Research on Optimization of Tourism Spatial Structure of Linear Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal

Abstract

Linear cultural heritage poses significant challenges in tourism development, primarily due to the complexities involved in implementing scientific zoning and differentiated management strategies. Systematic optimization of its tourism spatial structure has thus become crucial for achieving sustainable utilization. This study adopts a case study approach based on deductive reasoning to examine the morphological characteristics and evolutionary patterns of the tourism space along linear cultural heritage. Taking the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal as an example, it proposes a targeted optimization pathway from a spatial positioning perspective. The findings indicate that the tourism value of linear cultural heritage exhibits a “vine-shaped structure” spatially, and the development process of the tourism space structure follows the “growth pole” evolution law. Moreover, spatial optimization can be achieved through the dual dimensions of spatial form and utilization intensity. Based on this pathway, a three-level tourism zone system is constructed for the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal: the primary tourism zone, located in southern sections, such as Yangzhou and Hangzhou, serves as leading regions that play a pivotal and driving role; the secondary tourism zone, encompassing Beijing, Tianjin, Langfang, and Cangzhou, requires focused enhancement and functional upgrading; and the tertiary tourism zone, mainly including Shandong Province and Xuzhou, Suqian, in Jiangsu Province, necessitate comprehensive and integrated development to achieve overall improvement. This classification not only facilitates coordinated tourism development along the entire canal from a holistic perspective but also provides a basis for formulating targeted strategies for segments with varying tourism values and utilization intensities.

1. Introduction

Linear cultural heritage is a specific type of heritage that manifests as a linear or belt-shaped form in geographical space [1]. It typically spans multiple administrative units and cultural regions [2], encompassing historical thematic events, water conservancy and transport projects, as well as commercial and religious routes [3]. With the increasing emphasis by UNESCO on transregional cultural heritage and the promotion of related concepts such as cultural route and heritage corridor, linear cultural heritage has gradually become a focal point in international heritage studies. Existing research primarily focuses on the functional evolution [4], value assessment [5,6], spatial structure [7], and conservation and utilization [8] of linear cultural heritage. In practical development, many countries regard linear cultural heritage as a key driver of regional revitalization. For instance, China has implemented national strategies such as the Grand Canal National Cultural Park and Silk Road initiatives, aiming to leverage cultural heritage as a bond to promote economic growth, urban renewal, ecological restoration, and cultural rejuvenation.

Tourism, as an effective means of cultural display and experience [9], has gradually become a focal topic in the fields of conservation and revitalization of linear cultural heritage. However, due to uneven distribution of local resources and the complexity of spatial components, linear cultural heritage faces significant challenges in rational zoning and targeted strategies during tourism utilization [10]. Current studies have explored the suitability for tourism [2], stakeholders [11], and the effects and impacts of linear cultural heritage tourism [4,12]. Nevertheless, there remains insufficient attention paid to the spatial differentiation in its tourism development. Particularly from the perspective of coupling heritage with tourism industry elements, the characteristics and evolutionary patterns of the tourism spatial structure in nodal cities along linear cultural heritage are still not clearly understood [13].

The rapid spatial diffusion of human activities has led to the fragmentation of natural and cultural landscapes [14]. Conversely, the tourism space derived from linear cultural heritage offers new concepts and perspectives for resource reorganization and spatial reconstruction. These tourism spaces typically use linear cultural heritage, such as rivers (natural or artificial), mountain ranges, ancient roads, or transportation routes, as central axes [14]. They connect and cluster surrounding recreational resources to form a chain-like geographical distribution and represent a spatial type endowed with multiple functions, including landscape protection and leisure entertainment. However, previous studies have mostly focused on analyzing specific administrative areas, scenic spots, or localized regions with defined boundaries along linear cultural heritage routes [15]. There is a scarcity of studies revealing the overall patterns of tourism space utilization from a holistic perspective, resulting in findings that are often localized in character. Against the backdrop of growing emphasis on cultural depth and regional synergy within tourism development, linear cultural heritage tourism spaces have emerged as a significant geographical driver for regional revitalization. In-depth research on the spatial structure of such heritage not only provides theoretical foundations and management pathways for addressing cross-regional governance challenges and balancing conservation with utilization but also enhances the perceived quality and experiential value of heritage culture, ultimately facilitating the innovative transformation and sustainable development of heritage values.

The Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal is a linear cultural heritage of great significance both in China and worldwide [13,16]. As the earliest built, longest, and largest artificial canal in the world, it represents outstanding premodern Chinese achievements in water transport and hydraulic engineering that were far ahead of their time. It continues to serve as irreplaceable infrastructure supporting production, living, and ecological functions and was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2014. The canal preserves rich historical and cultural relics and carries the profound cultural memory of the Chinese nation. The regions along the canal are abundant in tourism resources and possess a relatively strong economic foundation. However, like other linear cultural heritages, the tourism spaces along the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal also face challenges, such as scientific zoning and differentiated management. Studying its tourism spatial structure is essential for the orderly utilization of the canal itself and also holds important implications for the tourism revitalization of linear cultural heritages globally.

This study takes the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal as a typical case and adopts a deductive case study research approach, focusing on the systematic optimization of the tourism spatial structure of linear cultural heritage. It aims to reveal the morphological characteristics and evolutionary patterns in such tourism spaces and further explores corresponding optimization pathways. This research not only contributes to deepening the theoretical framework of linear cultural heritage—particularly by forming innovative insights regarding tourism spatial structure—but also, through the integration of empirical analysis and theory, provides a scientific basis and decision-making support for the collaborative governance and sustainable development of linear cultural heritage and cross-regional tourism spaces. It holds significant practical reference value for achieving a win–win scenario between cultural heritage conservation and regional development.

The subsequent structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 elaborates on the conceptual background and proposes the “vine-shaped structure” for linear cultural heritage tourism; Section 3 introduces research design, data collection methods, and study area; Section 4 analyzes optimization pathways from the perspectives of morphological decomposition and utilization intensity, supported by an empirical case study of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal; Section 5 discusses the theoretical contributions, practical implications, limitations, and future research directions; Section 6 concludes with a summary of the main findings.

2. Conceptual Background

2.1. Overview of Basic Principles

2.1.1. “Point-Axis” System Theory

The “Point-Axis” system theoretical model was proposed by Dadao Lu, a renowned Chinese geographer, in 1984. As a fundamental theory for regional development, it holds guiding significance for regional tourism development.

According to the “Point-Axis” system theory, the development of tourism regional spatial structure mainly goes through the following four stages [17,18,19,20]. (1) Primitive stage: This stage is characterized by the unorganized, irregular, and scattered equilibrium distribution of tourism nodes. (2) Initial development stage: Scenic spots or attractions (A) emerge in areas with abundant and high-quality tourism resources and connect with adjacent tourism nodes (B), such as tourist towns or other scenic spots (attractions), to form tourism routes, thereby creating tourism axes. (3) Formation stage: The two tourism nodes A and B continue to grow and expand. Driven by the diffusion effect, surrounding resources are further developed and supporting services are improved, which stimulates and drives the emergence and development of new surrounding tourism nodes, such as C, D, E, F, and G, along with the appearance of new tourism axes. (4) Mature stage: Under the influence of the agglomeration effect and scale effect, A and B become more influential key nodes, and the AB axis becomes the main axis. Meanwhile, more tourism nodes and secondary/tertiary tourism axes are derived, forming a tourism spatial structure where “points drive lines and lines connect points”. The “Point-Axis” system in the mature stage is an abstract representation of the regional tourism space composed of tourism nodes and axes of different levels.

2.1.2. Plate Tourism Spatial Structure

To further clarify regional interests and optimize tourism spatial structure, the plate tourism model has emerged as an outcome of regional tourism development based on the “Point-Axis” system theory [21]. The construction of the plate tourism spatial structure mainly involves three levels. (1) Identifying “points”: Similar to the “Point-Axis” system, these are primarily tourism nodes such as scenic spots (attractions) and tourist towns. (2) Forming “areas”: “Areas” are mainly formed by the combination of “points and axes”, equivalent to tourism agglomerations of different levels. They include tourism nodes and tourism axes, forming a tourism destination system centered on “points”. (3) Constituting “networks”: By connecting tourism destination systems at all levels through tourism axes and effectively facilitating connections between them, individual “areas” are integrated into a plate model. Meanwhile, for the entire tourism plate, the tourism destination system is regarded as a “point” with greater influence, which affects and drives the development of the surrounding tourism industry in accordance with the “Point-Axis” model. In practice, the plate tourism spatial structure has been widely verified and applied, promoting the formation of a networked spatial pattern of regional tourism characterized by “connecting points into lines and lines promoting areas” [21,22,23,24].

2.1.3. Growth Pole Theory

The Growth Pole theory was initially applied to the analysis of national regional economic development. It holds that the overall development of a country needs to be driven by a few regions or industries with better conditions, which form growth poles and then drive the development of surrounding regions or industries [21,25,26]. The Growth Pole theory advocates a gradual and stepped development model from points to areas and from local to overall. In the process of geographical space evolution, two main effect mechanisms are formed. (1) Polarization effect: resources such as capital, technology, and information flow preferentially into rapidly growing regions, forming and intensifying the spatial polarization effect. (2) Diffusion effect: when the core region of the pole forms a certain scale effect, it will spill over to the surrounding areas and drive their development [27,28]. Generally, the polarization effect in the initial stage is greater than the diffusion effect; when the growth pole reaches a certain scale, the diffusion effect will dominate.

2.1.4. Tourism Opportunity Spectrum

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a resource recreation planning and management method led by the U.S. Forest Service [29]. ROS mainly focuses on wilderness or remote areas where nature conservation is the priority. It holds that the recreational environment has three continuously changing and interacting attributes: natural environment, social environment, and management environment. It evaluates recreational areas from six aspects: accessibility, non-recreational resource use, on-site management, social impact, tourists’ acceptability, and intervention level [30,31]. However, on the contrary, the quality of the recreational ecological environment is becoming lower and lower. Based on this concept, some new opportunity spectrum theories have been proposed. For example, Butler and Waldbrook put forward the tourism opportunity spectrum (TOS) [32]. Compared with ROS, TOS has a wider applicability and more fully considers the multi-subject characteristics of tourism activities. Butler and Boyd further proposed the ecotourism opportunity spectrum (ECOS) to make it more in line with the goal of sustainable tourism development [33].

As evidenced by the above analysis, the “Point-Axis” system theory serves as a fundamental framework for understanding regional spatial development patterns, offering important insights into both general regional spatial structures and tourism spatial structures. The plate spatial tourism structure theory represents a further evolution and systematization under the “Point-Axis” system, specifically applied to tourism destination systems. Both theories adhere spatially to the growth pole evolution model, reflecting a progressive, staged development pattern that proceeds from points to axes and from local to integrated spatial systems. However, the spatial structures derived from these theories exhibit broad applicability, wherein the axial connections between points may not necessarily arise from inherent geographical or cultural continuities. This can lead to a lack of thematic coherence and uncontrolled spatial expansion. Clearly, such theoretical frameworks are poorly suited to the study of tourism spatial structures along linear cultural heritage, which are defined by strong thematic continuity and spatial connectivity.

Furthermore, while the tourism opportunity spectrum offers standardized principles and management references for zoning in tourism areas, its application has largely been confined to individual attractions or single scenic sites. Its utility remains limited for large-scale, cross-regional tourism spaces such as those associated with linear cultural heritage, and it offers little operational guidance for managing complex tourism complexes with multifaceted spatial elements.

2.2. Evolutionary Patterns of Linear Cultural Heritage Tourism Space

2.2.1. Vine-Shaped Structure: A Model for Linear Cultural Heritage Tourism

Linear cultural heritage possesses prominent value and unique characteristics, making it particularly necessary to conduct systematic and in-depth analysis of its tourism spatial structure in response to practical development needs. Building on a solid foundation of existing theories, this study retains the evolutionary logic of regional tourism spatial structure—from points to areas—as well as the core concept of zoning management. At the same time, it focuses on the intrinsic attributes of linear cultural heritage, namely cultural thematicity and spatial connectivity, to emphasize its fundamental requirements for authenticity and integrity. On this basis, the study introduces a visualized theoretical analogy by summarizing and proposing a “vine-shaped structure” to elucidate the form and organizational mechanisms of the tourism spatial structure of linear cultural heritage (Figure 1). Overall, the vine-shaped structure provides a dedicated analytical framework for understanding the tourism space of linear cultural heritage, addressing the limitations of existing theories in studying tourism spaces derived from this specific heritage type. It offers important theoretical implications and practical references for expanding both the depth and scope of tourism spatial research.

The vine-shaped structure focuses on highlighting the continuity of linear cultural heritage and the differences in tourism value, with its main components including three aspects. (1) Grapevine: It refers to the linear supporting space of linear cultural heritage, such as mountain ranges, rivers, roads, etc. As a core component of linear cultural heritage, it connects regional ties. (2) Grape bunches: Grape bunches are equivalent to different tourism nodes of the same level, which can be tourist towns or tourism agglomerations. However, for the entire heritage line, they must be distinguishable and evaluable. The maturity of each grape cluster indicates the degree of tourism value—higher maturity means higher tourism value, and lower maturity means lower tourism value. (3) Grape grains: Grape grains refer to individual heritage sites, which are the basic elements of tourism nodes and also the main tourist attractions, usually existing in the form of tourist attractions (spots) or heritage protection units. Although the overall tourism value of a tourism node is largely determined by the tourism value of its heritage sites, it is also affected by natural environment factors and industrial economy factors. It is worth noting that the tourism value of each heritage site varies, influenced by various factors such as the universal value of resources and resource abundance.

2.2.2. Dynamics of Tourism Spatial Structure of Linear Cultural Heritage

Linear cultural heritage has inherent advantages in developing the “point-axis” tourism spatial structure and plate tourism [9]. Combined with the vine-shaped structure of tourism value, the linear space relied on by the heritage can be regarded as the tourism axis (grapevine) and each city or region connected along the way as tourism nodes (grape clusters). Each node is graded according to its tourism value, and within each tourism node, there are multiple heritage sites or tourist attractions (grape grains). This forms different tourism destination systems and tourism plates, creating a cross-level spatial synergy with multi-point linkage and ultimately realizing the regional spatial evolution pattern where the “point-like” distribution of the tourism industry expands into an “area-like” distribution, which exactly conforms to the growth pole theory. Areas with higher tourism value grades form “core poles”, driving the development of surrounding areas and continuously expanding their influence. While developing themselves, they also promote the development of other regions.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

To scientifically understand the morphological characteristics and evolutionary patterns of linear cultural heritage tourism spaces, this study aims to achieve coordinated development between heritage conservation and tourism utilization. The research employs a deductive case study methodology, focusing on optimizing the spatial structure of tourism. Drawing upon existing literature and theoretical advancements, this paper introduces the vine-shapes structure of linear cultural heritage tourism and selects the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal as a case study for empirical validation. The structural characteristics are analyzed from three dimensions: node type, tourism value, and utilization intensity. Based on these analyses, targeted optimization strategies for the linear cultural heritage tourism structure are proposed from the perspective of precise positioning, contributing to the rational zoning and sustainable development of such heritage sites.

During the theoretical development phase, an extensive literature review was conducted to synthesize existing research and theoretical achievements. Through logical deduction, the vine-shaped structure and its evolutionary model were formulated. In the empirical phase, primary data were collected through in-depth individual interviews using a semi-structured mode. The pre-planned questions included the following aspects: (i) classification of the 22 cities along the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal into three tiers of node types based on resource endowments; (ii) classification of these cities into three levels of tourism utilization intensity reflecting their actual tourism development conditions; and (iii) additional perceptions and insights regarding the tourism development along the canal. To ensure the depth and reliability of the interview data, initial contact was made via email with three government officials responsible for or involved in the conservation and tourism development of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal, as well as ten scholars who have published academic work in related fields. Ultimately, eight participants agreed to participate in telephone interviews conducted in November 2024, including three government officials and five academic scholars. Each interview lasted no less than 20 min.

Based on a synthesis of interview data supplemented by information from tourism planning documents and policy regulations, this study classified and evaluated the node types and utilization intensity of cities along the canal. Node type emphasizes the city’s resource endowment related to the canal and is categorized into primary, secondary, and general nodes; utilization intensity reflects the actual status of tourism development and is classified into high, medium, and low levels. Furthermore, the classification of tourism value types was adapted from the research of Zhang et al. [6] and includes four categories: high-value imbalance, key breakthrough, comprehensive enhancement, and low-value restriction types. Specifically, the high-value imbalanced type refers to cities with high tourism value yet poor internal coordination. The key breakthrough type describes cities with relatively high tourism value where clear imbalances exist among resources, the natural environment, and industrial–economic development. The comprehensive enhancement type applies to areas exhibiting medium-level tourism value without significant coordinating constraints. Lastly, the low-value restriction type denotes cities with low tourism value and no prominent advantages [6].

3.2. Study Area

The Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal represents an outstanding achievement in ancient Chinese water conservancy and shipping engineering, leading the world in both scale and technical sophistication [13]. Spanning 22 prefecture-level and higher-level cities in eastern China, it is recognized as the longest and most extensive historical canal globally in terms of engineering volume. As a typical linear cultural heritage, the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal serves as the focal point of this article, which examines the tourism spatial structure across the 22 cities it traverses as key nodes (Figure 2). The analysis is based on several key considerations. First, the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal constitutes a rare and living example of linear cultural heritage, with its characteristics and development experiences offering universal reference value [16]. Second, the heritage sites along the canal are distinctive and rich in cultural and tourism resources, demonstrating significant heritage value and strong tourism appeal. Investigating the spatial structure of canal-related tourism aligns with the practical needs of promoting integrated cultural and tourism development. Third, current tourism development along the canal exhibits notable spatial disparities. Therefore, it remains crucial to explore how to rationally plan tourism spaces at different administrative and regional levels and to implement coordinated zoning and tailored policies under the framework of overall sustainable development.

4. Results

Linear cultural heritage consists of diverse elements, and its tourism space also has distinct structural levels. Based on the evolutionary pattern of linear cultural heritage tourism in terms of spatial form, this study puts forward the following suggestions for optimizing its spatial structure in combination with tourism value.

4.1. Morphological Decomposition of Linear Cultural Heritage Tourism Space

4.1.1. Differentiation of “Point” Positions

Tourism points mainly refer to tourism nodes, which are the grape clusters in the “vine-shaped structure” and are generally divided by towns or tourism agglomerations. As the basic components of the tourism spatial structure of linear cultural heritage, tourism points are linearly connected resource components and are therefore often selected as the units for tourism value evaluation. For example, in this paper, each prefecture-level city along the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal is regarded as a tourism point, and its tourism values are evaluated and compared. In practice, there are tourism nodes with different types of tourism value, which require different promotion strategies. The classification and positioning of nodes along the line are prerequisites for reasonably adjusting the overall tourism spatial structure of linear cultural heritage. Generally, cities or regions with relatively high tourism value are the focus of linear cultural heritage tourism; they should leverage their strengths and avoid weaknesses to play a leading role in driving tourism along the entire line.

Secondly, the heritage resources within tourism nodes are the main tourist attractions. They form a tourism destination system within the node and continuously spread to the surrounding areas, forming a tourism hinterland and realizing a “core-periphery” integrated development model. Therefore, at the micro level of tourism nodes, identifying the tourism value of different heritage resources and grasping the interactive relationships between them are also factors that enhance the tourism value and status of the tourism node itself.

4.1.2. “Line” Connection

The “line” serves as the material supporting space for linear cultural heritage, analogous to the vine in the “vine structure”. It connects different tourism nodes, embodies the main body of the heritage, and manifests its linear nature. Axes play a crucial role in the regional tourism spatial structure. For linear cultural heritage, the axis is not only a transportation route but also a cultural thread, highlighting the heritage theme and ensuring cultural continuity. In practice, linear connection requires each node to recognize and inherit the cultural theme, establish a unified regional brand, and create a distinctive tourism and cultural image.

Furthermore, beyond the inherent heritage routes, it is also vital to connect geographically non-adjacent nodes—for instance, the cross-regional linkage between the cities at the two ends of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal. When selecting and establishing connecting lines, full consideration should be given to the tourism value of different nodes: cities or regions with high value, as priority development nodes, will be the first choice for route construction; those with lower value will be included in subsequent development plans. Meanwhile, the close connection between linear cultural heritage tourism nodes and surrounding or other important areas is an important guarantee for expanding influence and lays the foundation for building a tourism spatial network.

4.1.3. “Area”-Shaped Networking

The “area” is an inevitable result of the spatial expansion of linear cultural heritage tourism, forming a regional surface based on the continuous extension and evolution of tourism nodes and axes. For the linear cultural heritage as a whole, the regional surface takes the “line” of the linear cultural heritage as the axis and spreads to both ends, relying on closely connected tourism nodes; in terms of the internal composition of the linear cultural heritage, the regional surface is a typical tourism agglomeration area or tourism plate formed by taking important tourism nodes as the core and connecting with adjacent nodes. A linear cultural heritage can derive multiple regional surfaces. However, in any case, the formation of the “tourism area” is inseparable from the construction of a network, emphasizing the close connection and interdependence between tourism nodes.

4.2. Utilization Intensity of Linear Cultural Heritage Tourism Space

In the process of classifying tourism values, both value grades and coordination are comprehensively considered. With tourism nodes as the evaluation units, different types can be formed in the tourism value matrix (Figure 3). Among them, the high-value unbalanced type and low-value restricted type are relatively fixed categories, while the remaining categories need to be reasonably divided according to the actual situation of linear cultural heritage. For example, cities along the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal are mainly of the key breakthrough type and comprehensive enhancement type. Admittedly, the type characterized by high value and high coordination is the optimal development state, but it is not common in reality. Both the low-value uncoordinated type and high-value uncoordinated type need targeted improvement for their main weak points.

The tourism utilization degree of linear cultural heritage is basically determined by the level of tourism value, but it is also affected by coordination, forming an unclosed circular growth model in the tourism value grid chart. As shown in Figure 3, among the cities along the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal, the low-value restricted type should focus on heritage protection, reducing and restricting tourism utilization. Although the key breakthrough type has no particularly prominent aspects, it also has no obvious shortcomings and needs all-around development, and tourism is an effective means to drive the local economy. Therefore, the intensity of tourism utilization is at a relatively high level. However, it should be noted that the utilization intensity of the high-value uncoordinated type will be higher than that of the low-value uncoordinated type, which is caused by the shortage or poor quality of low-value tourism resources. Although the high-value unbalanced type has clear shortcomings, its prominent tourism value will bring abundant market development resources, so the tourism utilization intensity is relatively high. The most complex is the comprehensive enhancement type. Affected by the relatively low tourism value, the tourism utilization intensity of most comprehensive enhancement areas is also weak, but some areas with medium tourism value and coordination can show high utilization intensity under the stimulation of good policies or other conditions, such as Huzhou and Jiaxing.

It should be noted that the distinction of utilization intensity based on tourism value categories does not conflict with ROS, as they involve different geographical scales. Specifically, ROS is mostly aimed at a single scenic spot, with a clear scope, while this paper takes cities as the evaluation unit, covering a wider range, including multiple scenic spots or scenic areas, which is a tourism complex. Therefore, it is not that cities with high tourism value should be strictly protected and restricted from tourism development but that the excessive commercialization and tourism intervention of high-value tourist attractions or heritage sites in the city should be restricted and, finally, form a ROS multi-level nested zoning model with multiple core protected areas, mainly in the form of cultural relics protection units and A-level tourist attractions, with tourism activities developed in the periphery.

4.3. Empirical Study on Optimizing the Tourism Spatial Structure of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal

In this study, the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal is regarded as a continuous tourism axis, with 22 cities along it serving as nodes, each forming a relatively independent tourism destination system. Based on node type, tourism value, and tourism utilization intensity, this study categorizes the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal into a three-tier tourism zone system (

Table 1. Analysis of the tourism spatial network of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal.

Tourism Zone	City	Node Type	Tourism Value Type	Tourism Utilization Intensity
Primary Tourism Zone	Yangzhou	Primary Node	High-Value Imbalance Type	High
	Hangzhou	Primary Node	High-Value Imbalance Type	High
	Suzhou	Secondary Node	Key Breakthrough Type	Medium
	Changzhou	Secondary Node	Key Breakthrough Type	Medium
	Wuxi	Secondary Node	Key Breakthrough Type	Medium
	Huai’an	Secondary Node	Key Breakthrough Type	Medium
	Huzhou	Secondary Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
	Jiaxing	General Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
	Zhenjiang	General Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
Secondary Tourism Zone	Beijing	Primary Node	Key Breakthrough Type	High
	Tianjin	Secondary Node	Key Breakthrough Type	Medium
	Langfang	General Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
	Cangzhou	General Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
Tertiary Tourism Zone	Xuzhou	Secondary Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
	Jining	Secondary Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
	Zaozhuang	Secondary Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
	Liaocheng	General Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
	Suqian	General Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
	Tai’an	General Node	Comprehensive Strengthening Type	Medium
Others	Hengshui	General Node	Low-Value Restriction Type	Low
	Xingtai	General Node	Low-Value Restriction Type	Low
	Dezhou	General Node	Low-Value Restriction Type	Low

). Relying on these cities, a multi-level and differentiated tourism zone system has been formed to jointly promote the regional synergistic development of linear cultural heritage tourism.

The primary tourism zone mainly includes cities south of Huai’an, representing the highest level of tourism development along the canal. This zone benefits not only from high-quality resource endowment but also from a relatively high level of socioeconomic development. Among them, Yangzhou and Hangzhou play a leading role, having developed diverse tourism experiences while ensuring effective heritage conservation. The secondary tourism zone is located in the northern section of the canal, including Beijing, Tianjin, Langfang, and Cangzhou. Its development is primarily driven by the highly developed economies of Beijing and Tianjin. It is worth noting that Langfang and Cangzhou in Hebei Province are included in this zone due to their locational advantages, aiming to enhance internal connectivity and attract external resources through regional synergy and diffusion effects, thereby fostering collaborative tourism development. The tertiary tourism zone spans the mid-section of the canal, covering cities in Shandong Province and northern Jiangsu Province. This zone requires systematic enhancement and resource integration. There is an urgent need to explore the core appeal of canal tourism in this section. While advancing heritage restoration and conservation, it is essential to increase emphasis on the tourism industry and cultural openness among cities within the zone. Additionally, due to the low potential for tourism development, Hengshui, Xingtai, and Dezhou are currently focused primarily on heritage conservation and have not been included in the aforementioned tourism zoning.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Progress Compared with Previous Studies

This study builds upon existing theoretical theories in tourism spatial structure and incorporates the distinctive attributes of linear cultural heritage to innovatively propose a vine-shaped structure. Previous studies have largely overlooked the spatial connectivity patterns inherent in large-scale, cross-regional tourism spaces due to their intrinsic cultural themes, often relying instead on growth pole evolution theory to emphasize point-to-area spatial expansion [19,23,24,25,26,27]. However, for tourism spaces derived specifically from linear cultural heritage, the inherent heritage resources—based on cultural attributes—form tourism attractions and nodes, while the cultural themes stimulate node expansion and connection rather than disorderly sprawl or arbitrary intrusion into culturally unrelated regions [6,9]. This constitutes the fundamental distinction from other regional tourism spatial structures. The proposition of the vine-shaped structure stems from in-depth reflection on practical development. Through abstract metaphorical analogy, it provides a spatial representation of the tourism spatial structure of linear cultural heritage. This approach not only deepens traditional geographical research’s engagement with soft cultural elements but also promotes the conservation and revitalization of linear cultural heritage.

Furthermore, as a large-scale composite destination system, the key issue for linear cultural heritage tourism space lies in effectively coordinating the relationships between the whole and its parts, as well as among the parts themselves [13,15]. Existing studies have explored canal tourism and its spatial structure from both holistic and sectional perspectives [9,19,23], yet research on the synergistic mechanisms between integrity and regionality remains insufficient. In response, this study proposes a vine-shaped structure theoretical framework from a holistic standpoint. Within this framework, and taking into account the resource conditions and tourism utilization intensity of different urban nodes, multi-level tourism zones are identified, thereby enabling more targeted optimization strategies for each segment.

5.2. Suggestions for Optimizing Linear Cultural Heritage Tourism Space

The above findings are of great significance to the management practice of the Beijing–Hanghzou Grand Canal and linear cultural heritage tourism space. To avoid the intensification of spatial disparities in tourism development, it is necessary to utilize linear cultural heritage to strengthen the spatial connection among various tourism nodes, enhance regional collaboration, and use more developed tourism areas to support less developed ones, thereby achieving integrated tourism interaction, exchange, and coordinated development across the entire area of the linear cultural heritage [9].

For the holistic conservation and development of linear cultural heritage, government departments should formulate a unified regional tourism planning to systematically integrate tourism resources across the entire area and implement strict management over the design, operation, and regulation of tourism products [15]. It is essential not only to conduct zoning for protection and utilization—such as designating core zones, buffer zones, and recreation zones—based on the resource characteristics and preservation status but also to clarify the responsibilities of relevant government departments, including urban construction, cultural relics, industry and commerce, and environmental protection. Second, a regional collaborative network should be established to promote cross-regional information sharing. In terms of transportation, in addition to strengthening interregional transport links, such as aviation, high-speed rail, and highways, it is also necessary to improve the efficiency of intraregional transportation, such as optimizing urban public transit systems, including subways and buses. Regarding heritage information management, a multi-city, multi-level heritage information sharing platform should be established to enable dynamic monitoring of heritage conservation and tourism development in various cities [33]. For academic support, it is recommended to set up a dedicated research association, organizing regular academic exchanges and discussions among cities. These measures should be promoted across all cities along the linear cultural heritage to ensure comprehensive cooperation and mutually beneficial tourism development.

For the primary tourism zone—specifically, cities located south of Huai’an along the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal—it is particularly crucial to enhance heritage conservation and establish a monitoring mechanism for heritage utilization. This zone plays a demonstrative role in tourism development and should therefore develop integrated approval and supervision systems that balance heritage protection with tourism development. On the one hand, dedicated teams should be formed to conduct regular on-site evaluations to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the heritage are effectively maintained. On the other hand, tourist demand should guide the regulation of market activities to prevent and curb excessive commercialization. Furthermore, efforts should be made to foster immersive and experiential tourism formats and advance thematic, narrative-driven tourism models. The inherent cultural themes of linear cultural heritage should be fully leveraged to systematically develop tourism routes that connect scenic spots within the zone, using thematic development to enhance industry vitality. Building on this, pilot and demonstration projects represented by cities such as Yangzhou and Hangzhou should be solidly advanced, using the leadership of these key areas to stimulate the entire tourism industry chain.

For the secondary tourism zone, specifically the cities located in the northern section of the canal, the core tasks for future tourism development lie in actively advancing the restoration of the heritage landscape and conducting in-depth exploration and interpretation of its cultural value. For instance, systematically compiling historical documents of the vanished river sections in Beijing can help restore the dynamic, linear characteristics of the canal, thereby enriching the heritage narrative and enhancing its tourism appeal [11]. Second, efforts should be strengthened in tourism promotion and marketing by shaping a distinctive and recognizable heritage tourism image to effectively increase market attractiveness and competitiveness. Consideration may be given to establishing a dedicated promotion center for linear cultural heritage tourism, which would undertake systematic planning and integrated management of heritage tourism marketing activities in the zone. Meanwhile, a multi-tiered collaboration mechanism led by the government with participation from diverse stakeholders should be established. This includes fostering cross-regional tourism enterprises and actively engaging non-governmental organizations, local residents, and other relevant parties in the tourism development process, working together to create a supportive and inclusive social environment.

For the tertiary tourism zone located in Shandong Province and the northern part of Jiangsu Province, identifying a targeted approach to tourism development based on their unique characteristics is crucial. The cities within this zone currently demonstrate limited prominence in terms of tourism value and utilization intensity, which can be partly attributed to unclear self-positioning [6,7]. Taking Liaocheng as an example, although it has the first specialized museum of the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal culture, as well as dedicated research institutions and academic programs, its canal-related tourism remains relatively unknown and lacks influence. This study suggests that Liaocheng could position itself as a window for cultural exhibition and academic research on the Grand Canal, leveraging its strengths in canal culture studies to establish a distinctive image in the market. Furthermore, strengthening the systematic management of heritage is fundamental to preserving the cultural continuity of these cities. In addition to multifaceted documentation and registration efforts—including textual records, video archives, and online databases—it is essential to strictly address violations such as unauthorized construction and garbage dumping that damage heritage sites, thereby safeguarding the physical condition of existing relics [16]. Finally, the establishment of a special government fund dedicated to collaborative linear cultural heritage tourism initiatives is recommended. This fund could support projects focused on heritage revitalization, cultural product development, tourism promotion, and talent cultivation, thereby accelerating market development through financial assistance.

5.3. Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations. First, the case study method adopted is based on deductive reasoning and relies primarily on qualitative analysis, lacking quantitative verification of the research framework and conclusions. Second, using only the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal as an empirical case may limit the generalizability of the findings to other types of linear cultural heritage, such as road systems, military engineering projects, and historic trade routes. Third, the classification of tourism value applied in this study draws on existing literature, which may not align perfectly with the specific context of this research. Fourth, the proposed strategies could encounter challenges during implementation, including coordination difficulties among government bodies and enterprises, as well as interregional collaboration barriers. Therefore, future research should incorporate more diverse case studies and quantitative methods to validate the theoretical framework and develop a classification system better suited to the objectives of this study. Furthermore, systematically evaluating the feasibility and practicality of the proposed strategies represents an important direction for subsequent research, which would help foster broader support for these recommendations.

6. Conclusions

This study, based on the unique attributes of linear cultural heritage, innovatively proposes a “vine-shaped” tourism spatial structure suitable for such heritage from the perspective of spatial differentiation and clarifies spatial optimization pathways in terms of both spatial form and utilization intensity. Using the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal as a case for empirical validation, a multi-level tourism zone system was established, and targeted enhancement strategies were proposed accordingly.

Although this study has certain limitations in quantitative validation, its main findings still offer valuable insights for other linear cultural heritage sites facing challenges in heritage reuse and tourism development. In particular, the vine-shaped structure derived from a holistic perspective, along with tailored optimization strategies for different zones and nodes, supports the coordinated development between the whole and parts, as well as among the parts themselves, along linear cultural heritage. This research not only expands traditional tourism geography’s engagement with soft cultural elements but also provides theoretical and practical support for the conservation and revitalization of linear cultural heritage.