Introduction

Intangible cultural heritage is the key to social progress and the core of civilizational transmission. It has become an important global consensus topic. UNESCO defines intangible cultural heritage as an important resource for community identity and cohesion. Globally, people are now promoting the protection and transmission of cultural heritage in a more diversified and sustainable direction. With increased awareness of the World Heritage List and the importance of intangible cultural heritage, the development and creation of intangible cultural heritage have become key to a sense of identity and culture and high-quality economic development [1]. The integrated development of art forms left behind by regional cultural heritage and local cultural tourism has changed the nature of local societies, traditional cultures, and economic development in provinces [2]. The integrated development of cultural heritage and tourism opens a bridge between the past and the future. Globally, tourism development for cultural heritage is gradually increasing [3]. Especially in some countries and provinces rich in cultural heritage, the formation of this integrated development and innovative economy has become an example of sustainable development.

China has thousands of years of development history, rich intangible cultural heritage resources, and a huge tourism market. In recent years, the Chinese government has vigorously promoted cultural tourism and intangible cultural heritage as an important direction for development [4]. However, due to late development, China's intangible cultural heritage protection and cultural construction still have problems, such as insufficient development and integration [5]. Therefore, in the context of the protection and inheritance of culture and the development of healthy tourism development, how to apply the field protection of traditional culture to modern cultural tourism development and experience is an important direction of development nowadays [6]. In other words, the continuous attention and protection of intangible cultural heritage, as well as the development of the provincial economy through local tourism, have become important issues. In order to realize the synergy between intangible cultural heritage and tourism, a variety of innovative activities such as guided tours of cultural heritage, cultural festivals, cultural and art workshops, historical reenactments, interactive exhibitions, and cultural tourism education are needed.

The deep integration of intangible cultural heritage and tourism as a balance between cultural heritage and social development is a topic that has received widespread attention from all sectors [7]. Across China, provincial and provincial policies and measures have been introduced to support the development of intangible cultural heritage and tourism [1], including financial support for infrastructure and heritage restoration, legal and legislative protection, support for cooperation in cultural and tourism projects, and the enhancement of public education on culture and tourism. Based on this, there have been studies on the digital development of cultural heritage, smart technology, the development of big data for culture and tourism, the development of cultural experiences, smart mobility, sustainability, communication technology, art and culture festivals, the development of cultural activities, and the field of intangible culture and tourism development.

Specifically, intangible cultural heritage and tourism development promote the modern expression of traditional culture and public participation by protecting and developing cultural heritage at the same time. It promotes in-depth reflection on cultural identity and opens up new horizons for cultural heritage participation.

However, there are also issues such as commercialization trends, profit-driven, poor preservation of local cultures, cross-cultural understanding, and contradictions between modern development and traditional values [8,9,10].

Currently, studies on the coupling of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development primarily focus on spatial analysis of the relationship between the two[11, 12] [13, 14], geographic analysis [15,16,17], spatio-temporal relationship [18], tourists' relationship [19, 20] culture and tourism industry [21,22,23], sustainable development [24, 25], intangible heritage inheritance [24, 25], and conservation and management [26]. Most of these studies have adopted the coupling degree model (CCM) to analyze the degree of coordination between intangible culture and tourism from different perspectives and geographical areas. It is clear that, from a macro perspective, these elements together constitute a holistic system, and each element interacts with and depends on the others.

Coupled coherence studies are an effective approach to testing multidimensional physics-based interrelationships. Social, economic, and environmental studies mostly use coupling theory [27]. It is suitable for dynamic change studies and allows empirical studies to explain mutual influences and change processes [28]. It also has a complete evaluation system and guidelines [29]. PVAR model is suitable for panel data processing [30]. It provides good treatment for each individual and lagged variables [31]. Sim received the Nobel Prize for inventing and widely applying the PVAR model, which eventually evolved into a stable and flexible panel vector autoregressive model [32]. The growth of intangible cultural heritage and tourism is affected by many complicated factors, including humanities, nature, culture, economy, and market. This study chooses the coupled coordination degree and PVAR model to study these factors.

The lack of coherence in research on ICH and tourism development reflects this. Some of the challenges include the lack of synchronization of macro data and information, the lack of long-term sustainable development planning, the conflict between cultural and economic values, and the depth of cultural discovery.

Therefore, this paper selects relevant and important factors and evaluation indicators from both intangible cultural heritage and tourism development, with the aim of promoting the coordinated development of both. We aim to comprehend the inherent connection between the development of intangible culture and tourism, and confirm the linkage and long-term dynamic relationship between the two. The research results presented in this paper provide clarity on the development and research orientation of the integration of intangible cultural heritage and tourism, while also promoting this integration through interactive research. It has theoretical reference value and practical significance for comprehensive and sustainable intangible culture research and tourism development.

Based on this, the innovations of this paper are as follows. First, this paper analyses the literature on intangible cultural heritage and tourism development. Compering previous scholars, we introduced data on inheritors of intangible cultural heritage. We quantify the inheritors' degree of participation in the provincial area, which dynamically reveals the relationship between them and tourism. Meanwhile, this study also uses the number of intangible cultures and the province area to project and analyze the relationship between the intangible culture situation and tourism development in each province. This study establishes an indicator system for intangible cultural heritage and tourism development. It helps to visualize and analyze the mutual influence relationship between cultural heritage and tourism development. It also aids in conducting comprehensive research, ranging from the macrolevel to the microlevel, on the relationship between intangible cultural heritage and tourism. Secondly, existing studies usually analyse the coupling model in a static way, and it is rare to see the use of dynamic analysis. Therefore, this study uses the PVAR dynamic analysis model, which can analyse and capture more accurate interactions in terms of causal and chronological relationships.

This paper conducts a study on intangible cultural heritage research and tourism development, utilizing both qualitative theoretical and empirical analyses. The short-term and long-term dynamics of both are analyzed using coupled analysis and PVAR models. The purpose is to explore the current status of their coordinated development as well as the internal logical relationship. This paper measures the spatial, temporal, and characteristic development trends of the coupling and coordination between the two in 30 provinces and municipalities in China, so as to achieve the theoretical basis of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development.

The second section of the paper provides a literature review on intangible cultural heritage and tourism development. The third section provides the research methodology, data indicators, and sources. The fourth section provides the results as well as discussion. Finally, the conclusion section shows both the research results and the shortcomings.

Literature review

A review of the coupling between intangible cultural heritage studies and tourism development

This section first presents a general analysis of the research on the relationship between intangible cultural heritage research and tourism interactions. This section summarizes that ICH has a central role for cultural tourism and markets [33]. Most scholars consider intangible cultural heritage and tourism development to be closely related fields of study, and there are some common research areas between the two [16, 34, 35]. Most scholars tend to evaluate the degree of coordination between the two through regional spatio-temporal relationships, markets, and policies [33]. Scholars evaluate the two positively in terms of their mutual influence. Some scholars have also used ethnography and fieldwork to examine the two cases [22, 36]. They suggest that tourism development has challenged cultural preservation.

In summary, intangible cultural heritage and tourism development represent a beneficial combination of cultural continuity and adaptation. In recent years, more and more research has focused on developing intangible cultural heritage and promoting cultural tourism simultaneously. It demonstrates that the two can establish a mutually beneficial relationship at the applied level of culture. Intangible cultural heritage is the result of research and the inheritance of local culture, while tourism development involves the dissemination and innovation of culture to open up the industry. Although the development direction of the two is different, when they are integrated into social well-being for a shared purpose, their coordinated development becomes inevitable. In particular, as the study of cultural heritage demands greater public understanding of society and culture, purely scientific applications and research cannot meet the needs of today’s cultural society. Cultural tourism is a core communication method for cultural heritage that can enhance a sense of identity and pride in local culture. It can serve the ultimate purpose of heritage education and cultural awakening. On the other hand, as the tourism industry develops, there is a deeper sense of cultural belonging and an effective enhancement of cultural awareness. Studying regional cultural heritage has emerged as the primary focus of tourism development. In today's world, the coordinated development of cultural heritage and tourism has become a key way to promote sustainable cultural development. Scholars from all walks of life have discussed the intrinsic relationship between cultural heritage and tourism development from a variety of perspectives, including tourism, culture, art, and the application of science and technology. Meanwhile, it also receives important economic support, modern management systems, and researchers' reserves. Cultural heritage and tourism can flourish harmoniously through the mutually beneficial development of these two aspects.

Previous studies have covered social, economic, environmental, policy management, and tourism behavior, which has laid the theoretical foundation for this study. However, issues such as homogenizing research perspectives, fixating disciplinary studies, and lacking systematic analysis also surfaced. There is a dearth of empirical data and field research on long-term coordination mechanisms. This limits an in-depth understanding of the mechanisms and impacts of the interaction between cultural heritage and cultural tourism.

Clarifying the coupling relationship between intangible cultural heritage and tourism development can help to analyze the role of regional cultural heritage research on the sustainable development of tourism. Yuqing Geng and colleagues employed the entropy and TOPSIS methods, along with the coupled degree of coordination model, to evaluate the spatial relationships among 31 provinces in China. Their findings underscored the importance of strengthening the coordination and interaction between cultural heritage preservation and tourism development [13]. Qihang Qiu and colleagues, meanwhile, used structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis to analyze the factors influencing tourist behavior in intangible cultural heritage tourist destinations [20]. To discuss regional spatial relationships, Hongtao Shen added Moran's index method to the coupled analysis. People have widely accepted the fundamental understanding of the connection between cultural heritage and tourism [12]. However, there is a lack of discourse and reflection on the issue of specific grounded forms due to the limitations of models or data.

How were the results found? Jiacan Wang and his colleagues used Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial analysis and the Geo Detector model for spatial analysis of intangible cultural heritage to show how the Yangtze River Basin in China is spread out in space [14]. Zegeng Chen and others used the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) network structure and Random Forest algorithm to analyze the new media and tourism activities to revitalize intangible cultural heritage [23]. Scientists have a lot of different ways to study spatial relationships. Some examples are the SWC-WMD distances with the clustering method [34], the AHP-IEW weighting method with the Boston Matrix [35], the Thiel index for spatio-temporal analysis [18], and grey correlation analysis (GCA) [16]. Most scholars concentrate on the analysis of spatial relations, which heavily relies on the quality and availability of data. If the data quality is inadequate, the results may exhibit significant bias. In addition, innovation in methodology alone may lead to interpretations that are biased towards the technology itself. Human factors like social, cultural, and policy are often overlooked.

In terms of management and market perspectives, Siow-Kian Tan et al. explored the positive role of cultural creativity in intangible cultural heritage through the cases of Malacca and Georgetown in Malaysia [33]. Minoo Esfehani and colleagues conducted walk-in field research using ethnographic methodology, concluding that the development of tourism products plays a crucial role in the development of intangible cultural heritage [36]. This part explores the impact of market demand on cultural heritage and tourism development. However, irregular changes in local markets and consumer preferences can lead to research results limited by time and geography. It is not universally applicable. However, from the perspective of innovation and development, Lan Li examines the case study of intangible cultural heritage study tours in Jiangsu Province, China, building on the existing foundation and anticipating the development of new technology to transform the development concepts of cultural tourism [22]. However, it's possible that the discussion's conclusions oversimplify and lack relevance and practicality.

In summary, current scholars' main research areas are rich in multiple perspectives, such as intangible cultural heritage preservation, technology, and policy, as well as economic management and evaluation of cultural tourism. Most of the coupling studies are still localized in spatial relationships or non-universal studies. They lack macroanalysis from a systemic perspective, with a macrodynamic coupling coordination degree analysis of both. This problem must be solved urgently in this field.

Impact of intangible cultural heritage on tourism development

Three areas—science and technology, framework models and judgment mechanisms, and cultural activities—describe the role of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) research in tourism.

Firstly, science and technology play a crucial role in ICH. This type of research aims to improve the cultural tourism experience through modern scientific and technological means while promoting the sustainable development of cultural heritage. Building an intelligent tourism platform, based on big data technology, will enhance the effect of tourism services [37]. It promotes information about rural tourism and economic development, effectively identifying and overcoming barriers to tourism Meanwhile, the application of digital and smart technologies has also enhanced the tourism experience [38], with the use of mobile digital applications to personalize the tourism experience [39]. In certain instances, these applications have been shown to improve the perception of the tourism experience in cultural destinations [40]. Specifically, Raheleh Hassannia develops hybrid recommendation systems to improve the accuracy of cultural heritage tours, especially in contexts with distractions [41]. For example, the ‘EATJOY’ application effectively revived the Japanese ‘Omotenashi’ culture [42]. Zhengyuan Zhao discovered, through a survey of 150 blue economy industry participants in the Thousand Islands, that the application of blockchain technology in the construction of smart islands attracts more tourists to experience island culture [43]. We can note that research and development of cultural technologies can essentially change the paradigm of tourism development. Technology development is, by nature, a long-term and expensive approach, but it is a highly practical area of expansion in the self-interest of regional tourism development.

The second concerns the sustainability aspects of ICH development for tourism. The specific focus is on safeguarding and promoting ICH through structured methodological design and sustainable policies. Consequently, the impact of promotion extends to tourism models, evaluation techniques, and additional elements. In essence, the uniqueness of cultural heritage and educational experiences in tourism serve as lessons for the integration and development of intangible cultural heritage and tourism, as well as the sustainable development of tourism assessment systems [44]. For instance, a model revolves around the creation of industrial tourism routes to the Silesian Voivodeship in Poland, with the aim of achieving their sustainable development [45]. In other words, some regions assess tourism through their cultural models [44]. Asta Adukaite conducted interviews with 24 participants and found out that regional cultural heritage enables a better tourism experience [46]. Specifically, the COVID-19 strategy incorporated cultural activities [47]. Conversely, we can reverse-validate policy modeling to explore the potential of intangible cultural heritage in tourism development [48]. Differently, Roberta Comunian confirms that festivals, as knowledge and networking platforms, play a key role in enhancing intangible cultural heritage and local culture [49]. All in all, the current evaluation of these strategies will incorporate tourism education, cultural festivals, and other references that are regionally specific and humanistic in nature. This approach offers a more comprehensive framework for our study.

Finally, the area that most scholars often focus on is some specific ICH program policies and the impact they have on cultural tourism. Regional cultural events and festivals, in particular, arise from the historical development of intangible cultural heritage and its impact on local tourism. Art festivals of intangible culture increase the visibility of the local culture and attract audiences to local tourism [50]. Art festivals, with the nature of regular events, activate the local cultural heritage and attract tourists [51]. Andrea Collins analyzed the ecological footprint of the 2012 Haven Literary and Arts Festival in Wales, highlighting the importance of cultural festival policy makers adopting the ecological footprint as a tool when assessing the environmental impacts of festivals [52]. Similarly, Chenxi Li found that tourism activities themed on rural cultural heritage and rural traditions enhance the attractiveness of rural tourism [53]. For instance, Danni Zheng's study revealed that residents' interest in the development of tourism performing arts (TPA) encouraged their participation in cultural exchange and tourism [54]. Katarzyna Grebosz-Harin confirmed that art and music festivals attract tourists seeking unique cultural experiences, specifically in terms of audience characteristics [55].

In conclusion, the creation and evaluation of policies regarding the sustainability of intangible cultural heritage can facilitate the growth of tourism, even in the face of unique or unfavorable circumstances. We note that cultural festivals have a positive impact on tourism, as increased visits to festival sites can attract more participants.

The impact of tourism development on intangible cultural heritage

Addressing the field of tourism to ICH research, scholars have mostly focused on the direct integration of tourism development and ICH research. Firstly, the majority of the research involves case discussions and theoretical framework studies, with a primary focus on case studies of conventional art exhibitions and tourism, as well as the practical integration of tourism and intangible cultural heritage. Scholars focus on how culture can become a tourism driver through art festivals and art exhibitions, enhancing the region’s. Researchers also explore the importance of art tourism as a new field of tourism research, highlighting its potential as a crucial tool for regional cultural regeneration. regeneration. It creates economic and cultural value [56]. Andrew Holden further demonstrates that tourism for artistic and cultural purposes can help preserve natural and cultural heritage [57]. Tourism aimed at natural landscapes enhances the overall cultural image of the destination, specifically in terms of form [58]. Tourism for urban purposes also serves as an important cultural showcase through urban art forms [59]. For example, arts and crafts exhibitions on the Danish island of Bornholm and large-scale art projects in Naoshima, Japan, have increased overall cultural benefits and community activity in the region [60]. Gangwei Cai confirms that the Earth Art Festival (ETAT) promotes sustainable tourism in the region and emphasizes the important value of combining art and tourism [61]. Therefore, in general, art exhibitions serve as the primary means of producing cultural images. It contributes to tourism development.

On the other hand, some scholars have investigated actual cases from a micro perspective. They demonstrated the intrinsic mechanism of tourism's impact on intangible cultural heritage. From the perspective of cultural transmission and change, Catherine Namono discusses how digital technology has helped the Makabenge community in South Africa to preserve and disseminate its rock art heritage [62]. It improves the community's economic and cultural well-being by increasing the attractiveness of heritage tourism and demonstrating a positive interaction between art and tourism. Stefania Skowron-Markowska discusses the Shaolin Temple and Chenjiagou Village in China as ways to maintain cultural authenticity in martial arts tourism. This can attract international tourists and establish cultural tourism [63]. Xiaoyan Su also explored the relationship between intangible cultural heritage and modern tourism needs [64]. From the perspective of community engagement and local identity, Rebecca Sheehan analyzes how artists in New Orleans have shaped their personal and social identities through tourism activities in Jackson Square. The combination of culture and tourism not only demonstrates cultural authenticity but also ensures economic development [65]. Slak Nataša summarizes artists' “word of mouth” promotion of creative tourism, which achieves a key role in shaping the image of the destination [66]. Santosa Soewarlan mentions the practice of promoting tourism in rural Indonesia by reinventing the performing arts in collaboration with local communities [67]. Fevzi Okumus summarized the potential value of cultural elements in enhancing strategic management of tourism from the perspective of economic benefits and cultural commodification [68]. Solène Prince explores how craftspeople in rural Denmark use rural tourism to sustain their artistic careers and livelihoods. It emphasizes the importance of integrating arts and tourism to enhance a place's economic and cultural value [69]. Danni Zheng examines the emotional responses of urban and rural Chinese residents to the development of performing arts in tourism. It noted that rural residents were more supportive of such developments, reflecting the positive impact of tourism on both cultural and economic levels [70].

The micro-cases evidently demonstrated that ICH specifically implemented tourism development to promote cultural transmission, enhance community identity, and bring economic benefits. However, there has been limited exploration of how to prevent superficiality, over-commercialization, and cultural homogenization of cultural expressions. Meanwhile, there are gaps in macro-level controls to ensure comprehensive improvements in policy, education, and community participation.

In summary, previous studies have covered social, economic, environmental, policy management, as well as tourism behavior, which has laid the theoretical foundation for this study. However, the problems of homogenization of research perspectives, fixation of disciplinary studies, and lack of systematic analysis also emerged. There is a lack of empirical data research and field research on long-term coordination mechanisms. This limits an in-depth understanding of the mechanisms and impacts of the interaction between cultural heritage and cultural tourism.

Therefore, this paper, drawing from previous research, aims to investigate the relationship between intangible cultural heritage and tourism development in China. Firstly, we establish an evaluation index system for 30 provinces in China, with each province serving as the unit of analysis. Second, we looked at the territoriality, coordination degree, synergistic development process of intangible cultural heritage, and tourism development from the point of view of the coupling coordination degree. We also investigated how the degree of coupling coordination changes over time. Finally, we adopt the empirical research method and construct the PVAR model. We hope to thoroughly review the research on the coordination mechanisms of intangible cultural heritage research and tourism development.

Methodology

Theoretical support

The relationship between the two areas of ICH and tourism development is complex, both mutually reinforcing and, of course, simultaneously constraining. The study of intangible cultural heritage is an important factor in enhancing tourism development. On the other hand, tourism development is an important economic support and dissemination guarantee for ICH research. The two systems interact as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

The mutual influence mechanism between intangible cultural heritage and tourism development

As shown in the figure, there are five routes of interaction between the two systems. Firstly, intangible cultural heritage serves as an important cultural value at multiple levels, including historical, artistic, and social. Its cultural value can propel the tourism economy by driving the development and transformation of cultural products, thereby influencing the overall growth of tourism. The tourism economy, on the other hand, enhances the formation and establishment of regional culture by creating intangible culture, such as cultural festivals and art festivals.

Secondly, cultural values internally promote the transmission and innovation of intangible cultural heritage. Cultural inheritance and innovation in turn drive economic growth, thereby enhancing tourism development. Furthermore, tourism, driven by market dynamics and adaptability requirements, fosters the innovation of intangible cultural heritage, including cultural creatives and handicrafts.

Innovation and inheritance subsequently shape cultural symbols, bolstering their cultural identity and pride. By enhancing regional culture, we can transform tourism into a comprehensive tourism model. In other words, tourism is more than just tourism; it involves the development of a composite tourism location that is rich in cultural exhibitions, souvenirs, cultural training, cultural promotion, and other multi-modal methods.

After that, the formation of a composite tourism approach contributes to the growth of the regional economy. It leads to the creation of intangible cultural heritage products. Meanwhile, products with cultural values will simultaneously enhance the economic market and enrich the diversity of market purchases. Ultimately, this virtuous cycle of intangible culture fosters cultural dissemination and increases the popularity of regional culture. Cultural festivals, intangible cultural performances, and other large-scale activities serve as examples. It also encourages the development of modern cultural tourism. It also fosters the advancement of intangible cultural heritage. Increased tourism opportunities also contribute to the cultural dissemination of intangible cultural heritage, thereby creating a mutual influence between the two systems.

Indicator selection

The coupling analysis of intangible cultural heritage and tourism requires comprehensive indicators based on scientific and technological development, as well as the tourism industry. Therefore, this paper refers to [6, 24, 71] [72]'s research to establish an evaluation system from the macro perspective of the tourism industry and cultural heritage development, as shown in Table 1. This paper analyzes both intangible cultural heritage and tourism. We use the resource richness of intangible cultural heritage and cultural protection institutions as basic elements for intangible cultural heritage analysis. We carried out the quantification by combining the current status of China's cultural heritage development, the level of research, and the degree of publicity. We used the number of intangible cultural heritages, the size of the area, the number of intangible inheritors, the number of cultural centers, and the number of collections as tertiary indicators.

Table 1 Indicators for analysing cultural heritage and tourism
Full size table

We choose the number of intangible cultural heritages (X1 and X2) and the number of inheritors in China as our indicators, as shown in Fig. 1. Next, we combine the regional area of ICH in each place to derive the density relationship between X3 and X4. This can emphasize the concentration of ICH and the regional average. We can assess regional cultural resources more accurately. As in Fig. 1, X1, X2, X3, and X4 did not change significantly from 2013 to 2022 in the sample data. The lengthy time required for culture shapes the development of intangible cultural quantities. The government typically takes 2–4 years to update the data. In addition, changes in the number of intangible culture bearers usually occur between years or iterations of personnel. Although these indicators maintain a stable number in the short term, they are an important source of data on intangible cultural heritage and also play a long-term role in intangible cultural heritage and tourism development. These indicators have the ability to mirror the data mentioned by the ICH itself. Meanwhile, the ratio between area and number serves as a crucial indicator of the harmonisation relationship between the two.

We quantitatively analyze tourism using its inputs and outputs as the basic elements, considering the recent development and characteristics of China's tourism industry. We specifically use three-level indicators, which include the number of star-rated hotels, the number of A-grade scenic spots, the total number of tourist agencies, the number of employees, the number of domestic and international tourism receipts, and the number of domestic and international tourism revenues.

In this paper, we use the entropy weight method to standardize raw data and obtain coupled index data for intangible cultural heritage and tourism. This method, called entropy weight, is based on objective data characteristics. It gets rid of the differences between different indicators and takes into account the level of discrete and data distribution characteristics in the data [73]. Standardization, weight calculations, entropy weight values, and a thorough evaluation process follow the data. This paper ultimately achieved a thorough assessment of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development.

Moreover, numerous studies on the coupling analysis of Chinese provinces lack data on Tibet, such as Hongtao Shen's [12] coupling study of Chinese culture industry tourism, Meiling Zeng's coupling study of intangible cultural heritage and tourism [21], and Wang Hui et al.'s coupling study of science and technology innovation of universities and innovation of industrial firms in 27 provinces of China [74]. In summary, the aforementioned studies demonstrate that the absence of the Tibetan province does not compromise the generality and scientific validity of the research findings.

Research methodology

Coupled coordination model construction

Based on the analysis of the interaction between intangible cultural heritage research and local tourism development, this study constructs a coupled coordination degree model based on Xing et al.’s studies [75], Chen and Shi [27],liang et al. [76], as follows as follows formulas (1):

$$T = \alpha D\_H + \beta D\_T$$
$$S = \frac{{2\sqrt {\left( {D_{H} \times D_{T} } \right)} }}{{D_{H} + D_{T} }}$$
(1)
$$R = \sqrt {S \times T}$$

The D_H represents the score of the cultural heritage system, which was previously calculated using the entropy method. The entropy method previously calculated the D_T, which represents the local tourism development system score. The D_T represents the weighted combined score of cultural heritage and local tourism development. α and β are the weighting coefficients of cultural heritage and local tourism development, respectively, and in this paper, we consider that the development of both is equally important. Referring to Shen et al. [77], Lu et al. [78],[72] this study replicates it as α = β = 0.5. S is the degree of coupling between cultural heritage and local tourism development, and its value ranges from 0 to 1. The higher the score, the more it indicates that cultural heritage and local tourism development are more harmonious.

R represents the degree of coordination between cultural heritage and local tourism development, and it is a positive indicator that ranges from 0 to 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the degree of coupling and coordination between the two. The coupling degree only reflects the strength of the level of interaction between the two systems, not the advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, this paper draws on Wang Cheng and Tang Ning's [79] research to analyze only the coupling coordination degree in the paper. We also incorporate research from Tang [80], Zhang and Li [81], Meng [82] and we refer to the criteria for coupled analytical studies of related intangible cultural heritage [13, 17, 83,84,85].

This paper categorizes the coupling coordination degree R into various types based on its high and low values. Table 2 displays the criteria for classifying the type of coupling coordination degree.

Table 2 Criteria for classifying the type of coupling coordination degree
Full size table

Panel PVAR model construction

To further investigate the long-term dynamic relationship between intangible cultural heritage and local tourism development, this paper relies on Acheampong [86], Charfeddine and Kahia [87] Dogan et al.’s [88] study to construct a panel VAR model with the model setup shown below formulas (2):

$$y_{i,t} = u_{i} + \lambda_{t} + \mathop \sum \limits_{j = 1}^{J} y_{i,t - 1} + \varepsilon_{i,t}$$
(2)

In the equation, i denotes the cross sectional unit, \(i=\text{1,2},3\dots 30\) in this study. t denotes time, \(t=\text{1,2},3,\dots 10\) in this study. \({y}_{i,t}\) is the two-dimensional vector of endogenous variables.\({y}_{i,t-1}\) is the two-dimensional vector of endogenous variables with the j-order lag term. \({u}_{i}\) is the individual effect. \({\lambda }_{t}\) is the time effect. \({\varepsilon }_{i,t}\) is the random perturbation term.

Data selection

This study's data selection was based on the dynamic panel data of 30 provinces and municipalities in China from 2013 to 2022. The data sources are from the China Statistical Yearbook, the National Bureau of Statistics of China, and the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage List [89], provided by the China Intangible Cultural Heritage Network. We selected a data range of 2013–2022, taking into account the availability of data from the Yearbook and the Bureau of Statistics, as well as the rate of change in data on intangible cultural heritage. During this period, the yearbook data is relatively complete and continuous. It provides a more consistent and reliable data base for this paper's research.

Results

Coupling analysis of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development

According to the algorithm of the coupling coordination degree model, the study calculates the coupling coordination degree data of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development in 30 provinces in China from 2013 to 2022 and derives the results in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Coupling analysis of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development from 2013 to 2022
Full size table

According to the results of the coupled analysis, it is clear that the development of intangible cultural heritage and tourism in China's province from 2013 to 2022 is showing a gradual upward trend, gradually increasing from an annual average of 0.345 to 0.387. Especially after 2018, the upward trend is obvious. The growth of cultural tourism and the government's investment in infrastructure and intangible cultural heritage are the key factors.

In 2020, the degree of coordination in most province reached a high level, with an annual average of 0.407. However, the degree of coordination declined after 2011. Overall, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Guangdong provinces have a steady growth trend, with a coordination degree of 0.5 or higher. Qinghai and Ningxia have a low degree of coordination, less than 0.2. Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai municipalities have stable coordination, indicating a stable tourism and cultural market.

According to the results of the coupled analysis, from 2013 (0.345) to 2020 (0.407), the degree of coupled coordination between the two shows a general upward trend, with the degree of coordination in each province increasing over time. However, there is a slight decline after 2020. In terms of the overall time dimension, there are three key periods. First, from 2013 (0.345) to 2015 (0.359), the degree of coupling coordination gradually increased in most regions, demonstrating early coordinated development. Second, from 2016 (0.364) to 2019 (0.400), coordination values improved significantly, with many regions showing a marked increase in coupling coordination. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the period 2020–2022 saw a light or heavy decline in coupling development due to the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak.

In 2020, the degree of coordination in most regions reached a high level, with an annual average of 0.407. However, the degree of coordination declined after 2011. Overall, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Guangdong provinces have a steady growth trend, with a coordination degree of 0.5 or higher. The data shows that Shanghai is stable with high values, especially in 2015 when it peaks at 0.631 and again in 2022 when it rises to 0.643. Guangdong Province also has a decline in 2021 and 2022, but the overall view is that it rises from 0.543 in 2013 to 0.621 in 2020. Zhejiang Province has a coordinated increase in values from 0.532 in 2013 to 0.573 in 2019. Jiangsu Province has overall stability, rising from 0.498 in 2013 to 0.566 in 2020. Despite the new coronavirus's impact, these provinces with a high degree of coupling have maintained a high level of coordinated development, relying on economic, social, and regional development. It shows a strong link between ICH and tourism development.

Qinghai and Ningxia have a low degree of coordination, around 0.2. Qinghai Province was at 0.147 in 2013. Although it improved to 0.220 in 2020, it is still at a low level overall. It suggests that the region is still lacking in regional coordination and development. In 2013, Ningxia province had 0.087, the lowest among all provinces. There was a gradual upward trend between 2013 and 2018, especially in 2018, when it reached 0.149. However, the increase was small, and the overall level is still low.

Beijing and Tianjin municipalities have stable coordination, indicating a stable tourism and cultural market. Beijing’s average value in the last 10 years is 0.495, with the highest value occurring in 2020 (0.523) and the lowest in 2022 (0.472). The average value for Beijing in the last 10 years is 0.495, with the highest value in 2020 (0.523) and the lowest in 2022 (0.472). It has reached the threshold of relative stability and medium–high levels. Tianjin shows general stability but fluctuating growth with an annual average of 0.325, which peaks at 0.370 in 2018 and then declines to 0.347 in 2022. The three municipalities of Beijing, Tianjin, and before that, Shanghai, show stability and high coupling. This suggests that the relationship between intangible culture research and tourism development remains well-translated. In the meantime, the relationship exhibits strong resilience to withstand the test of the recent coronavirus outbreak.

The data for cities in the eastern part of inland China are relatively stable, but they declined after the emergence of the Xinguan epidemic. It reflects the influence of global events on provincial tourism. In contrast, the data for Qinghai, Xinjiang, Ningxia, and Inner Mongolia are lower. Insufficient development of provincial tourism resources, relatively inconvenient transport, and a low level of economic development hinder the development of tourism. On the other hand, the provinces of Jiangxi and Gansu, possessing abundant cultural resources, exhibit increased instability due to shifts in policies and cultural activities.

This paper uses Arcgis map processing software to map the coupled values of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development. We used 2013, 2017, 2022, and annual average data to create a grading map of coupling levels. For each of the five levels—0–0.10, 0.10–0.25, 0.25–0.35, 0.35–0.50, and 0.50–1—the deeper the color of the provinces in the graph, the higher the coupling level, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Spatial evolution of the coupling coordination degree between intangible cultural heritage and tourism development in China

Figure 2 illustrates that in 2013, the coupling degree between the eastern coastal cities and the central region was higher than that of the northern region and the interior region. It shows a clearly stepped trend. In 2017, the coupling degree generally shows a substantial decrease. Except for Shanghai, there are few provinces with high coupling degrees. In 2022, the coupling degree of coastal cities rises to a high level, the central region returns to a medium level, and the northern and inland regions maintain medium and lower coupling degrees. Overall, the eastern coastal region has a higher annual average of the overall coupling degree than both the northern cities and the mature inland areas. The coupling of cities across the country shows medium to high levels, with developed coastal cities such as Zhejiang, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Jiangsu showing high levels of coupling.

In order to further analyze the variability of provincial coupling coordination of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development, the data were subjected to convergence analysis. Figure 3 details the division of the data into the national average, the eastern province, the northeastern provinces, the central provinces, and the western provinces. The figure illustrates that, overall, the coupling coordination variability of the national annual average is higher than that of the central, eastern, and northeastern provinces, and only slightly lower than that of the western provinces. It is evident that China's intangible cultural heritage and tourism development have a degree of provincial variability. The western inland province has rich cultural heritage resources and excellent potential for tourism development. As a result, different provinces in the west have the greatest differences in ICH and tourism development. Secondly, the cities in the eastern coastal province rely on their own socio-economic background and international exchange development, which shows long-term stability and high variability. The northeastern province exhibits a lower level of variability and fluctuating changes in coupling coordination. Finally, the central province exhibits the lowest value of variability, indicating the presence of a traditional manufacturing industry as well as an economic and social operation mode.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Convergence analysis of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development

Long-term dynamic PVAR

PVAR Modeling

The optimal stage of the model lag was determined by using the MBIC, MAIC, and MQIC information criteria. The results show that lag1 is the optimal choice, and the data is detailed in Table 4.

Table 4 Model lag order test results
Full size table

PVAR model estimation

D_H and D_T are the fixed effects values obtained from the PVAR model's GMM results, as shown in Table 5. D_H L1 stands for intangible cultural heritage index lag lag1, and D_T L1 stands for tourism development index lag lag1. As shown in Table 5, the intangible cultural heritage index lag1 (L1.D_H) has a significant effect on tourism development (D_T), with an effect value of 0.3259014. The p-value is higher than the significant level value of 0.5, and the p-value is 0.063. It shows that the study of intangible cultural heritage has a positive effect and promotes tourism development. On intangible cultural heritage (D_H), the tourism development index lag1 (L1.D_T) has a value of 0.058083. This indicates that it does not have a significant effect. It shows that tourism development does not support intangible cultural heritage. There is no mutual influence between them.

Table 5 Panel VAR-granger causality wild test results
Full size table

Stability testing

The PVAR model establishes the AR root plot. The AR root plot can be used to test the root position in the regression process. Through the dynamic characteristics test, the root position is less than one, i.e., inside the circle, which means that the variables in this PVAR model are stable. As shown in Fig. 4, there are two root units inside the garden, proving that the model in this study is stable.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

AR root of the PVAR model

The impulse impact IRF function embodies the PVAR model, as shown in Fig. 5. The study was conducted to better examine the mutual and own impact changes of intangible cultural heritage and tourism development. Upon subjecting one variable to a standard-sized shock, the other variable undergoes gradual changes that alter the impact's characteristics. When we set the number of impulse corresponding periods to 10, we can predict a 95% confidence zone for the facility. Figure 4 illustrates the general relationship between these impulse response functions. In the short term, the corresponding effect is more obvious. Tourism development has a significant impact on the ICH. The opposite impact is not significant. There are five specific points:

Fig. 5
Fig. 5The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Impulse impacts of ICH and tourism development

First, the shock found that intangible cultural heritage research (Fig. 3, top left) had a short-lived positive impact on itself. It rises immediately after the shock impact, followed by a rapid decline in positive and negative fluctuations around 0, and finally to 0. This suggests that intangible cultural heritage research relies on its own development and can quickly produce positive benefits.

Secondly, the top right of Fig. 5 illustrates that the overall change in intangible cultural heritage following tourism development is not significant, with a 95% confidence interval containing 0. This indicates that the impact of tourism development on intangible cultural heritage research is extremely weak. It indicates that intangible cultural heritage is not dependent on tourism development.

Third, intangible cultural heritage, as shown in the lower left of Fig. 4, had a significant impact on tourism development. Intangible cultural heritage initially had a positive impact on tourism development (the 95 percent confidence intervals were close to 0 at the initial stage boundary). Then a negative impact followed, and eventually it returned to a plateau. It demonstrates that tourism development not only depends on the study of intangible cultural heritage, but also leads to negative issues.

Fourthly, as shown in the bottom right of Fig. 4, intangible cultural heritage research produces less impact on its own. There is a slight drop at the beginning of the impact, but it quickly converges to 0.0.

Conclusion

This study examines the relationship between intangible cultural heritage research and tourism development, and constructs an intangible cultural heritage index and a tourism development index. The data were based on panel data from 30 provinces and municipalities in inland China between 2013 and 2022. The entropy assignment method and PVAR panel vector autoregressive model were used for empirical analysis, and the following conclusions were obtained:

  1. 1.

    Between 2013 and 2022, the overall development trend shows an upward trend in the coupling and coordination between intangible cultural heritage research and tourism development. It is inextricably linked to China's recent policies on cultural protection and inheritance, such as the 14th Five-Year Plan and art and culture policies. Shanghai stands out in particular, boasting an entropy value of 0.626 in 2013, significantly higher than that of other provinces. However, it dropped to 0.425 before rising back to 0.521. Because Shanghai's resource wind value is higher than that of other provinces, This indicates that Shanghai's intangible cultural heritage and provincial area reached a higher level in 2012. There is a wide range of values across provinces, with a peak in 2020.

    Because of COVID-19, there was a negative impact on tourism development in all provinces of China. In 2021 and 2022, there will be a downward trend due to the epidemic's impact. The provinces with the earliest start in tourism are Beijing, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Shandong, which are the more economically developed provinces in China. In particular, Guangdong Province has the highest tourism score, reaching its highest value of 0.772 in 2018. It shows that in recent years, the Chinese government has enacted a number of stimulating policies for the tourism sector, including tourism investment, policy support, and transport repair.

  2. 2.

    The average annual coupling coordination degree of provinces and municipalities directly under the central government ranges from 0.135 to 0.605, indicating a large disparity. The eastern coastal province and the municipalities directly under the central government fall between 0.484 and 0.605, placing them in the first echelon with a high degree of coordination. This indicates a high level of coordination between the intangible cultural heritage and tourism sectors in the province. The development of intangible cultural heritage is more pronounced in the eastern coastal provinces and municipalities. The promotion and protection of intangible culture in the eastern coastal province has become a key development area, driven by the better economic development of these provinces, the higher degree of external communication, and the development of culture and technology.

    Inland cities are in the range of 0.325 to 0.421, showing a second tier of moderate coordination. The slower response efficiency of the province’s traditional economic structure closely correlates with this phenomenon. It reflects the fact that the province has a more stable coordination capacity. The third echelon includes the western as well as the northern provinces, with coordination values ranging from 0.135 to 0.312. This indicates that the province is experiencing a state of discord. The western provinces, while starting from a lower point, have experienced a higher rate of growth. Despite the western provinces' relatively low development, the province, renowned for its rich historical and cultural resources and distinctive ethnic cultures, has experienced a surge in cultural policies in recent times.

  3. 3.

    The results of the PVAR model estimation show a positive impact between ICH and tourism development in the lag1 period. As seen in the impulse image, the two responses that occur reflect rapid and short-term characteristics. Research on intangible cultural heritage, for example, has a significant impact on tourism development, reflecting a positive unidirectional promotion. Intangible cultural heritage research is a current variable in tourism development. On the other hand, intangible cultural heritage research depends on its own development. There is no mechanism for why tourism does not have a significant impact on intangible cultural heritage research, and there is no mechanism for it. From the point of view of their own development, both of them have a self-enhancing development mode from their own point of view.

    In comparison with previous studies, this paper uses government public panel data. Upon validation of this study's results against prior research, it becomes evident that both the data and the methodology adhere to scientific standards. The spatial evolution perspective is applied with a high degree of coherence. This study demonstrates a positive correlation between intangible cultural heritage and tourism, indicating the generalizability of the findings. However, this study differs from previous intangible culture studies in that it introduces the PVAR model and the indicator system for intangible culture bearers. It has filled an existing research gap. This study, following the introduction of indicators related to inheritors of intangible cultures, investigates the effects of specific intangible cultures on tourism development. The purpose of this study is to differentiate from the previous indicator system, which primarily focuses on cultural heritage. We found that the PVAR model clarifies its data characteristics, revealing that intangible cultural heritage has a greater impact on tourism development and does not exhibit strong reciprocity.

Suggestions

Based on study, it should be subject to reasonable policy recommendations after macro-analysis. It ensures that intangible cultural heritage and tourism development are moving in a positive direction. To summarize the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made for the future development of a deeper integration of intangible cultural heritage research and tourism development:

  1. 1.

    At the macro level, national and local governments have developed coordinated policies, integrated intangible cultural heritage resources, and planned tourism development strategies, among other measures. It has significantly boosted intangible cultural heritage research and tourism development over the past decade. Despite the new crown epidemic's impact, the tourism industry continues to thrive. Therefore, we should emphasize the principle of sustainability while promoting tourism development. We can explicitly include guiding principles for the preservation and utilization of intangible cultural heritage. The government should further develop relevant policies on intangible cultural heritage. It should protect local cultural heritage resources while also promoting the development and innovation of local culture and tourism. It can be seen that tourism develops in a variety of ways through cultural tourism, cultural activities, and that this has a positive impact on intangible culture bearers and intangible culture regions.

    Practitioners related to intangible cultural heritage and tourism can rely on the research results in this study to create additional in-depth tourism experience programs based on local intangible cultural heritage in each province. It can further enhance tourists’ sense of cultural participation and satisfaction. At the same time, promoting tourism programs for intangible cultural heritage helps to improve the public's understanding of intangible culture. It could serve the purpose of passing on and preserving culture.

  2. 2.

    There are significant differences in provincial development. Some of the inland provinces still have more room for progress. We recommend tailoring and developing tourism projects to align with the unique characteristics of each province's intangible cultural heritage. The rich resources of non-cultural tangible heritage, as well as large government investments in infrastructure, will greatly contribute to inter-provincial economic activities and data growth. This is especially true in the domains of transportation, communication, and energy.

    The protection and transmission of local culture, as well as the enhancement of tourism's attractiveness and competitiveness, must take into account the economic and cultural differences between provinces. To ensure the comprehensive protection of cultural heritage, we should develop differentiated policies to support disadvantaged provinces, including infrastructure and technical assistance. We should also encourage local communities to engage in the tourism development process for intangible cultural heritage so they can reap its benefits and steer clear of over exploitation issues.

  3. 3.

    We should independently strengthen intangible cultural research by increasing funding and establishing a robust protection mechanism. In the future, we should strengthen academic research on intangible cultural heritage, which can explore its role and significance in modern society from multiple dimensions, such as art, history, and economy. Meanwhile, we have established a monitoring and assessment mechanism for intangible cultural heritage. We can assess the impact of tourism activities on cultural heritage and adjust protection programs promptly. Additionally, we can enhance public awareness of the value of intangible cultural heritage. Education and media campaigns can raise public awareness. The possible negative impacts of tourism development, such as the destruction of village lifestyles and the over-commercialization of culture, should receive special attention. We must prioritize the healthy development of tourism to safeguard the authenticity and integrity of culture.

Limitations

The study has limitations in terms of cases and data. In terms of data, the inland cities are missing data from provinces such as Tibet, which can lead to the absence of individual provinces. In the future, we hope to use simulated data or government-added data to fill in the missing provinces. It could further validate the relational characteristics of the coupled relationship between intangible cultural heritage and tourism development in each province in China. This study shows that the indicators related to the number of intangible cultures and the data on their inheritors have remained stable over time. It will not affect the study of intangible culture. However, future research endeavors may incorporate individuals holding intangible cultural titles, such as national craft masters, and operational workshops. In addition, although China is a typical representative country, the analysis of a single country could not encompass the aggregate data of different countries and did not result in a more complex data analysis across countries. In the future, it will be possible to conduct more complex research across countries and analyze data on a larger scale in cooperation with neighboring countries.