khan M. Y., Zaina F., & ul Abedin Z. (2021). Enacting and safeguarding digital intangible heritage with emerging technologies and speculative design. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 55, 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2021.09.006.
  37. 37. Luo W., Lu Y., Timothy D., & Zang X. (2022). Tourism and conserving intangible cultural heritage: Residents’ perspectives on protecting the nüshu female script. Journal of China Tourism Research, 18(1), 1305–1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2022.2036663.
  38. 38. Zhang T., Yin P., & Peng Y. (2021). Effect of commercialization on tourists’ perceived authenticity and satisfaction in the cultural heritage tourism context: Case study of Langzhong ancient city. Sustainability, 13(12), 6847.
  39. 39. Alamineh G. A., Hussein J. W., Mulu Y. E., & Taddesse B. (2023). The negative cultural impact of tourism and its implication on sustainable development in Amhara Regional State. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10(1), 2224597. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2224597.
  40. 40. Tang T., & Zhang H. (2023). An Interactive Holographic Multimedia Technology and Its Application in the Preservation and Dissemination of Intangible Cultural Heritage. International Journal of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting, 2023(1), 6527345. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6527345
  41. 41. Christina A., Ladkin A., & Fletcher J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNALS.2004.04.005.
  42. 42. Luo W., Lu Y., Timothy D., & Zang X. (2022). Tourism and conserving intangible cultural heritage: Residents’ perspectives on protecting the nüshu female script. Journal of China Tourism Research, 18, 1305–1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2022.2036663.
  43. 43. Jalloh S. A. (2021). A review of the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism development. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Business, 7(2), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.11648/J.AJTAB.20210702.12.
  44. 44. Zhao Z. (2021). Economic Analysis on the Tourism Development of Intangible Cultural Heritage Based on Big Data Analysis Technology. In Application of Intelligent Systems in Multi-modal Information Analytics: 2021 International Conference on Multi-modal Information Analytics (MMIA 2021), Volume 1 (pp. 3–9). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74811-1_1.
  45. 45. Geng Y., Zhu H., & Zhu R. (2022). Coupling Coordination between Cultural Heritage Protection and Tourism Development: The Case of China. Sustainability, 14(22), 15421. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215421.
  46. 46. Qiu Q., Zuo Y., & Zhang M. (2022). Intangible cultural heritage in tourism: Research review and investigation of future agenda. Land, 11(1), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010139.
  47. 47. Barrio M., Devesa M., & Herrero L. (2012). Evaluating intangible cultural heritage: The case of cultural festivals. City, culture and society, 3, 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CCS.2012.09.002.
  48. 48. Ferretti V., & Comino E. (2015). An integrated framework to assess complex cultural and natural heritage systems with Multi-Attribute Value Theory. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16, 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CULHER.2015.01.007.
  49. 49. Rickly-Boyd J. (2012). ‘Through the magic of authentic reproduction’: tourists’ perceptions of authenticity in a pioneer village. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7, 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2011.636448.
  50. 50. Bezirgan-Tanış B. (2022). KARANLIK GEÇMİŞTEN KARANLIK MİRASA: YASSIADA VE ROBBEN ADASI’NDA HAFIZA MEKÂNLARININ İNŞASI. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25(2), 169–187. DOI:
  51. 51. Ferrer-Yulfo A. (2022). Transforming Museum Education Through Intangible Cultural Heritage. Journal of Museum Education, 47, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2022.2080966.
  52. 52. Ivanova E., & Krastev V. (2022). The culinary of the gypsies/roma in Bulgaria—intangible cultural heritage between tradition and modernity. In Tradiţii şi procese etnice (pp. 142–149). https://doi.org/10.52603/9789975841733.17.
  53. 53. Zhuang Q., Wan M., & Zheng G. (2022). Presentation and Elaboration of the Folk Intangible Cultural Heritage from the Perspective of the Landscape. Buildings, 12(9), 1388. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091388.
  54. 54. Zhuang Q., Wan M., & Zheng G. (2022). Presentation and Elaboration of the Folk Intangible Cultural Heritage from the Perspective of the Landscape. Buildings. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091388.
  55. 55. Ricart S., Ribas A., Pavón D., Gabarda-Mallorquí A., & Roset D. (2019). Promoting historical irrigation canals as natural and cultural heritage in mass-tourism destinations. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 9(4), 520–536. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2017-0089.
  56. 56. Chen Z. (2021). Visualizing experiencescape–from the art of intangible cultural heritage. Current Issues in Tourism, 25, 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1892040.
  57. 57. Li X., Chen C., Kang X., & Kang J. (2022). Research on Relevant Dimensions of Tourism Experience of Intangible Cultural Heritage Lantern Festival: Integrating Generic Learning Outcomes With the Technology Acceptance Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. pmid:36160520
  58. 58. Chen L., & Zhang Z. (2022). The Integration Mechanism of Music Intangible Cultural Heritage and Tourism Industry in the Internet of Things Environment. Security and Communication Networks, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3224674.
  59. 59. Silva H. E., & Henriques F. M. (2021). The impact of tourism on the conservation and IAQ of cultural heritage: The case of the Monastery of Jerónimos (Portugal). Building and Environment, 190, 107536. DOI:
  60. 60. Lashua B. (2013). Pop-up cinema and place-shaping: urban cultural heritage at Marshall’s Mill. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 5, 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2013.789728.
  61. 61. López-Guzmán T., & Cruz F. (2016). The Fiesta of the Patios: Intangible Cultural Heritage and Tourism in Cordoba, Spain. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.35638/IJIH.2016..11.020.