Cultural-Ecological Health Assessment of Island Tourism Using a Pressure–State–Response Entropy Method: Evidence from Weishan Island, China

Abstract

Lake-island villages face increasing cultural–ecological pressures due to tourism expansion and rural transformation, yet few studies have systematically assessed their cultural–ecological health. To address this gap, this study aims to quantify the cultural–ecological health of lake-island villages and identify key constraints shaping their sustainability under tourism development. It proposes a quantitative assessment framework integrating the Pressure–State–Response (PSR) model and the entropy weight method to evaluate the cultural–ecological health of Weishan Island, a typical lake-island tourism area in eastern China. Four representative villages (Daguan, Gounan, Lümeng, and Xiaolizhuang) were selected based on spatial distribution and tourism development characteristics. A 27-indicator evaluation system was constructed to measure population dynamics, land pressure, cultural vitality, and governance response. The results show that: (1) indicators related to cultural inheritance and governance (e.g., cultural facility maintenance and youth participation) contribute more strongly to cultural–ecological health than demographic or land pressures; (2) the overall health levels vary significantly among villages, forming a gradient pattern of Daguan > Gounan > Lümeng > Xiaolizhuang; (3) governance response is the key factor differentiating cultural–ecological outcomes under similar development pressures; and (4) cultural facility maintenance, volunteer participation, and youth heritage transmission are common constraints. This study provides an empirical basis for cultural–ecological management in lake-island regions and offers a replicable evaluation framework for sustainable tourism development.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background and Problem Statement

In recent years, global tourism has developed rapidly, becoming an important driver of regional economic growth and cultural exchange [1,2]. However, the contradiction between tourism development and cultural-ecological conservation has become increasingly prominent, particularly in lake-island tourism areas [3]. Islands or lake-islands often possess unique ecological environments and cultural landscapes. Their geographical isolation and limited resource-carrying capacity make them highly vulnerable and sensitive during the process of tourism development [4,5]. With the continuous increase in tourist numbers, issues such as overdevelopment, resource consumption, and environmental pollution frequently arise, exerting significant impacts on ecosystem stability and the continuity of community culture [6,7]. Against this backdrop, the scientific assessment and sustainable governance of cultural-ecological health have become a shared concern for both academia and policymakers [8].

In China, the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy and all-for-one tourism policy has driven a profound restructuring of the urban-rural spatial pattern [9,10]. As an important component of national tourism development, lake-island regions carry unique value in cultural inheritance, ecological conservation, and rural revitalization [11]. Weishan Island Town in Shandong Province represents a typical lake-island tourism area, where the unique geographical environment and historical-cultural background endow it with strong local distinctiveness. In recent years, relying on the development of its national 5A scenic area, Weishan Island Town has experienced rapid tourism growth [12]. However, the accompanying surge in tourist flows, spatial transformation, and industrial restructuring has exerted unprecedented pressures on the cultural carrying capacity and ecological resilience of local villages [13,14]. Consequently, lake-island villages are facing severe challenges in protecting traditional culture, maintaining community stability, and resisting external shocks [15,16].

Internationally, research on cultural ecology and tourism development has yielded rich achievements. Western scholars were among the first to propose concepts such as “cultural landscape” and “place attachment” to explain the multiple impacts of tourism activities on community culture and natural environments [17,18,19]. Numerous case studies demonstrate that islands and lake-islands, due to their spatial closure and limited carrying capacity, are particularly prone to cultural authenticity loss, community cohesion decline, and ecological degradation during rapid tourism development. For example, Mallorca in Spain has faced crowding and ecological deterioration due to large-scale tourism development [20]; Santorini in Greece has experienced the commodification of cultural lifestyles through over-reliance on sightseeing economies [21]; and studies of Bali in Indonesia have also revealed cultural-ecological imbalances caused by tourism consumption [22]. These cases not only provide important references for studying cultural-ecological health in lake-island tourism regions but also highlight the complexity and urgency of such research in both theory and practice [23,24].

Nevertheless, despite growing domestic and international research on tourism carrying capacity, ecological health assessment, and cultural protection, systematic quantitative studies on cultural-ecological health in lake-island villages remain scarce [25,26]. In particular, evaluation methods and diagnostic frameworks often rely on qualitative description or single-indicator analyses, lacking models capable of systematically reflecting the “Pressure-State-Response (PSR)” relationships [27,28]. This limitation hampers the accurate identification of fragile components and potential risks in cultural-ecological systems, thereby reducing the scientific validity and effectiveness of policy-making [29].

1.2. Research Status and Deficiencies

The theoretical and methodological origins of cultural-ecological health assessment can be traced to the “Pressure-State-Response (PSR)” framework in ecology and environmental science [30,31]. This framework emphasizes the interactions between external pressures, system states, and social responses to reveal ecosystem health conditions. In recent years, the PSR model has been increasingly applied in interdisciplinary fields such as urban-rural planning, tourism management, and cultural heritage conservation to build comprehensive evaluation systems [32,33]. Meanwhile, objective weighting methods such as the entropy weight method have been widely adopted due to their ability to reduce human bias and enhance scientific rigor [34,35]. Studies have shown that integrating the PSR framework with the entropy weight method can more comprehensively capture the health status of complex systems and objectively determine indicator weights, thus providing an effective tool for cultural-ecological research in tourism areas [36,37].

In domestic research, scholars have conducted extensive explorations around tourism carrying capacity, rural cultural heritage protection, and ecological civilization construction [38,39,40]. On the one hand, studies highlight the impacts of tourism activities on community cultural transmission and social structures, calling for enhanced cultural landscape conservation and community participation [41]. On the other hand, research has also focused on ecological pressures exerted by tourism development on water bodies, land, and biodiversity, advocating the establishment of multidimensional evaluation frameworks [42,43]. Ecological stress monitoring studies in island regions further indicate that rapid land-use change and tourism-driven development can deteriorate ecological quality [44], which makes pressure diagnosis essential in cultural–ecological evaluation. However, most of these studies concentrate on mountain, coastal, or peri-urban tourism areas, while lake-island tourism regions have received relatively little attention, especially in terms of systematic cultural-ecological health assessments and empirical research [45]. Compared with terrestrial rural settlements, island and lake-island regions often exhibit stronger coupling between ecological processes and cultural practices due to spatial isolation and environmental constraints [46], which makes their cultural–ecological systems more sensitive to tourism disturbance.

Foreign research paid earlier attention to the vulnerability of cultural-ecological systems and the role of community governance. For example, American scholars introduced the concept of “community resilience” to explain the adaptive and resistant capacities of local societies under tourism shocks. European studies often focused on cultural landscape evolution and policy responses, emphasizing institutional arrangements and multi-stakeholder collaboration in tourism development [47]. Recent studies emphasize that cultural resilience plays a critical role in sustaining local heritage and collective identity under external shocks [48], and landscape-level cultural systems often face barriers to resilience under modern development pressures [49]. Although these studies provide theoretical insights for lake-island regions, most research cases concentrate on oceanic islands or coastal cities, with insufficient attention to lake-island villages. Moreover, while the international literature has contributed significantly to the conceptual construction of cultural ecology and sustainable tourism, methodological limitations remain, including inconsistent indicator systems, difficulties in data acquisition, and low comparability of results.

Thus, given the insufficiency of both domestic and international research, constructing a scientific and reasonable framework for assessing cultural-ecological health in lake-island tourism areas has become an urgent issue. Moreover, cultural ecosystem services research highlights that cultural well-being, social cohesion, and heritage continuity are integral to ecosystem health evaluation [50], reinforcing the necessity of integrating human–culture dimensions into assessment frameworks such as PSR. This requires theoretical exploration of the interactions between cultural ecology and tourism development, as well as methodological innovation through more scientific quantitative tools to enhance the accuracy and operability of assessments.

Despite the valuable progress of previous studies, several research needs remain to be addressed. First, lake-island tourism areas have seldom been examined as distinct socio-cultural–ecological systems, and their cultural–ecological health has not yet been systematically assessed. Second, most existing analytical frameworks tend to emphasize either ecological risk or cultural heritage independently, while few studies integrate cultural transmission, community participation, and governance response into a unified and operational evaluation framework. Third, existing empirical assessments are generally descriptive in nature and lack diagnostic capability, making it difficult to identify key constraints and propose targeted governance strategies for cultural–ecological enhancement.

Therefore, this study takes Weishan Island as a representative lake-island tourism area in China and proposes three core research questions (RQs):

RQ1

What is the current level of cultural–ecological health in Weishan Island’s villages under tourism development?

RQ2

How do Pressure, State, and Response subsystems interact and differ across village types?

RQ3

What are the main obstacle factors affecting cultural–ecological health, and how can governance improve system resilience?

By addressing these questions, this study aims to establish an integrated PSR-based evaluation framework, quantitatively reveal intra-island differentiation, and provide governance-oriented insights for sustainable cultural–ecological development in lake-island regions.

Cultural-ecological health, particularly in lake-island regions, is a critical issue that has been addressed globally. For example, in Mediterranean islands such as Mallorca, Spain [51], and in Southeast Asian regions like Bali, Indonesia [52], the delicate balance between tourism development and cultural preservation has posed similar challenges. These areas face significant pressures from mass tourism, ecological degradation, and the commodification of cultural heritage. While these global case studies share many commonalities with Weishan Island, such as high tourist pressure and ecological vulnerability, they also highlight specific local variations in governance and cultural practices. By comparing these regions, it becomes evident that a more integrated approach—such as the PSR framework—can be universally applicable to understanding the cultural-ecological health of tourism areas, but must also account for the local specificities that shape their unique dynamics.

Main Innovations:

(1)

The integration of the PSR framework with the entropy weight method to evaluate cultural-ecological health in lake-island tourism areas, which has not been systematically applied in previous research.

(2)

A novel case study of Weishan Island Town, which offers insights into the specific challenges of lake-island tourism regions.

(3)

The application of a comprehensive, multidimensional evaluation system that considers both ecological and cultural factors, providing a more holistic assessment of cultural-ecological health.

1.3. Research Objectives and Innovations

Based on the above background and research gaps, this study takes Weishan Island Town in Shandong Province as its case area. By constructing a PSR-based cultural-ecological health evaluation system, it aims to systematically assess the health conditions of lake-island cultural ecosystems and propose governance strategies tailored to local realities. The specific research objectives are as follows:

(1)

To clarify the pressure sources, current characteristics, and response deficiencies of cultural-ecological health in Weishan Island Town;

(2)

To reveal the specific manifestations, obstacle factors, and potential risks of cultural-ecological systems in typical villages;

(3)

To propose cultural-ecological conservation pathways and strategies in line with the characteristics of lake-island tourism areas, thereby providing both theoretical and practical references for balancing tourism development and cultural-ecological protection.

The main innovations of this study are reflected in four aspects. First, it constructs a PSR indicator system adapted to the specificity of lake-island tourism regions, emphasizing the synergy of population dynamics, cultural resource conservation, industrial development, and community governance. Second, it applies the entropy weight method for objective weighting, reducing subjective bias and enhancing the scientific robustness of the results. Third, it integrates “health index” and “obstacle factor diagnosis” to conduct systematic assessments, thereby more accurately identifying weak links and potential risks in cultural-ecological systems. Fourth, it proposes dynamic conservation and governance strategies grounded in the actual conditions of lake-island villages, offering practical policy implications and experiences for the sustainable development of Weishan Island Town and other lake-island tourism areas.

In summary, this study not only responds to the tension between cultural-ecological protection and tourism development in lake-island regions but also introduces innovations in theoretical frameworks and methodological applications, aiming to provide a solid foundation for subsequent research and practical exploration.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area Overview

Weishan Island Town is located in the central part of Weishan Lake in Shandong Province, China, under the administration of Weishan County, Jining City (Figure 1). Covering a land area of approximately 53.31 km², it consists of 17 administrative villages with a registered population of about 20,000 residents. As shown in Figure 2, the overall spatial pattern is characterized by agglomeration along the western island periphery and relative dispersion on the eastern side, reflecting a typical settlement configuration of northern lake regions [53].

Weishan Island is a national 5A scenic destination and the largest inland lake island in northern China, located within the Weishan Lake National Wetland Park. Ecologically, the island contains 13.38 km² of terrestrial area and 39.94 km² of surrounding wetland waters, with a forest coverage rate exceeding 70%. The region supports high biodiversity, including more than 290 bird species and 78 fish species, and has been recognized among the “Top Ten Most Beautiful Wetlands in China” due to its large-scale lotus wetlands and freshwater habitats. In recent years, ecological restoration programs have rehabilitated over 100,000 mu of degraded wetlands, and fishing bans have been implemented to restore aquatic resources [54].

Culturally, Weishan Island holds significant historical and social value. It is widely known as the birthplace of the Railway Guerrillas during the Anti-Japanese War, and the Railway Guerrilla Memorial Park has been designated as a National Red Tourism Classic Scenic Area. The island also preserves archaeological remains from the Shang and Han dynasties, traditional fishing villages, and multiple forms of intangible cultural heritage (ICH), including fishing folk customs and willow weaving. Local cultural conservation measures include routine protection of registered heritage sites and the establishment of ICH transmission bases.

With the development of rural tourism policies, the island has undergone rapid industrial transformation from traditional fishing and agriculture toward tourism services, cultural experiences, and ecological leisure. However, growing tourism intensity has also led to rising spatial development pressures, cultural commodification risks, and increasing governance challenges. These dynamics make Weishan Island a representative and suitable empirical case for cultural–ecological health assessment in lake-island regions.

To comprehensively capture the differentiated characteristics of lake-island villages, this study selected four representative villages as case samples (Figure 3). Daguan Village, leveraging its advantageous location near the ferry terminal, has developed into a “gateway-type” tourism village centered on homestay economy and fishing culture experiences. Xiaolizhuang Village, integrating red revolutionary heritage such as the Railway Guerrilla sites with traditional agricultural functions, represents a “red memory-type” village. Gounan Village, relying on its thousand-year-old locust tree and red tourism projects, has developed diversified tourism activities, and is categorized as a “cultural tourism-type” village. Lümeng Village, capitalizing on its pastoral landscapes and educational resources, focuses on leisure agriculture and experiential education, representing a “study-tourism-type” village (Figure 4).

Among the 17 administrative villages of Weishan Island Town, we purposively selected Daguan, Gounan, Lümeng, and Xiaolizhuang as case sites based on the following criteria: (i) spatial heterogeneity—covering the west-ring coastal belt and the eastern inland belt, as well as a distance gradient to the main pier/visitor center; (ii) tourism type and development stage—including a gateway/homestay-led village, a red-heritage-based village, a multi-product cultural tourism village, and a rural-education/experiential village, spanning mature–growth–early stages; (iii) cultural-resource endowment—differences in historic buildings, red-heritage scenes, and intangible cultural heritage (ICH) items; (iv) governance and participation foundation—variation in community organization, volunteer engagement, and facility O&M; and (v) data accessibility for questionnaires, interviews, and field audits.

To enhance transparency,

Table 1. Overview of the 17 Administrative Villages in Weishan Island Town.

Village	Main Characteristics
Shangzhuang	Adjacent to the town government seat (Yang Village); a mixed-use core integrating historical texture and new rural vitality.
Yang	Town administrative center and main service hub.
Lümeng(selected case)	Recognized as a Key Rural Tourism Village of Shandong Province (2021); features a “rural education and agritourism” model combining paddy landscapes, study-tour bases, and university–village cooperation (e.g., Tsinghua Rural Revitalization Studio). Represents the education–experience type.
Yao	Southern agricultural village about 2 km from the town seat.
Muqian	Wartime heritage base of the Railway Guerrillas with preserved historic sites and Han-tomb relics.
Wanzhuang	Southwest of the town; integrates aquaculture and lotus sightseeing.
Gounan (selected case)	Filming site of The Railway Guerrillas; develops red-heritage and folk-culture tourism (camping, fishing, homestays). Represents the multi-product cultural-tourism type.
Goubei	Western edge of the island; small-scale fishery settlement.
Xielou	Northern slope of Mount Weishan; scenic lake-hill transition zone.
Lizhuang (selected case)	Wetland-edge village combining Red Lotus Wetland Park with red-heritage resources; represents the red-memory and wetland conservation type.
Tianzhuang	Traditional inland farming village neighboring Lizhuang.
Lüzhuang	Western agricultural village gradually introducing small tourism activities.
Xiaoguan	Compact residential area 0.3 km north of the town seat; limited tourism.
Daguan (selected case)	Key Rural Tourism Village of Shandong (2021) near the main pier; clusters fisherman-style homestays and folk museums with strong community participation. Represents the gateway homestay economy type.
Xizhang’a	Eastern fringe village under early eco-tourism pilot.
Lizhang’a	Northern agricultural village undergoing environmental upgrading.
Daxizhuang	Peripheral settlement dominated by aquaculture and traditional livelihoods.

Note: Daguan, Gounan, Lümeng and Lizhuang were chosen as representative cases for their differences in spatial setting, tourism orientation, development stage and governance foundation. Source: Authors’ field investigation and publicly available official data.

provides an overview of all 17 villages (location, tourism orientation, development stage, and key cultural resources). The four selected cases jointly represent the island’s major spatial–functional patterns and governance diversity, ensuring comparability for the PSR-based assessment.

As summarized in

Table 2. Comparative characteristics of the four typical villages.

Village	Type and Positioning	Location Conditions	Resource Endowment	Development Model
Daguan Village	Gateway-type homestay development village	Adjacent to Daguan Ferry, core gateway of the scenic area	Fishing culture, folk museum, homestay clusters	Homestay economy and cultural experiences as the core, forming a “tourism service + cultural empowerment” model
Xiaolizhuang Village	Red memory and traditional agriculture village	Located within the Honghe Scenic Area, surrounded by water on three sides	Railway Guerrilla heritage sites, red landscapes, intangible cultural heritage handicrafts	Integration of red tourism and traditional agriculture, providing ICH skills training to increase villagers’ income
Gounan Village	Cultural heritage and diversified tourism village	Located in the inland area of the island, with convenient transportation	Thousand-year-old locust tree, red memory experience zone, “Water Pipa” project	Combination of red culture and tourism development, expanding catering, fishing, camping, and other sectors
Lümeng Village	Study-tourism and pastoral village	Prominent pastoral landscape, high-quality ecological environment	Study-tourism base, Tsinghua University Rural Revitalization Station	Dominated by leisure agriculture and study-tourism education, promoting “farm area to scenic area, fields to parks”

Source: the authors’ own drawing.

, the four case villages exhibit typical and complementary characteristics in terms of location, resource endowment, and development model, thereby providing diversified case support for the evaluation of cultural-ecological health.

2.2. Construction of the Evaluation Indicator System

2.2.1. Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Basis

This study employs the Pressure–State–Response (PSR) model as a structured evaluation framework for cultural–ecological systems. The PSR framework was originally proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as a tool to describe the interactions between human activities and environmental systems [55]. It has been widely applied in ecosystem assessment, environmental carrying capacity analysis, and sustainable development research.

The PSR model assumes that any system evolves through a dynamic mechanism:

(1)

Pressure (P): external drivers or stressors induced by environmental change or human activities, such as population mobility, tourism intensity, and land-use transformation;

(2)

State (S): the condition of the system under pressure, including the conservation status of cultural heritage, cultural vitality, and socio-economic structure;

(3)

Response (R): the feedback measures taken by communities or governments through governance mechanisms, planning policies, and public participation to mitigate pressure and improve system resilience.

In this study, the PSR model is adapted rather than directly adopted. It is extended from environmental assessments to the analysis of cultural–ecological health by incorporating cultural inheritance, community participation, and rural governance into the State and Response dimensions. This adaptation allows the model to capture the interaction between tourism development and cultural sustainability in lake–island regions. To operationalize the PSR framework, a 27-indicator system was constructed, and corresponding data were obtained from household surveys, field observations, and officially published statistics to quantitatively evaluate system health under tourism development pressures.

Therefore, the PSR framework provides a logical structure for identifying tourism-induced pressures, diagnosing cultural–ecological conditions, and evaluating governance responses, forming the theoretical foundation of this study.

As illustrated in Figure 5, the PSR model is extended in this study to the evaluation of cultural-ecological systems. For lake-island tourism areas, culture and ecology are highly coupled: they simultaneously face multiple pressures from population dynamics, economic change, and tourism development, while also exhibiting dynamic variations in cultural resources and environmental conditions. Furthermore, their resilience depends heavily on governance and policy regulation. Thus, the PSR framework provides a comprehensive and systematic approach to reflect the health status of cultural-ecological systems [56]. This adaptation accounts for the unique coupling of culture and ecology in these regions, which face multiple pressures from population dynamics, economic changes, and tourism development, while also exhibiting dynamic variations in cultural resources and environmental conditions.

In this study, the traditional PSR framework is adapted to the context of cultural–ecological systems by integrating tourism impacts and governance mechanisms. The model reflects a logical chain in which tourism and demographic dynamics impose Pressure (P) on cultural heritage and community structure, weakening the State (S) of cultural vitality and ecological quality, while governance and community involvement act as Response (R) mechanisms to mitigate degradation and restore system resilience. The PSR model is therefore suitable for this study because it enables a structured diagnosis of system imbalances and highlights pathways for cultural–ecological restoration under tourism development.

The PSR framework was originally developed by the OECD (1993) [55] as a causal analytical model for environmental assessment. It has since been widely adapted in socio-ecological research due to its clear logic and operability in linking external stress, system conditions, and governance feedback [57]. In this study, the PSR model was adapted rather than directly adopted: cultural attributes such as heritage vitality, community identity, and governance response were incorporated into the “State” and “Response” dimensions to reflect the coupled relationship between culture and ecology in lake-island tourism areas. This adaptation allows the model to better capture cultural-ecological dynamics while maintaining its logical integrity and data compatibility.

2.2.2. Structure of the Indicator System

The indicator system was developed based on a combination of theoretical foundations, policy relevance, and data availability. All indicators were derived from verifiable data sources, including household questionnaires, village-level statistical records, and official statistical yearbooks [58]. The use of mixed data sources ensured both scientific validity and local applicability.

As shown in

Table 3. Indicator system for cultural-ecological health assessment.

Dimension	Element	Code	Indicator	Direction	Unit/Scale	Source
P:Pressure	Demographic pressure	P1	Hollowing-out rate of resident population	Negative	%	Household survey
		P2	Aging rate	Negative	%	Household survey
		P3	Native resident outmigration rate	Negative	%	Village committee records
	Land and spatial pressure	P4	Proportion of construction land	Negative	%	Statistical Yearbook
		P5	Tourism facility density	Negative	facilities/ha	Field survey
	Cultural transition pressure	P6	Peak tourist-to-resident ratio	Negative	times	Tourism bureau data
		P7	Vacant homestead rate	Negative	%	Village committee records
		P8	Cultural-commercialization index	Negative	Likert 1–5	Household survey
S:State	Tangible heritage status	S1	Integrity of historic buildings	Positive	%	Field survey
		S2	Adaptive reuse rate of historic buildings	Positive	%	Field survey
		S3	Historical environmental coordination	Positive	Likert 1–5	Expert evaluation
	Intangible cultural vitality	S4	Number of local ICH projects	Positive	Count	Culture bureau data
		S5	Proportion of young inheritors	Positive	%	Household survey
		S6	Diversity of cultural performances	Positive	Likert 1–5	Household survey
	Cultural economy & industry	S7	Stability of villagers’ main income	Positive	Likert 1–5	Household survey
		S8	Employment diversity index	Positive	Likert 1–5	Household survey
	Environment & landscape	S9	Satisfaction with lakeshore landscape	Positive	Likert 1–5	Household survey
		S10	Housing quality rating	Positive	Likert 1–5	Field evaluation
		S11	Completeness of public facilities	Positive	Likert 1–5	Field evaluation
R:Response	Governance & planning	R1	Awareness of cultural and water protection plans	Positive	Likert 1–5	Household survey
		R2	Degree of planning implementation	Positive	Likert 1–5	Expert evaluation
		R3	Effectiveness of cultural governance agencies	Positive	Likert 1–5	Village committee
	Funding & technical support	R4	Villagers’ support for cultural protection	Positive	Likert 1–5	Household survey
		R5	Satisfaction with cultural facility maintenance	Positive	Likert 1–5	Household survey
	Participation & communication	R6	Villager participation in cultural activities	Positive	%	Household survey
		R7	Number of cultural volunteers	Positive	persons	Village committee
		R8	Degree of cultural visibility in the village	Positive	Likert 1–5	Field survey

Source: the authors’ own drawing.

, the indicator system consists of three primary dimensions (Pressure, State, and Response), nine secondary elements, and twenty-seven tertiary indicators. The selection of indicators followed four guiding principles:

(1)

Scientific validity and systematic coverage: indicators should capture the main processes of cultural-ecological health and highlight the causal logic of pressure, state, and response;

(2)

Data availability and comparability: preference is given to indicators measurable through household surveys, fieldwork, statistical yearbooks, and departmental datasets, ensuring feasibility of data collection;

(3)

Hierarchical logic and representativeness: primary dimensions represent overall categories, secondary elements specify key aspects, and tertiary indicators provide operational metrics;

(4)

Positive and negative orientation: indicators are classified as either positive (higher values indicate healthier systems) or negative (higher values indicate greater risks), thereby ensuring rationality in the computation results.

2.3. Data Sources and Research Methods

Field surveys were conducted in Weishan Island Town from 10 to 28 January 2025. A structured questionnaire was designed to collect information on residents’ demographic characteristics, cultural identity, industrial dependence, heritage perception, and participation in village construction. The survey covered the four representative villages—Daguan, Gounan, Lümeng, and Xiaolizhuang—each with no fewer than 80 valid samples, yielding a total of approximately 320 valid responses. Questionnaires were distributed through on-site household visits and small-group interviews. Eligible respondents were permanent residents aged 18 and above, and the sampling ensured balanced representation across gender, age, and occupation. The overall valid-response rate was about 73%. Detailed survey statistics are summarized in

Table 4. Survey statistics for the four case villages.

Village	Survey Dates	Questionnaires Distributed	Valid Responses	Valid Response Rate (%)
Daguan Village	10–28 January 2025	110	82	74.5
Gounan Village	10–28 January 2025	108	80	74.1
Lümeng Village	10–28 January 2025	106	81	76.4
Xiaolizhuang Village	10–28 January 2025	110	80	72.7
Total		434	323	73.9 (average)

Source: Authors’ field investigation and official online information.

. Regarding ethical standards, all participants signed informed consent forms, and survey data was anonymized and used solely for academic research purposes. In addition, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted with village cadres, cultural practitioners, and residents to support qualitative interpretation of cultural–ecological dynamics.

2.4. Entropy Weight Method and Calculation Procedures

In this study, the entropy weight method was applied to assign objective weights to the 27 indicators [59]. First, the raw data were normalized to eliminate dimensional differences. Then, the information entropy of each indicator was calculated to measure the variability among samples. A larger difference produces lower entropy and a higher indicator weight. Finally, the redundancy degree was used to derive objective weights, minimizing subjective bias. All input data for the entropy calculation were obtained from household survey results (320 valid questionnaires), semi-structured interviews, field investigation records, and officially released statistics such as the Weishan County Statistical Yearbook (2024) and Shandong Provincial Bureau of Statistics. This weighting process strictly follows established practices in PSR-based evaluation studies using entropy methods [42], ensuring methodological reliability and comparability.

To ensure a transparent aggregation process, the weighted indicators were further integrated according to the PSR framework: standardized indicator values were first aggregated to obtain the Pressure (P), State (S), and Response (R) subsystem scores, and then the comprehensive cultural–ecological health index (HI) for each village was calculated through weighted summation. This PSR–entropy approach not only prevents excessive subjective interference but also enhances the diagnostic ability of the model by distinguishing subsystem contributions and identifying key constraint indicators.

The calculation steps are as follows:

(1)

Indicator standardization

Since the indicators differ in units and ranges, dimensionless normalization was performed to convert each indicator value to a range of [0, 1]. The min–max method was applied.

For positive indicators (where a higher value indicates better cultural-ecological health), the normalization formula is:

$$Z_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{X_{ij}-\min (X_j)}{\max (X_j)-\min (X_j)}}$$

For negative indicators (where a higher value indicates risk or negative ecological pressure), the reverse normalization formula is:

$$Z_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{\max (X_j)-X_{ij}}{\max (X_j)-\min (X_j)}}$$

where $X_{ij}$ represents the raw value of the $j$-th indicator for the $i$-th sample; $\min (X_j)$ and $\max (X_j)$ denote the minimum and maximum values of indicator $j$ across all samples; $Z_{ij}$ is the standardized result.

(2)

Proportion and entropy calculation

On the basis of standardization, the proportion of indicator $j$ in sample $i$ is calculated as:

$$p_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{Z_{ij}}{{\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^m{Z}_{ij}}}}$$

Then, the information entropy of each indicator is determined by:

$${E_j=-k{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^m{p}_{ij}}\ln (p_{ij})}_{k=1/\ln (m)}$$

where $m$ is the total number of samples, and $k$ is a constant ensuring that $E_j$ ∈ [0, 1]. A smaller entropy value indicates larger variation among samples, implying that the indicator provides more information.

(3)

Determination of weights

The redundancy degree of each indicator is then computed, and weights are obtained as follows:

$$W_j={\displaystyle \frac{1-E_j}{{\displaystyle {\sum }_{j=1}^n(1-E_j)}}}$$

where $n$ is the total number of indicators, and $W_j$ is the final weight of indicator $j$. Indicators with smaller entropy values are assigned greater weights, reflecting their higher importance in the overall evaluation.

(4)

Comprehensive evaluation score

The overall evaluation score of each sample is calculated by weighted summation:

$$H_i={\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n{W}_j·Z_{ij}}$$

where $H_i$ is the composite score of the $i$-th village, $W_j$ is the entropy weight of indicator $j$, and $Z_{ij}$ is the standardized value.

2.5. Cultural-Ecological Health Diagnostic Model

The input values of each indicator in the diagnostic model are consistent with those obtained from standardized survey data and verified through official statistical sources. To systematically assess the overall health status of the cultural-ecological system in Weishan Island Town, this study integrates a dual diagnostic framework of the Health Index (HI) and the Obstacle Degree Model (ODM) [60,61]. On the one hand, the HI reflects the aggregate level of cultural-ecological health; on the other hand, the ODM identifies the critical weaknesses and barriers restricting health improvement, thereby providing scientific guidance for governance and policy design [62,63,64].

2.5.1. Health Index (HI) Model

Based on the entropy-derived weights, the composite cultural-ecological health index of each village is obtained through weighted aggregation:

$$H{I}_i={\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n{w}_j}·x_{ij}$$

where $H{I}_i$ is the comprehensive health index of village $i$; $x_{ij}$ denotes the standardized score of indicator $j$ for village $i$; $w_j$ is the entropy weight of indicator $j$; and n = 27 is the total number of indicators. Higher index values (closer to 1) indicate better cultural-ecological health, whereas lower values imply stronger pressures or weaker responses.

2.5.2. Obstacle Degree Model (ODM)

Since the HI alone cannot reveal specific weaknesses, the ODM is applied to identify key obstacles. The procedure consists of three steps:

(1)

Contribution rate:

$$F_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{w_j·x_{ij}}{{\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=1}^n{w}_j·x_{ij}}}}$$

where $F_{ij}$ reflects the relative contribution of indicator $j$ to the health index of village $i$.

(2)

Deviation degree:

$$I_{ij}=1-x_{ij}$$

where $I_{ij}$ represents the deviation of indicator $j$ in village $i$ from the ideal state.

(3)

Obstacle degree:

$$O_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{F_{ij}·I_{ij}}{{\displaystyle {\sum }_{j=1}^n(F_{ij}·I_{ij})}}}\times 100\%$$

where $O_{ij}$ is the obstacle degree of indicator $j$ in village $i$. A higher value indicates that the indicator exerts a stronger hindering effect on the overall health.

2.5.3. Classification Standards of Comprehensive Health Levels

To facilitate intuitive interpretation and cross-village comparison of the evaluation results, this study establishes classification thresholds for the comprehensive health index (HI), tailored to the actual conditions of the study area. As shown in

Table 5. Classification standards for comprehensive cultural-ecological health levels.

Health Level	HI Range	System Characteristics
Healthy	HI ≥ 0.75	Cultural-ecological system with intact structure, well-coordinated functions, and effective governance
Sub-healthy	0.60 ≤ HI < 0.75	Generally stable cultural-ecological system, though under certain pressures
Critical	0.45 ≤ HI < 0.60	System functions partially impaired; conflicts between development and protection are prominent
Imbalanced	HI < 0.45	Severe cultural-ecological degradation with significant systemic risks

Source: the authors’ own drawing.

, the HI values are divided into four levels of cultural-ecological health.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Indicator Weights

As shown in

Table 6. Entropy weight results of cultural-ecological health evaluation indicators.

Dimension	Element	Code	Indicator	Entropy	Redundancy	Weight
P:Pressure	Demographic pressure	P1	Hollowing-out rate of resident population	0.695	0.305	0.0351
		P2	Aging rate	0.730	0.270	0.0311
		P3	Native resident outmigration rate	0.760	0.240	0.0277
	Land and spatial pressure	P4	Proportion of construction land	0.680	0.320	0.0367
		P5	Tourism facility density	0.773	0.227	0.0262
	Cultural transition pressure	P6	Peak tourist-to-resident ratio	0.669	0.331	0.038
		P7	Vacant homestead rate	0.730	0.270	0.031
		P8	Cultural-commercialization index	0.632	0.368	0.0423
S:State	Tangible heritage status	S1	Integrity of historic buildings	0.703	0.297	0.0342
		S2	Adaptive reuse rate of historic buildings	0.663	0.337	0.0388
		S3	Historical environmental coordination	0.666	0.334	0.0384
	Intangible cultural vitality	S4	Number of local ICH projects	0.689	0.311	0.0357
		S5	Proportion of young inheritors	0.500	0.500	0.0575
		S6	Diversity of cultural performances	0.703	0.297	0.0342
	Cultural economy & industry	S7	Stability of villagers’ main income	0.703	0.297	0.0342
		S8	Employment diversity index	0.676	0.324	0.0373
	Environment & landscape	S9	Satisfaction with lakeshore landscape	0.774	0.226	0.026
		S10	Housing quality rating	0.739	0.261	0.0301
		S11	Completeness of public facilities	0.720	0.280	0.0322
R:Response	Governance & planning	R1	Awareness of cultural and water protection plans	0.676	0.324	0.0373
		R2	Degree of planning implementation	0.742	0.258	0.0297
		R3	Effectiveness of cultural governance agencies	0.73	0.27	0.0311
	Funding & technical support	R4	Villagers’ support for cultural protection	0.765	0.235	0.027
		R5	Satisfaction with cultural facility maintenance	0.325	0.675	0.0776
	Participation & communication	R6	Villager participation in cultural activities	0.703	0.297	0.0342
		R7	Number of cultural volunteers	0.459	0.541	0.0622
		R8	Degree of cultural visibility in the village	0.700	0.300	0.0345

Source: the authors’ own drawing.

, the entropy weight results of the 27 indicators exhibit clear variation. Overall, the weights of State (S) and Response (R) indicators are generally higher than those of Pressure (P) indicators. Among them, R5 “Villagers’ satisfaction with cultural facility maintenance” (0.0776), R7 “Number of cultural volunteers” (0.0622), and S5 “Proportion of young inheritors” (0.0575) rank at the top, highlighting the critical role of local perceptions, cultural participation, and generational transmission in shaping cultural-ecological health. In contrast, indicators such as P5 “Tourism facility density” and S9 “Satisfaction with lakeshore landscapes” show relatively low weights, indicating limited differentiation among villages and weaker contributions to the overall evaluation.

These findings suggest that the essence of cultural-ecological health does not lie solely in material space and demographic structures, but more importantly in villagers’ subjective recognition and participation, as well as the vitality of cultural inheritance.

These entropy-weighted results directly influence the final health index calculation in Section 3.2. Since Response (R) and State (S) indicators receive higher weights, villages with stronger cultural governance, higher participation, and more effective cultural transmission tend to achieve higher comprehensive scores. Conversely, villages with weak governance response and low inheritance activity are more significantly penalized in the evaluation system, even if their natural conditions or tourism development levels are relatively comparable. This confirms that governance and cultural vitality play a decisive role in cultural–ecological health in lake-island contexts.

3.2. Comprehensive Health Index and Level Classification

The comprehensive health indices (HI) of the four villages are presented in

Table 7. Comprehensive cultural-ecological health index of the four villages.

Village	HI	Health Level
Daguan Village	0.750	Healthy
Gounan Village	0.573	Sub-healthy
Lümeng Village	0.410	Critical
Xiaolizhuang Village	0.160	Imbalanced

Source: the authors’ own drawing.

. The overall ranking (Figure 6) is: Daguan Village (0.750) > Gounan Village (0.573) > Lümeng Village (0.410) > Xiaolizhuang Village (0.160). Daguan Village scores the highest, reaching the “Healthy” level, reflecting the advantages of tourism-driven cultural facilities and governance capacity. Gounan Village, supported by its red cultural heritage, achieves a “Sub-healthy” level, though its response mechanisms remain insufficient. Lümeng Village, despite relying on pastoral study-tourism and ICH resources, suffers from weaknesses in economic foundations and governance implementation, and thus remains at a “Critical” level. Xiaolizhuang Village, with the lowest index, falls into an “Imbalanced” state, indicating an urgent need for cultural-ecological health improvement.

Overall, significant differentiation is evident among the villages within Weishan Island Town, forming a spatial gradient of “gateway villages leading, resource-based villages following, and functional-extension and traditional villages lagging behind.” This disparity reflects not only geographic location and development trajectories but also highlights the imbalance between tourism development and community governance. The ranking results are consistent with the entropy-weighted indicator influence pattern. For example, Daguan Village’s leading position is closely linked to its advantages in high-weight indicators such as R5 (facility maintenance satisfaction) and R7 (number of cultural volunteers), while Xiaolizhuang Village’s lowest ranking results from extremely low performance in these same indicators. This demonstrates that the entropy weight method effectively amplifies the influence of key cultural and governance-related variables in the evaluation.

3.3. Comparison of PSR Dimensions

To further reveal the sources of differences, the three subsystem indices were calculated (

Table 8. Subsystem indices of cultural-ecological health in the four villages.

Village	Pressure Subsystem (P)	State Subsystem (S)	Response Subsystem (R)
Daguan Village	0.491	0.716	1.000
Gounan Village	0.399	0.713	0.545
Lümeng Village	0.583	0.507	0.156
Xiaolizhuang Village	0.534	0.022	0.022

Source: the authors’ own drawing.

). The results indicate the following:

Daguan Village performed best in the Response subsystem (1.000), demonstrating that its governance system, villager participation, and cultural facility maintenance are at the leading level.

Gounan Village achieved a State subsystem index close to that of Daguan Village, reflecting the positive effects of red cultural resources. However, its Response subsystem index was relatively low (0.545), suggesting insufficient governance and participation.

Lümeng Village recorded the highest Pressure subsystem index (0.583), indicating greater stress from tourism development and demographic structure. Nevertheless, both its State and Response indices were unsatisfactory.

Xiaolizhuang Village was nearly dysfunctional in both State and Response dimensions (0.022 each), showing significant gaps in cultural inheritance and governance support.

As shown in Figure 7, these findings suggest that differences in cultural-ecological health among villages are not solely caused by external pressures, but more fundamentally by the effective utilization of cultural resources and the strength of governance responses. Therefore, improving cultural-ecological health requires not only alleviating external pressures but also strengthening governance mechanisms and villager participation.

3.4. Major Obstacle Factors

To identify the key constraints affecting cultural-ecological health, an obstacle factor analysis was conducted for the four villages (

Table 9. Analysis of major obstacle factors in the four villages.

Village	Major Obstacle Factors (Top Five)	Obstacle Degree (%)
Daguan Village	S5 Proportion of young inheritors	23.0
	P8 Cultural commercialization index	16.9
	P4 Proportion of construction land	14.7
	P6 Peak tourist-resident ratio	12.5
	P5 Tourism facility density	10.5
Gounan Village	R5 Facility maintenance satisfaction	14.5
	P6 Peak tourist-resident ratio	8.9
	P8 Cultural commercialization index	8.7
	S4 Number of ICH projects	8.4
	R7 Number of cultural volunteers	7.3
Lümeng Village	R5 Facility maintenance satisfaction	13.2
	R7 Number of cultural volunteers	10.5
	R1 Awareness of planning	6.3
	S2 Adaptive reuse of historic buildings	5.5
	S3 Historical environmental coordination	5.2
Xiaolizhuang Village	R5 Facility maintenance satisfaction	9.2
	R7 Number of cultural volunteers	7.4
	S5 Proportion of young inheritors	6.8
	S2 Adaptive reuse of historic buildings	4.6
	S3 Historical environmental coordination	4.6

Source: the authors’ own drawing.

). The results are as follows:

Daguan Village: The primary obstacle was S5 “Proportion of young inheritors” (23.0%), indicating that despite its overall strong performance, insufficient intergenerational transmission poses a potential risk.

Gounan Village: The largest obstacle was R5 “Satisfaction with facility maintenance” (14.5%), along with stress from the peak tourist-resident ratio (P6) and a limited number of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) projects (S4).

Lümeng Village: Constraints mainly stemmed from R5 “Satisfaction with facility maintenance” (13.2%) and R7 “Number of cultural volunteers” (10.5%), reflecting deficiencies in governance systems and villager mobilization for study-tourism development.

Xiaolizhuang Village: Obstacles were more evenly distributed, though the greatest issue remained R5 “Satisfaction with facility maintenance” (9.2%), coupled with insufficient youth inheritance and low cultural visibility.

Overall, the common obstacles across all four villages are concentrated in three areas: maintenance of cultural facilities, community participation, and youth inheritance. This indicates that enhancing the cultural-ecological health of lake-island villages requires the establishment of long-term facility maintenance mechanisms, broadening community participation, and strengthening the role of younger generations in cultural transmission. This finding is consistent with interview feedback; for example, several villagers in Lümeng reported that “public cultural facilities are used mainly during holidays and lack regular maintenance,” indicating weak community engagement.

3.5. Summary

Through the application of the entropy weight method and obstacle factor diagnosis, this study systematically evaluated the cultural-ecological health of four typical villages in Weishan Island Town. The results indicate the following:

(1)

The distribution of indicator weights shows that “soft indicators,” such as villagers’ subjective perceptions, cultural facility maintenance, and youth inheritance, play a central role in the comprehensive evaluation system, whereas some “hard indicators,” such as land use and landscape satisfaction, exhibit relatively weak differentiation.

(2)

The comprehensive health indices reveal significant inter-village disparities. Daguan Village achieved the highest overall level, while Xiaolizhuang Village ranked the lowest, highlighting a spatial gradient pattern in cultural-ecological development.

(3)

Subsystem analysis further reveals each village’s strengths and weaknesses. Daguan Village demonstrates advantages in the Response dimension; Gounan Village relies heavily on cultural resources but suffers from insufficient governance; Lümeng Village faces excessive pressure with limited governance capacity; and Xiaolizhuang Village falls into a “dual-low” dilemma in both State and Response dimensions.

(4)

Obstacle factor analysis demonstrates that cultural facility maintenance, community participation, and insufficient youth inheritance are common bottlenecks across the villages, representing the key areas constraining the sustainable development of cultural ecology.

Furthermore, the quantitative results based on the entropy-weighted PSR model directly answer RQ1 and RQ2 by revealing both the overall health levels and subsystem interaction mechanisms. The findings show that even villages exposed to similar tourism pressures demonstrate divergent cultural–ecological health outcomes due to variations in governance response capacity and cultural inheritance effectiveness. This confirms that cultural–ecological resilience in island villages is not solely determined by external development intensity but is fundamentally shaped by internal response mechanisms.

Overall, the cultural-ecological health of Weishan Island villages is jointly shaped by multidimensional factors. The observed disparities are not only the result of geographic location and tourism development intensity, but more importantly depend on the effectiveness of community governance and cultural transmission mechanisms. These findings provide solid empirical evidence for proposing differentiated and targeted policy recommendations in subsequent sections.

4. Discussion

4.1. Tourism Development and Cultural-Ecological Risks

The results of the comprehensive health index (Table 7) indicate that Daguan Village enjoys a clear advantage in cultural–ecological health (HI = 0.750), while Xiaolizhuang Village remains at a warning level (HI = 0.160), with significant disparities among villages. This pattern suggests that under the background of 5A-level tourism development and surging tourist inflows, lake-island villages exhibit pronounced vulnerability in their cultural–ecological systems. As reflected by the high values of pressure indicators such as the peak tourist-to-resident ratio (P6) and construction land proportion (P4), intensive tourism facility construction and land-use expansion exacerbate spatial pressures, while the increasing population mobility accelerates changes in traditional spatial organization. In this context, the boundaries between cultural and living spaces become blurred, and villagers’ daily lives are increasingly subordinated to tourism functions [65,66].

Moreover, the entropy weight ranking places the cultural commercialization index (P8) among the top pressure indicators (Table 6), and obstacle factor diagnosis (Table 9) identifies it as a major constraint in Daguan and Gounan Villages. This suggests that while tourism development brings economic benefits, it simultaneously drives the performatization and commodification of cultural practices, weakening authenticity and community identity. This result further verifies that the “pressure” subsystem of the PSR model plays a dominant role in shaping early tourism transformation in lake-island villages, and without effective governance response, cultural space risks being excessively eroded by marketization. Therefore, cultural–ecological protection in Weishan Island requires not only economic activation but also institutional regulation to prevent functional imbalance during rapid tourism development.

4.2. Cultural Inheritance and Community Participation

The entropy weight results (Table 6) show that S5 “proportion of young inheritors,” R5 “satisfaction with facility maintenance,” and R7 “number of cultural volunteers” carry the highest weights in the evaluation system. This finding highlights that cultural-ecological health depends heavily on living cultural inheritance and active community participation. However, the obstacle factor diagnosis (Table 9) reveals that even Daguan Village, with the highest overall index, faces a major challenge in the insufficient proportion of young inheritors (23.0%). In Gounan, Lümeng, and Xiaolizhuang Villages, the greatest barriers lie in facility maintenance and volunteer participation. This demonstrates that the long-term sustainability of cultural ecology depends not only on resource stocks but also on intergenerational continuity and community mobilization capacity. Interview responses revealed that young residents often leave for work elsewhere and are “not sure how traditional skills relate to future development,” which explains the high obstacle value of S5 (young inheritors).

From a theoretical perspective, this outcome aligns with the consensus in domestic and international research that “cultural inheritance and community identity are the core of cultural ecology.” Insufficient intergenerational succession implies a declining capacity for self-repair of the cultural-ecological system, which, in the long run, weakens local identity and cohesion. Meanwhile, villagers’ satisfaction with facilities and cultural activities not only reflects material conditions but also directly shapes their willingness to participate and sense of belonging. If community members lack recognition of cultural facilities and activities, cultural-ecological protection loses its endogenous driving force. Therefore, improving the cultural-ecological health of lake-island villages must be achieved by stimulating internal identity and participation, rather than relying solely on one-way external support [67,68].

4.3. Governance Differences and Pathways

The subsystem indices (Table 8) reveal that variations in governance response are critical determinants of cultural-ecological health levels. Daguan Village scored the highest in the Response dimension (1.000), indicating a well-established governance mechanism, active villager participation, and effective operation of cultural facilities. In contrast, although Gounan Village possesses abundant red cultural resources, its relatively low Response index (0.545) suggests a “mismatch” between resource endowment and governance capacity. Lümeng Village faces substantial pressure (P index = 0.583) but underperforms in governance, reflecting the absence of effective cultural-ecological regulation amid rapid development. Xiaolizhuang Village, meanwhile, falls into a “dual-low” dilemma in both State and Response dimensions, highlighting systemic deficiencies in cultural inheritance and governance support. According to village committee members in Xiaolizhuang, limited funding and low volunteer mobilization “make it difficult to sustain cultural projects,” which helps explain its low response subsystem index (R = 0.022).

Based on these differences, this study further summarizes the governance characteristics, key shortcomings, and differentiated improvement pathways of the four villages. As shown in

Table 10. Governance Differences and Improvement Pathways of the Four Villages.

Village	Governance Characteristics	Main Shortcomings	Improvement Pathways
Daguan	Gateway-type village; relatively sound governance system; high villager participation; proactive cultural facility maintenance	Insufficient youth inheritance; risk of cultural performatization	Establish youth inheritance cultivation mechanisms; integrate homestay and tourism industries with cultural connotations; prevent excessive commercialization
Gounan	Relies on red cultural resources; strong performance in the State subsystem	Weak governance response; low satisfaction with facility maintenance; limited number of intangible cultural heritage projects	Improve cultural facility maintenance mechanisms; strengthen governance execution; expand integration of red culture and tourism
Lümeng	Rich in agritourism and educational resources; strong development potential	High tourism and population pressures; weak governance system; limited villager participation	Establish buffer mechanisms to reduce peak tourism pressure; strengthen villager mobilization and volunteer services; develop integrated models combining education and intangible cultural heritage
Xiaolizhuang	Traditional village with both red memory and wetland resources	Dual deficiency in State and Response subsystems; lack of cultural inheritance and governance mechanisms	Prioritize improvements in basic infrastructure and cultural display functions; enhance villager participation and intangible heritage training; introduce external support for holistic upgrading

Source: the authors’ own drawing.

, Daguan Village is relatively advanced in governance, but insufficient youth inheritance and risks of cultural performatization remain as potential concerns. Gounan Village benefits from strong resource endowments yet lacks governance execution and facility maintenance capacity. Lümeng Village holds advantages in agritourism and educational resources, but excessive pressures and insufficient community mobilization hinder its cultural-ecological resilience. Xiaolizhuang Village suffers from a dual deficiency in cultural inheritance and governance, reflecting deep systemic challenges.

Overall, governance differences not only reflect diverse development paths and functional positioning but also reveal the intrinsic linkages among governance execution, villager participation, and cultural inheritance mechanisms. Implementing differentiated governance tailored to village types is thus essential for improving the cultural-ecological health of lake-island tourism areas [69,70,71].

4.4. Implications for Rural Revitalization

Drawing on the empirical results, this study proposes several implications for cultural-ecological protection under the framework of China’s rural revitalization strategy. First, a “people-centered” approach should be maintained, placing villagers’ perceptions and cultural identity at the core of governance in order to strengthen community belonging and attachment to cultural facilities and activities. Second, “intergenerational inheritance” should be reinforced by promoting intangible cultural heritage training, supporting cultural entrepreneurship, and launching youth talent initiatives to attract younger generations into cultural preservation and innovation, thereby preventing cultural discontinuity. Third, a “co-governance platform” should be established, promoting collaboration among village committees, enterprises, and residents to form a synergy in facility maintenance, cultural dissemination, and tourism services. Finally, an integrated development model of “culture + ecology + industry” should be explored, which not only ensures the stability and resilience of cultural-ecological systems but also advances the dual goal of economic benefits and cultural protection in lake-island tourism areas.

These insights highlight that cultural-ecological protection in lake-island tourism regions should not be confined to a single dimension. Instead, it requires balancing external pressure regulation, internal cultural activation, and governance mechanism construction. Tourism development functions as the external variable, cultural inheritance and community participation serve as the internal drivers, and governance response acts as the balancing force among the three. Only through their mutual reinforcement can lake-island villages achieve cultural-ecological health and sustainable development.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Major Findings

Taking Weishan Island Town in Shandong Province as a case study, this paper constructed a cultural-ecological health evaluation system based on the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework and applied the entropy weight method for objective weighting to systematically measure and compare four typical villages. The findings are as follows:

(1)

The weight distribution highlighted the critical role of soft indicators, such as facility maintenance satisfaction (R5 = 0.0776), number of volunteers (R7 = 0.0622), and proportion of young inheritors (S5 = 0.0575). These indicators ranked highest in weight, showing that cultural-ecological health relies heavily on the endogenous driving forces of community participation and cultural transmission, rather than only on material or spatial factors.

(2)

The comprehensive health index revealed clear spatial differentiation among the four villages. Daguan Village achieved the highest overall level (HI = 0.750), while Xiaolizhuang Village ranked the lowest (HI = 0.160), forming a pronounced gradient pattern of “gateway villages leading—resource-based villages following—traditional villages lagging”. This differentiation reflects uneven development outcomes under tourism influences, consistent with the subsystem index comparison.

(3)

Subsystem analysis showed that governance response is the decisive factor distinguishing villages. Daguan Village scored the highest in the Response subsystem (R = 1.000), indicating strong governance capacity and collective action, whereas Xiaolizhuang Village fell into a “dual-low” dilemma with both State (0.022) and Response (0.022) indicators at the lowest levels. These findings confirm that institutional response capacity directly shapes cultural-ecological resilience.

(4)

Obstacle factor diagnosis revealed common bottlenecks across the villages. Cultural facility maintenance (R5), youth inheritance participation (S5), and villager engagement (R7) repeatedly appeared as top obstacle contributors (e.g., 23.0% in Daguan, 14.5% in Gounan, 13.2% in Lümeng), indicating that despite differences in tourism development stages, long-term cultural vitality remains constrained by weak inheritance mechanisms and limited public participation.

5.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications

At the theoretical level, this study extends the application of the PSR framework in cultural-ecological research by incorporating demographic, cultural, industrial, and governance dimensions into a unified indicator system. It emphasizes the integrated role of social, cultural, and spatial elements, thereby enriching the research perspective on cultural-ecological health. At the methodological level, this study establishes a 27-indicator system with high data accessibility, combined with entropy weight and obstacle factor diagnosis, forming a closed-loop analytical path of “measurement-interpretation-identification of bottlenecks,” which demonstrates strong operability and potential for replication. At the practical level, the results provide differentiated pathways for cultural-ecological governance in island tourism areas: gateway villages should focus on youth inheritance and cultural integration, resource-based villages need to enhance maintenance and governance execution, education-oriented villages should alleviate tourism pressures and mobilize community participation, while traditional villages must prioritize basic infrastructure and cultural display functions. These implications provide essential references for achieving the synergy of “economic development-cultural inheritance-ecological resilience” in lake-island tourism regions [72,73].

5.3. Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations remain in this study. First, data were mainly derived from cross-sectional surveys, with limited temporal coverage, making it difficult to reveal the long-term evolution of cultural-ecological systems. Future research could incorporate panel data or multi-temporal surveys to conduct longitudinal analyses. Second, some indicators rely on villager questionnaires, which may be subject to subjective bias; subsequent studies could integrate behavioral data, spatial big data, or remote sensing monitoring for cross-validation. Third, the entropy weight method is sensitive to indicator dispersion; future research may combine it with principal component analysis (PCA) or the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve robustness. Finally, as this study focused on Weishan Island Town, future comparative studies in broader lake-island and water-town contexts are needed to test the generalizability and adaptability of the proposed framework.

In summary, enhancing the cultural-ecological health of lake-island tourism villages requires the synergistic effects of mitigating external pressures, consolidating cultural inheritance, and strengthening governance capacity. Only under such an integrated approach can these villages maintain resilience and vitality amid rapid tourism development. This study not only identifies the practical challenges of Weishan Island Town but also provides valuable insights and reference pathways for cultural-ecological protection and rural revitalization in similar regions.