Research on the Protection and Development Model of Cultural Landscapes Guided by Natural and Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of Post-Seismic Reconstruction of Dujiangyan Linpan

Abstract

The evolution of traditional rural settlements is a dynamic process. During urbanization, traditional rural settlements, as dual carriers of natural and cultural heritage, face the structural contradiction between preservation and development. The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake caused systemic damage to the Linpan settlements in western Sichuan. The post-seismic reconstruction (2008-) and rural revitalization (2017-) phases have offered a unique case for exploring sustainable cultural landscape patterns. This study innovatively devises a “preservation–development” dual-system evaluation framework. Using the coupling coordination degree model, it analyzes the characteristics of Linpan at different stages within a composite cultural–economic–social system. The study found that while tangible carriers can be quickly repaired through financial support, intangible culture is often at risk of losing its inheritors. Over 60% of Linpan depend on government support, exposing the fragility of “dependence-based development”, and few achieve high-quality “preservation–development” synergy (coupling coordination degree D > 0.8). Most remain in a “preservation lag–development obstruction” cycle (D < 0.5). This paper explores ways to balance Linpan preservation and development dynamically and suggests creating a self-cycling “resource empowerment–cultural identity–value transformation” development pattern. It provides a theoretical reference for cultural heritage preservation and disaster resilience building and contributes a unique solution for the revitalization of traditional settlements.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background

In the face of accelerated global urbanization and intensified climate change, heritage, as the “carrier of civilization’s memory,” is experiencing an unprecedented crisis of preservation [1]. Heritage sites are periodically subjected to destruction from numerous hazardous events triggered by environmental hazards, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and heavy rainfall [2]. The evolution of international heritage preservation concepts profoundly reflects these challenges. The 1972 “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” which is based on a dual natural–cultural classification, is insufficient in explaining the “human–environment complex” that has emerged in the process of urbanization. Back in the 1920s, geographer Carl Sauer proposed the “cultural landscape” theory, indicating that cultural landscapes are the “results of cultural groups creating natural landscapes,” thus challenging the traditional dualistic perception. Compared to heritage with single elements, cultural landscapes, due to their “living–property” characteristics—their reliance on the material foundation of the natural environment and their dynamic transmission of cultural significance—are more susceptible to the impacts of natural disasters and rapid urbanization. The value of cultural landscapes lies not only in the integrity of their material carriers but also in their co-evolution capabilities with nature and society [3,4]. Sichuan West Linpan, as a unique cultural landscape to the region, is a “living heritage” that embodies Bashu agricultural civilization, community memory, and ecological wisdom [5,6,7,8]. The Linpan settlements of western Sichuan, China, are renowned for their traditional domestic architecture. These farmsteads feature a free-scatter layout. Towering trees and bamboo groves envelop the area, forming a spatial pattern that integrates residences, water systems, forests, and farmlands. As terminal nodes of the Dujiangyan irrigation network, Linpan settlements are connected via field ditches, ensuring a complete agricultural ecosystem. Linpan settlements are rich in cultural significance. They embody the regional philosophy of “Dao follows nature” and serve as a vehicle for clan culture, farming culture, and local traditions. However, in recent times, the Linpan settlements have been in decline due to urbanization. The average annual reduction in their numbers is 2% [9]. Factors such as population outflow, rural hollowing-out, changes in production and living styles, poor housing conditions, ecological damage, and poverty have all contributed to the decline of rural settlements. The 8.0-magnitude Wenchuan earthquake on 12 May 2008 caused systemic shocks to the Linpan settlements in western Sichuan. Post-disaster reconstruction of Linpan settlements has become a typical case for studying the interactions between natural disasters, cultural landscapes, and community development resilience. On the one hand, the material aspects of Linpan settlements have been severely damaged. On the other hand, community population movement, the breaking of cultural inheritance, and industrial model transformation, triggered by post-disaster reconstruction, have further intensified the “protection–development” contradiction. In this context, establishing a scientific “protection–development” coupling mechanism is not only key to the sustainable revival of Linpan settlements in western Sichuan but is also essential for providing a practical model for cultural landscapes affected by similar disasters globally.

1.2. Research on Cultural Landscape Conservation and Development

Research on the conservation and development of cultural landscapes has established a multidimensional framework [10,11,12]. Early studies concentrated on restoring the physical aspects of heritage sites [13]. The perspective of such studies has broadened to integrate culture, ecology, and the economy. Sichao Wu et al. [14] applied the theory of organic renewal to the activation of rural cultural landscapes. The importance of “living inheritance” for intangible cultural heritage has grown [15]. Xiaobei Liu et al. [16] regarded community participation as a powerful driver and key approach for protecting cultural landscapes in traditional villages. Ying Zhang et al. [17] investigated the spatial characteristics and sustainable models of agricultural heritage. Liguo Yang et al. [18] analyzed the mechanism of digital-driven sustainable integration of rural cultural tourism based on symbiosis theory. They noted that digital technology can enhance the cooperative efficiency of symbiotic units, visualize symbiotic environmental monitoring, and drive intelligent innovation in symbiotic models, thereby promoting sustainable rural cultural tourism integration. Research on the conservation of Sichuan West Linpan has made some progress. The research focuses on four aspects: spatial form, cultural spirit, diverse values, and conservation practices [19]. Qibing Chen organized a conservation and development model of Sichuan West Linpan landscape resources [20]. Scholars have quantified Linpan’s carbon-sink function and unveiled its ecological role in regulating the regional microclimate through vegetation interception and litterfall-induced soil improvement [21]. Jin Jia [22] et al. proposed a Linpan ecological resource value realization mechanism through cross-case studies. Qiushan Li et al. [23] identified Linpan’s spatial features and renewal paths using the landscape gene extraction method. However, research on the conservation and development of cultural landscapes in traditional rural settlements has three major gaps. First, prior studies lack research on the dynamic interactions among multiple systems. Second, the evaluation of cultural landscapes mostly depends on qualitative descriptions, and there is a lack of quantitative models to measure the degree of “conservation–development” synergy. Third, most existing studies focus on normal-state rural areas, with insufficient attention to the dual destruction of “spatial carriers and social structures” caused by natural disasters like earthquakes.

1.3. Evaluation System

In the conservation of traditional cultural landscapes, the absence of a systematic evaluation mechanism can lead to practice deviations like “emphasizing form over function” and “emphasizing protection over development,” which constrain the sustainable inheritance of cultural heritage [24]. For Sichuan West Linpan, a typical cultural landscape, creating a scientific evaluation system is crucial to resolving the contradiction between protection and development. Although cultural landscape protection evaluation and development capability evaluation belong to different dimensions, they complement each other through the dynamic link of “protection–development.” The former focuses on identifying the core values of cultural landscapes and diagnosing their vulnerabilities, while the latter assesses the comprehensive benefits of protection practices for regional development. Together, they form a comprehensive framework for understanding the “human–land relationship” compound system of Sichuan West Linpan. The coupling and coordination degree model can effectively integrate the two evaluation systems and is an important means of dual-system evaluation [25,26]. As the “spatial carrier of human–land relationships,” landscape evaluation needs to combine multidisciplinary perspectives. Landscape architecture focuses on the coupling relationship between landscape elements and social systems [27,28,29,30], and landscape ecology emphasizes ecological safety and biodiversity conservation [31,32,33]. The particularity of cultural landscapes also requires the inclusion of intangible dimensions, such as historical continuity and community participation. Through systematic evaluation, we can accurately identify key protection elements and potential risks [34]. For small-scale rural settlements, like Sichuan West Linpan, with compact spatial units and closely related elements, a more targeted evaluation system can clearly define the “protection–development” threshold, avoid the separation of protection measures and development, and ultimately achieve the coordination of cultural inheritance and sustainable development.

2. Study Areas

Dujiangyan City, a county-level city in Sichuan Province and under Chengdu’s administration, is home to many typical western Sichuan Linpan settlements. They lie at the water source of the Dujiangyan Irrigation System. During the Wenchuan Earthquake, some Dujiangyan areas reached seismic intensity XI (Figure 1). This study selected Dujiangyan City due to its Linpan settlements experiencing systemic destruction and intensive, multi-objective post-disaster reconstruction, distinguishing it from other relatively stable Linpan areas on the western Sichuan Plain.

The “disaster reconstruction” samples here integrate the rich historical heritage of traditional settlements with cutting-edge modern interventions, making this area key for exploring Linpan sustainable development. The post-disaster reconstruction and development of Linpan in Dujiangyan show clear stage-specific features. From 2008 to 2012, the focus was on emergency reconstruction, government-led infrastructure repair, and restoring basic living and production order. Since 2017, with the rural revitalization strategy advancing, Linpan reconstruction has gradually diversified, seeking to balance modern development and cultural inheritance [35].

This transition from “emergency repair” to “sustainable development” provides a comprehensive time dimension for studying the adaptive evolution of cultural landscapes after extreme shocks. By analyzing the main construction methods and industrial development of various Linpan in two key periods, this study selected 12 representative post-disaster reconstructed Linpan in Dujiangyan’s reconstruction area as research cases (Figure 1 and Figure 2). These samples cover different scales, construction methods, and industrial functions (

Table 1. Basic information of sample sites.

Sample	Population	Size of Linpan	Major Development Industries (Field Research)
			Post-Disaster Reconstruction Phase	Rural Revitalization Phase
Xiangrong Village	1767	Large	Agriculture, processing and sales of agricultural and sideline products.	Complex industry linkage, rural tourism-based (flower and tree planting, specialty lodging)
Chaping Village	1384	Large	Development of agriculture and poultry farming is the main focus	Complex industry linkage (tea planting), rural tourism-based
Xu Village	152	Small	Transition from traditional to modern agriculture, vigorously develop the seedling industry	Modern agriculture, sideline-oriented, development of the bonsai and seedling industry, (nanmu planting, wood crafts sales)
Taian Village	1468	Large	Leading the development of eco-tourism and creative industries	Leading in the development of eco-tourism (Taian Ancient Town), creative industries, and sales of specialty products
Song Village	419	Medium	Grain and vegetable cultivation as the mainstay, transitioning from traditional to modern agriculture	Focus on the development of modern agriculture (grain and vegetable cultivation, viticulture)
Heming Village	1800	Large	Transformation of traditional agriculture to modern agriculture with the flower industry as the main focus	Complex industry linkage (flower and nursery industry)
Jinyang Village	2751	Large	Transformation from traditional to modern agriculture and development of the tourism industry	Complex industry linkage (seedling ginkgo industry), rural tourism-oriented
Qipan Village	838	Medium	Transformation from traditional to modern agriculture and development of the tourism industry	Composite industrial linkage (kiwifruit industry, the industry of Sanmu medicinal materials)
Luchi Village	733	Medium	Transformation from traditional to modern agriculture and development of the tourism industry	Complex industry linkage (tea planting, rural tourism mainly)
Huaxi Village	2028	Large	Transition from traditional to modern agriculture, with grain and vegetable cultivation and rural tourism as the mainstay	Grain and vegetable cultivation, rural tourism mainly
Shibei Village	1401	Large	Transformation from traditional to modern agriculture and initial development of the tourism industry	Complex industry linkage (tea planting, rural tourism mainly)
Rong Village	141	Small	Building modern agriculture, creating an agricultural science and technology industrial park, and initially developing the tourism industry	Developing modern agriculture, with grain and oil cultivation, edible fungus cultivation and seedling planting as the main industries

).

3. Research Methods and Data

3.1. Evaluation Method

Among existing cultural landscape evaluation methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [36] and the Delphi method [37] have established mature application paradigms. Yuqi Li et al. [38] constructed a rural landscape quality evaluation system based on aesthetic, ecological, and social values using the AHP [39,40,41]. Due to their suitability for small-scale, multi-dimensional problems, AHP and the Delphi method are widely used in research on towns and villages. Evaluating the sustainability of traditional rural settlements involves multi-dimensional indicators, such as ecology, economy, society, and culture. Questionnaire surveys can effectively measure these indicators for small-scale objects. Western Sichuan Linpan, with its unique regional characteristics, shares similar scale features with other small-scale, high-density, and strongly culture-related traditional settlements, making it highly consistent with the scale characteristics of the aforementioned research subjects.

The coupling coordination degree model can quantify the interaction between two systems through a multi-dimensional indicator system [25,26]. It reveals the level of synergy and potential conflicts, and dynamically captures the balance process between protection needs and development in post-disaster reconstruction of Linpan from spatial and temporal dimensions. This method overcomes the one-sidedness of traditional evaluations. It provides a scientific basis for analyzing the synergy mechanism and formulating strategies that give priority to protection and empower development. It has both methodological innovation and practical value.

3.2. Research Framework

This study established two major systems for evaluating cultural landscape conservation and sustainable development. By specifying indicators, setting their weights and evaluation standards, this study constructed a comprehensive mathematical evaluation model. The study established a research framework based on this (Figure 3). The research process is as follows: First, a basic investigation was conducted to determine the research area and sample points. Next, data were collected, focusing on the post-disaster reconstruction and rural revitalization stages. Cultural landscape conservation was evaluated by taking photos of tangible and intangible cultural landscapes at sample points, followed by expert scoring of the organized elements. Sustainable development was assessed using questionnaires distributed randomly to local residents. Finally, the data were analyzed by organizing the raw data, removing invalid data, and applying the mathematical model to obtain the evaluation results. Based on these results, the conservation and development patterns of cultural landscapes are summarized to provide scientific guidance for protecting and developing Linpan cultural landscapes in post-disaster reconstruction.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

3.3.1. Construction and Data Collection of the Cultural Landscape Conservation Evaluation System

Cultural landscapes serve as a link between intangible and tangible cultural heritage. Drawing on research indicators for western Sichuan Linpan and cultural landscape classification in China [24,42], this study has established an evaluation system with nine indicators, covering material and intangible cultural landscapes (

Table 2. Linpan cultural landscape protection evaluation indicators.

Target Layer	Indicator Layer	Weight	Factor Layer	Weight	Hierarchical Total Sorting Weight
Linpan landscape protection evaluation (U1)	Degree of physical cultural landscape protection	0.60	Degree of architectural landscape Protection	0.16	0.096
			Degree of forest landscape protection	0.22	0.132
			Degree of field landscape protection	0.15	0.090
			Degree of water landscape protection	0.15	0.090
			Degree of preservation of rural settlement patterns	0.33	0.198
	Degree of intangible cultural landscape protection	0.40	Degree of agricultural culture protection	0.29	0.116
			Degree of traditional lifestyle retention	0.28	0.112
			Degree of folklore retention	0.30	0.120
			Degree of retention of productive activities	0.14	0.056

). The Delphi method was used to assign weights, involving 12 Linpan experts.

In this study, the experts scored the cultural landscapes of Linpan reconstructed after disasters, using a Likert 5-point scale (scores 1–9). The team collected photos from 12 representative Linpan settlements. Twelve experts, including university professors and industry professionals, scored the indicators for each Linpan to obtain the evaluation results.

3.3.2. Construction and Data Collection of the Linpan Development Capability Evaluation System

The Linpan development evaluation indicator system is built on the principle of sustainable development to assess the overall functionality and long-term potential of post-disaster reconstruction Linpan. Tailored to Linpan’s unique features, it quantitatively evaluates its sustainable development capacity. This study followed the steps of “indicator screening and extraction → categorization → system determination” to build the development evaluation indicator system [43]. Considering the different development focuses during post-disaster reconstruction and rural revitalization, and drawing on research indicators from related papers [44,45,46,47,48,49], we have extracted the following key indicators: growth potential and sustainability, community social environment, economic and industrial conditions, settlement conditions, and cultural development. Field visits and surveys helped determine the relevant factor layers. Separate evaluation systems for the two periods (

Table 3. Post-disaster reconstruction phase Linpan development evaluation indicators.

Target Layer	Indicator Layer	Weight	Factor Layer	Description of Indicators
Linpan development capacity (U2)	Growth and sustainability	0.34	Psychological recovery	Degree of recovery of disaster victims’ psychological state
			Quality of life recovery	Improvement in the living conditions of disaster victims
			Housing design	Degree of integration between housing design and local culture
			Housing satisfaction	Satisfaction with various aspects of housing
			Community satisfaction	Satisfaction with various aspects of the community
	Community social environment	0.17	Safety	Rural security and risk resistance
			Sanitation	Neighborhood sanitation and tidiness
			Rural transportation	Accessibility of rural roads
			leisure facility	Availability of leisure and entertainment facilities and venues
			Community infrastructure	Completeness of various types of infrastructure
			Convenience of shopping	Distance to shopping places and their richness
			Accessibility of education	Richness of educational resources
			Accessibility of healthcare	Richness of medical resources
	Economic conditions	0.27	Household durable goods	Ownership of durable goods, such as household appliances
			Other household property	Situation of assets other than durable goods
			Local employment opportunities	Richness of job opportunities around housing
			Household income situation	Level of family economic income
	Settlement conditions	0.22	Housing hardware facilities	Quality of water, electricity, and gas facilities.
			House structure	Safety of house structure
			House space	Rationality of room layout and other functions
			House usability	Situation of usable space in the house
			Housing comfort	Comfort of lighting, ventilation, etc.
			Building appearance	Aesthetic appeal of house facade
			Building density	Density of buildings
			Commuting situation	Distance to workplace and transportation

and

Table 4. Rural revitalization phase Linpan development evaluation indicators.

Target Layer	Indicator Layer	Weight	Factor Layer	Description of Indicators
Linpan development capacity (U2)	Growth and sustainability	0.15	Psychological recovery	Degree of recovery of disaster victims’ psychological state
			Quality of life	Comprehensive situation of life
			Housing satisfaction	Satisfaction with various aspects of housing
			Community satisfaction	Satisfaction with various aspects of the community
	Community social environment	0.22	Sanitation	Neighborhood sanitation and tidiness
			Rural transportation	Accessibility and convenience of transportation
			Convenience of shopping	Distance to shopping places and their richness
			Accessibility of education	Richness of educational resources
			Accessibility of healthcare	Richness of medical resources
			Safety	Rural security situation
	Community cultural development	0.08	Configuration of cultural facilities	Types and quantities of cultural facilities
			Richness of holiday activities	Diversity of cultural and entertainment activities during holidays
			Richness of activity venues	Number and types of sports and cultural activity venues
	Economic and industrial development	0.39	Local employment opportunities	Richness of job opportunities around housing
			Household income situation	Level of family economic income
			Richness of local specialty products	Types and quantities of local specialty products
			Development of local tourism	Scale and benefits of the tourism industry
			Richness of local enterprises	Number and industry diversity of local enterprises
	Settlement conditions	0.16	Condition of hardware facilities	Quality of water and electricity facilities
			Safety of house structure	Safety of house structure
			Comfort of housing	Comfort of lighting, ventilation, etc.
			Building appearance	Aesthetics and harmony of house facade
			Building density	Density of buildings

) were established to more comprehensively and accurately assess Linpan’s development capabilities. The system uses the AHP and expert scoring to assign weights. Fourteen industry experts scored the indicators, constructing a judgment matrix. A consistency test verifies the logical relationships within the questionnaire items. The weights of each index were obtained after the consistency test was passed (CR < 0.1).

The Linpan development evaluation uses questionnaires to gauge villagers’ subjective feelings about the reconstruction and rural revitalization outcomes. The research team visited 12 sample sites and randomly surveyed local residents. Likert 5-point scale-based questionnaires were issued to quantify villagers’ evaluations. After the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Linpan underwent large-scale reconstruction. The data collected in 2013, the late stage of this reconstruction, can comprehensively show the reconstruction outcomes and their immediate impacts on Linpan cultural landscapes and settlements. By 2024, the rural revitalization strategy had been implemented for seven years, and the data collected at this point can reflect the latest development trends and cultural landscape evolution of Linpan under rural revitalization. Therefore, the team distributed questionnaires to residents of 12 post-disaster reconstruction Linpan settlements in Dujiangyan in 2013 and 2024.

In 2013, the research team distributed 180 questionnaires, of which 167 were valid, with a response rate of 92.78%. In 2024, 240 questionnaires were distributed, and 231 were valid, achieving a 96.25% response rate (

Table 5. Descriptive statistical analysis.

Survey Year	Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage
2013	Gender	Male	81	48.50%
		Female	86	51.50%
	Age	18~30	14	8.38%
		31~45	42	25.15%
		46~60	60	35.93%
		61~75	40	23.95%
		>76	11	6.59%
	Employment situation	Farming	67	40.12%
		Migrant worker	65	38.92%
		Government agency or public institution	6	3.59%
		Corporate entity	12	7.19%
		Sole proprietorship	17	10.18%
2024	Gender	Male	110	47.62%
		Female	121	52.38%
	Age	18~30	24	10.39%
		31~45	61	26.41%
		46~60	75	32.47%
		61~75	55	23.81%
		>76	16	6.92%
	Employment situation	Farming	72	31.17%
		Migrant worker	87	37.66%
		Government agency or public institution	13	5.63%
		Corporate entity	23	9.96%
		Sole proprietorship	36	15.58%

).

According to the statistical analysis, in the post-disaster reconstruction phase, growth potential and sustainability (weight 0.34) and economic conditions (0.27) had the highest weights. The post-disaster reconstruction after the Wenchuan earthquake created a new material living space for the residents. Villagers’ psychological recovery, local identity, and satisfaction are crucial for evaluating the reconstruction’s effectiveness [50,51,52,53].

In the rural revitalization phase, economic and industrial development (0.39) and community social environment (0.22) had the highest weights. This is because after the reconstruction, the villagers’ lives had basically returned to normal. At this stage, the economic and industrial development of Linpan, as well as the neighborhood environment and infrastructure, became more important for Linpan’s development capability.

3.4. Comprehensive Evaluation Model for Linpan Cultural Landscape Protection and Linpan Development Level

First, each indicator was assigned its own attribute characteristics to establish its own scoring standards and scoring instructions. In order to unify the caliber of calculation, all indicators were divided into five levels, each indicator corresponding to the assignment of 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 points, respectively. The comprehensive evaluation model calculation formula is as follows:

$$U_r^a=\sum _{i=1}^m\overline{a_i}·w_i$$

$$\overline{a_i}={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{x=1}^n{a}_x^i}{n}}$$

$$U_r^a=\sum _{i=1}^m\overline{a_i}·w_i=\sum _{i=1}^m({\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{x=1}^n{a}_x^i}{n}})·w_i$$

$$U_r={\sum }_{a=1}^b{r}_a·w_a$$

$a_x^i$ represents the evaluation result of the x-th sample (out of a total of n samples) for the a-th indicator (out of a total of b indicators) and the i-th factor (out of a total of m factors); $\overline{a_i}$ represents the average evaluation result of all research samples for the a-th indicator and the i-th factor; $w_i$ represents the weight of that factor; $U_r^a$ represents the sum of the average evaluation results of all factors for the a-th indicator in layer r multiplied by their respective weights; $r_a$ represents the evaluation result of the a-th indicator (out of a total of b indicators) in layer r; $w_a$ represents the weight of the a-th indicator; $U_r$ represents the calculation result for layer r, which is the sum of all indicator evaluation results multiplied by their respective weights.

3.5. Coupling Coordination Degree Model for Evaluating the Cultural Landscape Protection and Development of Post-Disaster Reconstruction Linpan Settlements

3.5.1. Coupling Coordination Degree Model

Coupling degree is widely used in the study of the interaction between two or more systems, that is, the calculation method of coupling degree C:

$$f\left(U_r\right)=d+(e-d)\times {\displaystyle \frac{(U_r-min)}{(max-min)}}$$

First, the data are subjected to interval normalization, with the raw data undergoing a linear transformation to map the result values to the range of (0–1]. The normalized value of the target layer is represented by $f\left(U_r\right)$, with e = 0.99 and d = 0.01. Max and min represent the maximum and minimum values of a certain item, respectively.

$$C={\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{f\left(X_1\right)\times f\left(X_2\right)\times f\left(X_3\right)\times ···f\left(X_n\right)}{\prod (f\left(X_1\right)+f\left(X_2\right)+f\left(X_3\right)+···f\left(X_n\right))}}\right\}}^{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}}$$

$$C={\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{f\left(U_1\right)\times f\left(U_2\right)}{\prod (f\left(U_1\right)+f\left(U_2\right))}}\right\}}^{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}}$$

Among the equations, n represents the number of systems. In this study, two systems were used, namely the Linpan cultural landscape protection evaluation (U₁) and the development level (U₂). The value of C ranges from 0 to 1, and the larger the value, the closer the relationship between the two.

3.5.2. Coordination Degree Model

The coordination degree refers to the degree of coordination and consistency between the two systems of Linpan cultural landscape protection and development level during the development process. This study constructed a coordination degree measurement model between post-disaster Linpan cultural landscape protection and development level, evaluating the degree of their coordination and consistency from the perspective of time and space. The formula of the coordination degree model is as follows:

$$D=\sqrt{C\times T}$$

$$T=\alpha f\left(U_1\right)\times \beta f\left(U_2\right)$$

Among the equations, C represents the coupling degree of Linpan cultural landscape protection and development level, T reflects the overall level of Linpan cultural landscape protection and development level, and α and β are the undetermined coefficients of the two systems. Given that the two systems are of equal importance, the values of α and β are equal, i.e., α = β = 0.5.

3.5.3. Classification of Coupling Coordination Degree Model

In this evaluation of the coupling coordination degree between Linpan cultural landscape protection and development, we divided the coupling coordination degree into ten levels, drawing on prior studies. This classification quantifies the coordinated development of Linpan settlements. The higher the level, the better the overall performance in cultural landscape protection and sustainable development. The specific classification criteria are as follows: 1 → extremely uncoordinated; 2 → severely uncoordinated; 3 → moderately uncoordinated; 4 → slightly uncoordinated; 5 → nearly uncoordinated; 6 → barely coordinated; 7 → preliminarily coordinated; 8 → moderately coordinated; 9 → well-coordinated; 10 → highly coordinated.

4. Results Analysis and Discussion

4.1. Evaluation Results of Linpan Cultural Landscape Protection and Development Capabilities

This study combines quantitative and qualitative analysis of 12 Linpan settlements, aiming to reveal the characteristics and interactions of their cultural landscape protection and development capacities. From the post-disaster reconstruction phase (2008–2012) to the rural revitalization phase (2017–2024), the cultural landscape protection and development of Linpan in western Sichuan has shown a pattern of “material strengthening and intangible weakening.” This spatiotemporal differentiation essentially reflects the contradiction between the policy-driven “priority to material restoration” and the lack of long-term inheritance mechanisms. The quantitative results (Figure 4) indicate that the overall average score for cultural landscape protection increased from 5.26 to 5.60 across the two phases. The score for material cultural landscapes saw a significant increase of 0.86 points (from 5.26 to 6.12). This was mainly due to post-disaster special fiscal support for building repair subsidies and the restoration of traditional crafts. For instance, Song Village and Xu Village, with their well-preserved original architectural styles, showed high-quality cultural landscape protection in both phases. However, the average score for intangible cultural landscapes across the 12 sample points slightly decreased by 0.06 points (from 4.88 to 4.82). This reflects the deeper dilemma of the loss of heritage transmission carriers. Take Rong Village as an example; its Linpan declined due to population outflow. The sharp score drop for Huaxi Village was caused by the decline of traditional cultural landscapes due to urbanization.

The evaluation of development capabilities reveals a more pronounced structural divide (Figure 4). In the post-disaster reconstruction phase, the average score was 5.13, indicating medium-level development capabilities driven by external aid. In the rural revitalization phase, the average score increased to 6.04, showing significant differentiation in endogenous driving forces and a “dual-track” pattern, where core Linpan leads and peripheral Linpan lags. For example, Jinyang Village, Xiangrong Village, and Qipan Village adopted a diversified development model of “resource activation plus community-based construction,” which enhanced their development capabilities. Their scores in the post-disaster period increased by 1.55,1.35, and 2.12 respectively. This highlights the positive impact of industrial integration [54] and community participation [55] on Linpan development. In contrast, Linpan such as Rong Family Yard, Stone–stele Community, and Lu–chi Community fell into a vicious cycle of “lagging protection and hindered development” due to insufficient resource endowments, revealing their vulnerability caused by single-industry development and population decline.

The linear regression analysis between cultural landscapes and development capabilities revealed the following (Figure 5): In the post-disaster reconstruction phase, material and intangible cultural landscapes are significantly positively correlated with development capabilities. During rural revitalization, intangible cultural landscapes are significantly positively correlated with development capabilities. This reflects a shift in development stages and drivers. In the reconstruction phase, physical space restoration is the foundation, with material landscapes directly determining survival capabilities. After entering the rural revitalization phase, the key driver of development shifts to intangible cultural landscapes. Their living value drives multi-dimensional development capabilities, such as industrial added value, community governance, and ecological resilience. This meets the needs of rural-specific and consumption-upgraded development. Focusing on policies and capital further strengthen the role of intangible elements. Due to functional fixation and economic transformation reliance on intangible activation, the correlation of material landscapes is systematically diluted.

4.2. Coupling Results of Linpan Cultural Landscape Protection and Development Level

From the results (

Table 6. Calculation results of Linpan coupling coordination degree.

Sample	Post-Disaster Reconstruction Phase				Rural Revitalization Phase
	Coupling Degree (C)	Coordination Index (T)	Coupling Coordination Degree (D)	Coordination Level	Coupling Degree (C)	Coordination Index (T)	Coupling Coordination Degree (D)	Coordination Level
Xiangrong	0.996	0.742	0.859	9	0.994	0.834	0.911	10
Chaping	0.692	0.036	0.158	2	0.835	0.308	0.507	6
Xu	0.995	0.901	0.947	10	0.888	0.590	0.723	8
Taian	0.961	0.538	0.719	8	1.000	0.542	0.736	8
Song	0.999	0.797	0.892	9	0.968	0.791	0.875	9
Heming	0.987	0.830	0.905	10	0.974	0.673	0.810	9
Jinyang	0.950	0.585	0.745	8	1.000	0.960	0.979	10
Qipan	0.876	0.306	0.518	6	0.994	0.886	0.938	10
Luchi	0.636	0.320	0.451	5	0.997	0.415	0.643	7
Huaxi	0.982	0.833	0.904	10	0.993	0.343	0.584	6
Shibei	0.352	0.156	0.234	3	0.366	0.144	0.230	3
Rong	0.999	0.838	0.915	10	0.255	0.302	0.278	3

and Figure 6), during the post-disaster reconstruction phase, there was a significant “two-tiered” divide in the coupling and coordination degree. Only 33.3% of villages were well-coordinated. In the rural revitalization phase, overall coordination improved, with the proportion of well-coordinated villages rising to 41.7% and villages with severe imbalances disappearing. However, some villages, like Rong Family Yard, faced “coordination mechanism rupture” risks due to excessive external reliance, and others, like Heming Village, saw a coordination decline from a lack of transformation momentum. The difference between phases shows that reconstruction-period coordination relied on emergency “blood transfusion”-style input. Some villages, like Xu Family Yard, achieved short-term element matching but lacked internal linkages. Others, like Jinyang Village and Qipan Village, built functional links through industrial transformation and spatial reconfiguration, achieving high-quality synergy during rural revitalization, highlighting the key role of endogenous driving forces for system stability. At the regional differentiation level, well-coordinated villages are mainly in the plains and hilly areas. They effectively convert policy benefits through geographical, demographic, and economic advantages. Mountainous villages initially faced imbalances due to resource constraints. While targeted poverty alleviation later eased the “poverty–ecology” contradiction, their coordination still lags. Deep-seated contradictions focus on the following aspects. The “reverse fluctuation” in some villages’ coordination degrees highlights their fragile recovery capacity. Villages with medium-level coordination show insufficient element-matching quality. The unchanged regional gradient pattern indicates that coordination mechanisms still need strengthening. Essentially, these issues arise from the dynamic interplay of “policy intervention, element recombination, and endogenous driving force” under disaster shocks.

4.3. Analysis of the Linkage Mechanism Between Post-Disaster Reconstruction and the Protection and Development of Linpan Cultural Landscapes

The evaluation results of the 12 sample points reveal the insufficient research on the joint mechanism between cultural landscape conservation and development. The “polycentric” governance model [56], highlighting the effective governance of public affairs through the division of labor and cooperation among governments, communities, markets, etc. This model aims to resolve the traditional dilemma of “government dominance, market profit-seeking, and community voicelessness” in public affairs. Contract theory [57] indicates that clear contractual relationships can reduce transaction costs and ensure fair benefit distribution. By imposing contractual constraints, communities can secure reasonable benefits and prevent disorderly capital expansion. Based on these theories, this study used a “problem-oriented, system-responsive” analytical logic to build a self-cycling framework (Figure 7) centered on “resource empowerment, cultural identity, and value transformation.” Governments should lead in protective construction to strengthen material and cultural foundations. During the restoration of material carriers, cultural genes should be explored and community memories preserved to awaken residents’ inherent cultural landscape identity and conservation awareness. Relying on the “protection–development” dynamic evaluation model, development value analysis is carried out, and development boundaries are scientifically defined to avoid the risk of authenticity loss caused by over-development. This study innovatively constructed a diversified governance mechanism of “government guidance, community-based construction, and market empowerment.” Village committees are empowered to participate in planning decisions, and enterprises and communities sign protective development contracts (such as limiting industry access and benefit-feedback clauses). This forms a benefit linkage mechanism of “protection investment–industrial added value–benefit sharing,” and restructures the roles and responsibilities of governments, communities, and markets. It aims to overcome the traditional governance dilemma of “government dominance, market profit-seeking, and community voicelessness.” Cultural economy theory emphasizes that cultural resources can be transformed into economic benefits through “symbolic transformation.” This can be achieved via a “cultural IP + diversified industry” integration model, leveraging low-intervention cultural landscapes to convert cultural resources into economic gains. Industrial added value can then support conservation efforts, creating a virtuous cycle of “protection promoting development and development enhancing protection” [58,59,60]. The industrial transformation of traditional rural settlements can boost sustainable development, with heritage activation and digitalization playing increasingly important roles [61].

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1. Conclusion

This study assessed 12 post-disaster reconstruction Linpan in Dujiangyan using a dual evaluation system for cultural landscape protection and development capabilities. It analyzed the synergistic state and dynamic mechanisms of “protection–development” across two time dimensions, uncovering the interaction laws of “cultural landscape–development capabilities” in traditional rural settlements under disaster impacts. The conclusions are as follows: (1) Cultural landscape protection shows a divide under disaster impacts. Material cultural landscapes can be quickly restored with special financial support and technical intervention. However, intangible cultural landscapes decline significantly due to urbanization and the loss of heritage transmission carriers. This confirms the common challenge in cultural protection that soft heritage is harder to preserve [62]. (2) The traditional development pattern relies on policy-based motivation, and the endogenous cyclic system is immature. Over 60% of Linpan are highly dependent on government financial support. Insufficient endogenous driving force leads to “policy addiction.” Income drops sharply after policies are withdrawn, exposing the fragility of “development based on dependence”. (3) There are significant spatial differences in the level of coordination between protection and development. Only a few Linpan achieve comprehensive “protection–development” synergy (coupling coordination index > 0.8). Most Linpan are trapped in a vicious cycle of “lagging protection–hindered development” or “over-development–weakened protection” (coupling coordination index < 0.5). This indicates that rural construction is hard to sustain without resilience [63,64].

5.2. Recommendations

Based on our conclusions and the practical experience of typical cases (such as Jinyang Village, Xiangrong Village, and Qipan Village), this study proposes the following systematic recommendations to promote the sustainable development of Linpan in western Sichuan:

(1)

Build an endogenous cyclic system. Based on the compound resource base of “fields–forests–houses–water” in Linpan, adopt the core path of “resource endowment exploration–community participation cultivation–dynamic mechanism construction” to promote the transformation of Linpan from “policy-driven” to “endogenous coordination.” It is recommended to systematically comb cultural, ecological, and industrial resources and actively introduce low-ecological-impact models to revitalize the cultural landscape and achieve value transformation.

(2)

Strengthen community participation. Establish systems such as “residents’ discussion meetings” to incorporate cultural heritage protection and industrial planning decisions into villagers’ self-governance, enhancing community belonging [55]. Meanwhile, improve the benefit linkage and distribution mechanism of “protection investment–industrial value added–benefit feedback” to ensure development benefits reach the community, forming a positive endogenous cycle of “internalizing development outcomes.”

(3)

Establish a dynamic monitoring and adaptation mechanism. Construct a monitoring system covering the dual dimensions of “protection efficiency” (e.g., preservation rate of material culture, sustainability of intangible culture) and “development quality” (e.g., community participation, industrial sustainability). Regularly engage third-party evaluations to continuously optimize policy support and corporate access standards, ensuring the mechanism dynamically matches the characteristics and developmental needs of Linpan.

The study of Linpan settlements in western Sichuan has proven something vital: for traditional rural areas to sustainably develop through modernization, it is essential to establish mechanisms that are both dynamically adaptive and self-sustaining. This research not only provides a model of “protection–development–re-protection” balance for similar regions but also clearly shows that cultural heritage and economic growth can coexist.

Yet, the study has its limits. Methodologically, the weighting is subjective due to expert dependence. The small questionnaire sample cannot fully show the Linpan system’s spatial heterogeneity. In research design, static cross-sectional data does not fully reveal long-term dynamic feedback mechanisms in the shift from post-disaster reconstruction to rural revitalization. These limits indicate a need for deeper understanding of traditional settlements’ complex evolution.

Future research should broaden its perspectives and methods. First, in-depth cross-regional comparisons should be carried out. This means looking at both similarities and differences in how various traditional settlements are protected and developed. This can test how effective and adaptable endogenous motivation mechanisms are and find more generally applicable pathways and policy combinations. Second, combine different research methods, like quantitative analysis, in-depth oral history tracking, and participatory observation. This helps analyze the behavioral decisions of villagers and other key stakeholders in the modernization process, providing micro-level behavioral thresholds for policy design. Third, create longitudinal databases to track the sustainability of cultural elements and how intergenerational transmission evolves. Focus on identifying critical conditions for maintaining cultural resilience and the best timing for policy intervention. This will offer forward-looking support for sustainable protection.

In summary, this study on the endogenous protection and development mechanisms of Linpan in western Sichuan reveals a feasible way to preserve and revitalize traditional cultural heritage. To keep traditional settlements vibrant in times of rapid change, it is crucial to better understand how humans, land, and culture interact and to build a more resilient and inclusive endogenous system. The importance of this research goes beyond Linpan settlements. It provides valuable insights and practical references for addressing the global challenge of achieving harmonious coexistence between rural cultural preservation and modern community development.