Spatial coupling of cultural heritage resources and tourism carriers across China: A reproducible provincial assessment

Imagine a country where the past is not just a collection of old buildings or stories, but a living landscape that people walk through every day. In this landscape, two distinct things exist side by side. On one hand, there are the treasures of history: ancient villages, protected monuments, traditional crafts, and historic cities that hold the memory of a culture. On the other hand, there are the pathways and platforms built for visitors: tourist attractions, scenic parks, and the infrastructure that allows people to travel, stay, and explore. For a long time, planners and researchers have looked at these two sides separately, often counting how many tourists visit or how much money a region makes. But a deeper question remains: do the places where history lives actually match up with the places where people go to see it? Sometimes, a region might be full of hidden historical gems but lack the roads or signs to guide a visitor there. Other times, a popular tourist destination might be so focused on entertainment that it has lost touch with the local culture it sits upon. Understanding how these two systems—the cultural heritage and the tourism infrastructure—fit together is essential for making sure that travel helps preserve history rather than just consuming it.

A new study by researcher Suhu Xu takes a fresh look at this relationship across the thirty-one mainland provinces of China. Instead of guessing or relying on general economic numbers, the researcher used seven research-held spatial catalogue datasets to build a clear, repeatable map using actual lists of resources. The analysis gathered data on thousands of specific items: nearly 3,600 records of national intangible cultural heritage (like traditional skills and performances), over 5,000 protected historical sites, 142 historic cities, and almost 7,000 traditional villages. These were paired with a count of the places built for visitors: nearly 12,000 graded tourist attractions, 237 national scenic areas, and over 78,000 mapped scenic points. By counting these items in every province and comparing the two lists, the study created a diagnostic tool to see if a province has a balanced mix of history and visitor facilities, or if one side is missing.

The results reveal a landscape of surprising balance and distinct gaps. The province that achieved the highest level of balance between its cultural treasures and its visitor infrastructure was Zhejiang. It scored highly in both categories, suggesting that its historic villages and protected sites are well-supported by a network of places for people to visit. Following closely were Sichuan and Hunan. However, the study found that the most balanced regions were not necessarily the wealthiest or the most developed on the eastern coast. In fact, the central region of the country showed the highest average balance score, outperforming both the eastern and western regions. This suggests that the distribution of culture and tourism is not a simple line from rich to poor, but a complex pattern where history and travel infrastructure often align in the middle of the country.

The study also highlighted where the systems are out of sync. In some provinces, the cultural resources are abundant but the visitor infrastructure is thin. Yunnan, for instance, has a very strong stock of cultural heritage but a relatively weaker network of mapped scenic points compared to its history. This suggests that while the culture is rich, the pathways for people to access it might need careful development. In contrast, provinces like Guangdong have a very strong network of tourist attractions but a smaller relative stock of the specific cultural indicators measured in this study. This points to a different kind of challenge: ensuring that popular travel destinations are deeply connected to the local stories and heritage that make them unique. The researchers found that these imbalances are not failures, but rather signals for different types of planning. A place with too much history and too few visitors might need better access and interpretation, while a place with too many visitors and too little cultural depth might need to focus on telling the local story more effectively.

It is important to understand what this study does not do. The numbers counted in this analysis are just that: counts of listed items. They do not measure how well a site is preserved, how happy a visitor is, or how much money a town makes. A high score does not mean a province is a "winner" in tourism, nor does a lower score mean a place is culturally empty. The study explicitly avoids ranking the quality of the heritage or the success of tourism policies. Instead, it offers a baseline map of where things are located. It shows that in some areas, the cultural resources are there but the visitor facilities are sparse, while in others, the facilities are ready but the cultural content needs strengthening.

The value of this work lies in its transparency and its ability to be checked by anyone. The researcher made all the data, the counts, and the methods available, allowing others to verify the findings or use the same approach for smaller areas like counties or cities. By treating cultural heritage and tourism infrastructure as two separate but connected systems, the study provides a clear way to see where the gaps are. It suggests that the future of travel in China, and perhaps elsewhere, depends on recognizing these specific mismatches. Whether it is building a road to a remote village or adding a museum to a busy resort, the goal is to ensure that the places we visit are not just spots on a map, but living connections to the history they hold. This research does not solve the problem of how to travel better, but it provides the first clear, auditable step toward understanding where the pieces of the puzzle actually fit.