Exploring Spatial–Temporal Coupling and Its Driving Factors of Cultural and Tourism Industry in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Urban Agglomeration, China

Abstract

This study focuses on the 13 cities within the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei (BTH) urban agglomeration, developing a sophisticated rating index system grounded in a factor–environment–effect framework to assess the coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries across the region, alongside their spatiotemporal evolution dynamics. The study further delves into the internal constraints and external driving forces, aiming to identify the current state and key bottlenecks of regional cultural–tourism integration. The findings indicate that: (1) On the whole, the cultural and tourism industries in the region exhibit a fluctuating yet upward trajectory, with a robust coupling between the two systems. The coupling coordination has transitioned from the “uncoordinated state” to the “transition stage”. (2) Regionally, the degree of coupling coordination evolves from “uncoordinated” to “coordinated”. Cities have progressively advanced in their coupling coordination levels and shown certain spatial clustering characteristics. Based on the evolving types of coupling coordination, six distinct patterns are identified. Beijing and Tianjin have emerged as models of synchronized cultural–tourism development, while cities in Hebei are increasingly shifting toward a tourism-prioritized development model. (3) Cultural development effects represent the primary obstacle factors, while technological innovation, urban infrastructure, digital construction, and government investment emerge as the major driving forces. Specifically, the interactions between industrial structure and government investment, industrial structure and technological innovation, and urban environment and economic scale have a more significant impact on the development of the cultural–tourism coupling coordination development. Based on the preceding analysis, it is recommended to implement targeted policy measures to enhance collaboration between Beijing, Tianjin, and the surrounding cities in critical sectors. This should focus on expanding the synergies between culture and tourism, leveraging digital technologies to foster innovation and integration within the cultural and tourism industries. Such initiatives will help mitigate the regional disparities in the development of cultural–tourism integration and promote a more balanced and sustainable growth trajectory.

1. Introduction

With the development of the economy and society, people are increasingly emphasizing spiritual pursuits and fulfillment, bringing new opportunities for the integration of culture and tourism. Cultural–tourism integration fosters the creation of cultural brands within the tourism industry, enhancing its competitive advantages. In the long term, cultural branding strengthens the cultural soft power of the tourism industry, preserves the originality of tourism products, and mitigates their marginalization [1]. Thus, the integration of culture and tourism not only aligns with industry development demands but also meets the growing spiritual and cultural needs of the public. In recent years, the depth and breadth of cultural–tourism integration have expanded significantly, with “shaping tourism through culture” and “highlighting culture through tourism” emerging as new pathways for integrated development [2]. Existing research indicates that cultural–tourism integration enhances cultural confidence among residents, facilitates the complementary use of internal and external resources, supports regional industrial structure upgrades, and narrows and balances regional disparities [3]. It not only generates economic benefits but also amplifies social and cultural effects [4]. Various countries have leveraged their unique industrial strengths and regional cultural characteristics to develop distinctive cultural–tourism products aimed at establishing competitive advantages to attract more tourists [5,6].

A review of domestic and international literature reveals three primary study focuses. One is to explore the relationship between culture and tourism. The studies emphasize that culture and tourism are interdependent, with culture serving as the soul of tourism and tourism as a vehicle for culture. As study delves deeper into the internal logic of this relationship, scholars have concentrated on identifying the cultural factors that shape a unique tourism spirit [7], such as tourism’s impact on cultural change [8], cultural sensitivity in tourism [9], and the role of cultural elements in building destination brands [10]. Research also addresses tourists’ cultural perceptions, such as memorable tourism experiences [11], cultural competencies of tourists [12], and satisfaction with cultural experiences [13]. The second is to study the development models of cultural–tourism integration. Cultural and tourism industries have transitioned from two independent sectors to an interdependent, new-type industry. Emerging cultural and creative tourism models include film tourism [14], theme park tourism [15], heritage tourism [16], shopping tourism [17], and food tourism [18]. Additionally, regional and specialized cultural–tourism resources, such as ice and snow, marine, grassland, sports, and industrial tourism, have gained attention. These innovative products act as key carriers of deep cultural–tourism integration, each with distinct historical, cultural, and social connotations. The third is the measurement and evaluation of the development level of cultural–tourism integration. Studies from a geographic perspective have constructed evaluation index systems based on structural optimization, collaborative integration, competitiveness, and development efficiency. These evaluations span macro scales such as nations [19,20], meso scales like urban agglomerations and economic and cultural belts [21], as well as micro scales such as national parks [15] and traditional ancient villages [22]. Significant differences exist in cultural–tourism integration levels across regions [23]. Regarding “how to promote integration”, existing studies identify regional innovation capacity, policy support, digitalization, and infrastructure as key drivers of high-quality cultural–tourism integration [24,25,26].

Most scholars believe that industrial integration refers to the economic phenomenon where different industries or different sectors within the same industry mutually permeate and intersect, leading to the blurring or even disappearance of industrial boundaries, thus giving rise to new forms of industries. Extensive research has accumulated regarding the motivations, patterns, and approaches of industrial integration, laying a solid theoretical foundation for studying the integration of culture and tourism [27,28]. The convergence of culture and tourism industries involves the mutual infiltration of cultural and tourism industries and related elements, gradually breaking through the existing industry boundaries to form new industrial formats and product forms—cultural tourism. In this evolutionary process, the mechanisms that drive the integration of culture and tourism industry development include changing demands, technological innovations, policy support, and other driving forces. Industrial coupling refers to the phenomenon where two or more industries, during their operation, share and circulate key factors such as production elements, information technology, and operational mechanisms, leading to mutual cooperation and mutual influence, ultimately resulting in a beneficial resonance effect. The development mechanism of the integration of culture and tourism industries fits into this coupling principle as the tourism industry exhibits strong relevance and penetrability, with blurred boundaries, inherently coupled with the cultural industry. From development elements and the development environment to development effects, the evolution of the integrated development of the two industries continuously promotes the growth of industrial performance and drives the optimization and upgrading of industrial structure. Therefore, this paper employs the principle of coupling to evaluate and analyze the evolutionary process of the mutual integration and interaction of culture and tourism industries.

In conclusion, the integration of culture and tourism development is a major topic of interest in the academic community and has made significant progress. However, there are still areas that need improvement: (1) Previous research has mainly constructed evaluation indicator systems from the perspective of industry input–output, potentially overlooking the degree of alignment between environmental factors such as policies, markets, and the organization of industries in the process of culture and tourism industry integration. (2) The coordinated development of urban clusters follows a stage-related pattern, with different cities and different stages exhibiting varying characteristics in the development of cultural and tourism integration. Existing research perspectives are relatively singular, often based on the analysis of changes in coupling coordination indexes from single years, lacking comparative analyses of the evolution of the speed and types of cultural and tourism industry integration development in different cities. (3) Research case studies are predominantly based on point or surface scales, lacking quantitative research on a medium regional scale. Looking at the development reality of the BTH urban agglomeration, the complementarity among the three regions in industrial coordination and resource sharing is becoming increasingly prominent, indicating significant potential for the development of culture and tourism integration. Currently, the coordinated development of the BTH urban agglomeration has entered a phase of comprehensive and high-quality advancement, with the promotion of deep integration of culture and tourism becoming a key driving force for regional economic transformation and development. However, challenges persist in the integration of culture and tourism in the BTH urban agglomeration. These challenges include significant differences in cultural tourism competitiveness among different cities, a gradual slowdown in the development speed of culture and tourism integration, and variations in the effects of cultural resource spatial continuity on tourism development decision making [29]. Achieving balanced and high-quality integration of culture and tourism has become a pressing issue for the coordinated development of culture and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration. Given these challenges, this study focuses on the essence of culture and tourism integration, emphasizing the dynamics and systemic nature of the integration development process. It aims to construct a comprehensive evaluation indicator system from the perspectives of development elements, environment, and effects. Through entropy value analysis, the study evaluates the level of culture and tourism integration development in 14 cities in the BTH urban agglomeration from 2010 to 2019, analyzing the spatial–temporal patterns and evolution characteristics of imbalanced and insufficient development of culture and tourism integration. It seeks to dissect the primary obstacle factors and driving forces of culture and tourism integration development, with the goal of providing tailored recommendations to optimize the development of culture and tourism integration. The framework of the study is shown in Figure 1.

2. Study Area, Data, and Methodology

2.1. Study Area

The BTH urban agglomeration is located in the northern part of the North China Plain, with geographic coordinates between 36°5′ N–42°37′ N and 113°27′ E–119°50′ E. The BTH region is geographically interconnected, with close human ties and a shared cultural identity. The area has a deep historical foundation, an appropriate radius for communication, and possesses a natural foundation for mutual integration and coordinated development. In 2014, the coordinated development of the BTH urban agglomeration was elevated to a national strategy. As the largest urban agglomeration in northern China and a core growth pole of the country, the total GDP of the region reached CNY 10.44 trillion in 2023, making it one of the most dynamic, open, and innovative regions in China. The BTH urban agglomeration has a rich historical and cultural heritage, abundant cultural and tourism resources, and significant potential for cultural–tourism integration. The synergy between culture and tourism in the region is strong, with the three areas collectively boasting 8 World Heritage sites, 474 national key cultural heritage sites, 8 Chinese historical and cultural cities, 10 Chinese historical and cultural towns, and 38 Chinese historical and cultural villages. This region is home to important cultural areas such as the Great Wall culture, Grand Canal culture, and the Beijing metropolitan area culture, making it one of the most vibrant urban agglomerations for cultural–tourism development. Building a deeply integrated cultural–tourism development model for the BTH urban agglomeration is not only an objective need for the transformation of culture and tourism itself but also an important means for advancing regional coordinated development. Moreover, it is a necessary requirement for building a demonstration area for China’s modernization in the lead zone.

2.2. Indicators and Data

2.2.1. Constructing the Evaluation Indicator System

The integration of the cultural and tourism industries is a continuous and dynamic optimization process. During this integration, the principle of “integration where possible, full integration when feasible” is followed, gradually breaking through the original industry boundaries or element domains, forming a state of mutual dependence and symbiotic integration. Existing literature often constructs evaluation frameworks for the integration of cultural and tourism industries from an input–output perspective, analyzing the optimal output efficiency (market effects, number of people, or income) achieved under set input elements (including factors, technology, labor, etc.), with the focus being on improving the efficiency of factor allocation [23]. In fact, the integrated development of the cultural and tourism industries not only requires internal resources and factors to push but also needs external environmental factors to pull and jointly promote the integration [30]. In this process, factors such as resource endowment, technological innovation, market demand, policy orientation, and economic foundation all play equally important roles. Therefore, it is necessary to consider incorporating the dimension of development environment into the traditional “input–output” evaluation system. Specifically, the integration of development elements serves as the foundational prerequisite, facilitating the organic integration and complementary advantages of resource elements, providing solid support for the integrated development of the cultural and tourism industries. The integration of the development environment is a key link, as it reduces friction and resistance between industries, creating a favorable external environment for the fusion of cultural and tourism industries. The integration of development effects is the core objective, aiming to promote interactive responses and coordinated development in market effects, thereby maximizing the market output of the integrated development of the cultural and tourism industries. The integration of cultural and tourism industries occurs under the joint action of the degree of resource element integration and the level of industrial development environment integration, with the goal of maximizing the level of market effect integration. In light of this, this study draws on existing research findings and constructs an evaluation system for the coupling and coordinated development of regional cultural and tourism industries from three dimensions: Development elements, development environment, and development effects (

Table 1. Evaluation indicator system for the integrated development of cultural and tourism industries.

System Level	Standardized Layer	Indicator Layer (Weights/Type)
		Cultural Industry	Tourism Industry
Development elements	Resource elements	Abundance of cultural resources (0.067/+)	Tourism resource abundance (0.070/+)
		Cultural resource density (0.048/+)	Tourism resource density (0.074/+)
	Human capital	Employees in cultural and related industries (0.159/+)	Employees in the tourism industry (0.108/+)
	Basic support	Cultural development support (0.045/+)	Tourism reception capacity (0.131/+)
Development environment	Policy environment	Number of regulations on the development of cultural industries (0.143/+)	Number of regulations on the development of the tourism industry (0.111/+)
		Cultural policies and regulations attention index (0.045/+)	Tourism policies and regulations attention index (0.041/+)
	Market environment	Consumer price index for culture and recreation (0.091/+)	Consumer price index per tourist (0.101/+)
		Fixed asset investment in culture and related industries (0.015/+)	Investment in fixed assets in the tourism industry (0.044/+)
Development effects	Industrial scale	Density of enterprises in culture and related industries (0.126/+)	Density of tourism enterprises (0.081/+)
		Public library holdings (0.203/+)	Total tourist arrivals (0.102/+)
	Dissemination capacity	Local cultural media index (0.007/+)	Local tourism concern index (0.059/+)
	Industrial performance	Contribution of the cultural industry to the local economy (0.051/+)	Contribution of the tourism industry to the local economy (0.077/+)

Note: “+” indicates that the indicator is positive.

).

(1)

Development elements: Given that tourism is resource-dependent, labor-intensive, and service-supportive, resources, talent, and infrastructure are crucial for the integration of cultural and tourism development [31]. Therefore, this study uses cultural resources, human capital, and infrastructure integration as specific indicators to evaluate the level of development element integration. Specifically, cultural resource abundance is measured by indicators such as the number of immovable cultural heritage sites, the number of intangible cultural heritage projects, and the number of historical and cultural cities, towns, and villages. Tourism resource abundance is measured by the total amount of resources such as scenic spots, nature reserves, and forest parks, while resource density is represented by the ratio of resource abundance to the area of the province. Unlike physical capital, the benefits and impacts of human capital improvements are more significant and far-reaching. The number of employees reflects the input of human capital in development elements, with cultural and related industries as well as tourism industry employees representing human capital in this study. Integrated development represents the manifestation of the new concept of shared development within the framework of public service system construction. In advancing and refining the trajectory of integrated development, it is essential to shift focus from mere external expansion to a more profound enhancement of intrinsic quality, with particular emphasis on functional convergence. Cultural development support forms the bedrock of cultural activities. This study highlights non-profit cultural institutions such as museums, public libraries, and cultural centers as key exemplars. The enhancement of tourism reception capacity signifies the upgrading of both resource infrastructure and tourism support systems, which serves as the cornerstone for the integration of culture and tourism. When evaluating regional tourism reception capabilities, it is crucial to consider a range of indicators, including the clustering and specialization of service spaces—comprising A-level tourist attractions, star-rated hotels, travel agencies, and graded tourist accommodations—as well as their degree of alignment with the broader socio-economic development of the region. This paper quantifies these elements by examining the number of A-level tourist sites, star-rated hotels, and travel agencies and the volume of high-end accommodation and dining establishments.

(2)

Development environment: The matching degree between environmental factors and industry organizations is crucial during the integration process. Therefore, this study selects policy and market environment integration as indicators to represent the regional cultural and tourism industry development environment. A series of policies and measures introduced by national and local governments have clarified the development prospects for the cultural and tourism industries and provided development opportunities. The study uses the number of industry regulations and policy attention indexes to quantify the policy environment for cultural and tourism development. Specifically, the number of industrial development laws and regulations is characterized by the cumulative number of policies related to the culture and tourism industries in each city retrieved from the China Laws and Regulations Database, and the policy and regulation concern index is measured by the Baidu Index by retrieving “culture industry policies” and “tourism industry policies”. Effective investment plays an important role not only in supporting economic growth but also in driving structural adjustments, stabilizing related industries, and boosting consumption growth. The study uses fixed asset investment in the industry and the consumer price index to measure the market environment for the development of the cultural and tourism industries.

(3)

Development effects: These include various aspects, but existing studies generally measure market benefits and industry scale using explicit indicators like income and tourist numbers [32]. However, the effects of industry development also manifest in implicit indicators, such as communication capacity, and the market integration based on these is a key pathway for cultural–tourism integration [23]. Therefore, this study uses industry scale, communication capacity, and industry performance integration to measure the integration of regional industry development effects. The cultural industry scale is measured by the density of cultural and related industry enterprises and the number of books in public libraries. The tourism industry scale is represented by the density of tourism enterprises and total tourist visits, with cultural-related enterprises referring to profit-making businesses. The communication capacity reflects the media and public attention to local cultural tourism, representing the influence and communication power of the cultural and tourism industries. The local cultural media index is represented by the coverage rate of radio and television programs, while the local tourism attention index is represented by the ratio of “city name with tourism” searches to “city name” searches on Baidu. To account for regional differences in cultural tourism resources and economic development, the study selects the proportion of cultural industry revenue to GDP and the proportion of total tourism income to GDP as indicators to reflect the contribution of cultural and tourism industries to the local economy.

2.2.2. Data

The data selected for this study span from 2010 to 2019 and focus on the empirical research of the coupling and coordination relationship between the cultural industry and tourism industry in the BTH urban agglomeration. The data sources include the Beijing Statistical Yearbook (2011–2020), Tianjin Statistical Yearbook (2011–2020), Hebei Statistical Yearbook (2011–2020), statistical yearbooks (2011–2020) of various regions in Hebei Province, and national economic and social development statistical bulletins for the cities. Data on cultural heritage sites, historical and cultural cities, towns, villages, and intangible cultural heritage come from the National Cultural Heritage Administration and regional intangible cultural heritage websites. For years with missing data, supplementary information was obtained from the annual work reports of city-level culture and tourism departments or estimated using linear interpolation.

2.3. Methodology

2.3.1. Entropy Method

The entropy method is used to measure the randomness and degree of disorder of an event, the degree of dispersion of indicators, and the uniformity of spatial distribution. It is suitable for evaluating multiple indicators. The calculation steps are as follows:

(1)

Standardization of indicators:

$$\mathrm{Positive} \mathrm{indicators}: x{\prime }_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{x_{ij}-\min (x_{1j},x_{2j},\dots ,x_{nj})}{\max (x_{1j},x_{2j},\dots ,x_{nj})-\min (x_{1j},x_{2j},\dots ,x_{nj})}}$$

(1)

$$\mathrm{Negative} \mathrm{indicators}: x{\prime }_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{\max (x_{{}^{1j}},x_{2j},\dots ,x_{nj})-x_{ij}}{\max (x_{{}^{1j}},x_{2j},\dots ,x_{nj})-\min (x_{{}^{1j}},x_{2j},\dots ,x_{nj})}}$$

(2)

In the formula, X_ij stands for the j index value of the region i.

(2)

Calculation of the proportional contribution of the j-th indicator for the i-th region, P_ij:

$$P_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{x^{\prime }{}_{ij}}{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{x}^{\prime }{}_{ij}}}},\hspace{1em}(i=1,2\dots ,n, \hspace{0.17em}j=1,2\dots ,m)$$

(3)

(3)

Computation of the entropy value for the j-th indicator:

$$e_{ij}=-k{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{p}_{ij}\ln p_{ij}}, \hspace{0.33em}k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\ln n}}$$

(4)

(4)

Calculation of the redundancy in information entropy for the j-th indicator:

$$g_j=1-e_j$$

(5)

(5)

Calculation of indicator weights:

$$w_j={\displaystyle \frac{g_j}{{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^m{g}_j}}}$$

(6)

The weight w_j for the j-th indicator is computed, with values constrained within the range w_j ∈ [0, 1]. A higher weight indicates greater importance of the indicator in the overall evaluation, signifying that its contribution to the comprehensive score is more influential, and its value approaches unity. The results of the calculation of the weights of each indicator are shown in Table 1.

(6)

Calculation of the composite score for each region:

$$s_i={\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^m{w}_j}·p_{ij}$$

(7)

The research first standardizes the original indicators using the range method. In order to avoid the random errors associated with using a single weighting method, the entropy weight method and coefficient of variation method are applied to determine individual weights, and the average value is then used to calculate the overall weight of the indicators. Since the range method standardization may result in some indicators having a value of 0 in certain years, and to meet the logarithmic computation condition of the entropy weight method, a translation of adding 0.01 is applied to the values that are 0 after standardization [33].

2.3.2. Coupling Coordination Degree Model

Academically, the degree of cultural–tourism integration is typically represented by the “cultural–tourism integration index” or “coupling coordination degree”. This index measures the level of integration by analyzing the extent of the influence of element indicators or subsystems in the development of the cultural and tourism industries [34]. This study uses the coupling coordination degree model to calculate the degree of coordination between the cultural and tourism systems, which is used to represent the degree of integration of the cultural and tourism industries. However, as pointed out by scholars such as Wang et al. (2021) [35], the traditional coupling degree (C) is not evenly distributed between [0, 1]. In industry studies, differences between data are often small, and using the traditional coupling degree formula can cause the coupling degree to be overly concentrated within a specific range, thus reducing the explanatory validity of the coupling degree. Therefore, it is necessary to modify the traditional model. The modified coupling coordination degree model is as follows:

$$C=\sqrt{\left[1-{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{i>j,j=1}^n\sqrt{{(U_i-U_j)}^2}}}{{\displaystyle \sum _{m=1}^{n-1}m}}}\right]\times {\left({\displaystyle \prod _{i=1}^n\frac{U_i}{\max U_i}}\right)}^{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n-1}}}}$$

(8)

When n = 2, it is assumed that max U_i is U₂:

$$\begin{gathered} C=\sqrt{\left[1-\sqrt{{\left(U_2-U_1\right)}^2}\right]\times {\displaystyle \frac{U_1}{U_2}}}=\sqrt{\left[1-\left(U_2-U_1\right)\right]\times {\displaystyle \frac{U_1}{U_2}}} \\ T={\alpha }_1{U}_1+{\alpha }_2{U}_2,\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.33em}{\alpha }_1+{\alpha }_2=1 \\ D=\sqrt{C\times T} \end{gathered}$$

(9)

In Equation (9), U_i ∈ [0, 1], C ∈ [0, 1], where the value of C decreases as the subsystems become more discrete, and conversely, the value of C increases as the subsystems become more integrated. The size of the coupling degree C reflects the degree of interaction between the subsystems, while D represents the level of coordination between the two subsystems. Referring to related research [36], this study classifies the coupling coordination degree according to the standards shown in

Table 2. Classification standards for coupling degree and coupling coordination degree.

Interval Values	Coordination Degrees	Coupling Coordination Types
[0–0.10)	Dysfunctional recession	Extreme imbalance
(0.10–0.20]		Serious imbalance
(0.20–0.30]		Moderate imbalance
(0.30–0.40]		Mild imbalance
(0.40–0.50]	Transitional coordination	Almost imbalance
(0.50–0.60]		Almost coordination
(0.60–0.70]	Coordinated development	Primary coordination
(0.70–0.80]		Intermediate coordination
(0.80–0.90]		Good coordination
(0.90–1.00]		Perfect coordination

.

2.3.3. Relative Development Index

The coupling coordination model can reflect the inherent correlation between culture and tourism but is limited in showing the differences between the two. To address this, this paper refers to the relative development index model proposed by Hu et al. (2017) [37] to measure whether the development of tourism in a region is ahead of or lagging behind its cultural industry development level.

P = Y/X

(10)

In the formula, P represents the relative development coefficient between culture and tourism and X, Y represent the development levels of culture and tourism, respectively. The following thresholds are set: When P > 1.1, it is considered a “tourism-prioritized development” type. When 0.9 ≤ P ≤ 1.1, it is considered a “synchronized development” type. When P < 0.9, it is considered a “culture-first development” type.

2.3.4. Obstacle Degree Model

The analysis of the coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries not only evaluates the level of regional cultural–tourism integration development but, more importantly, aims to identify the barrier factors that affect the regional cultural–tourism integration. This is essential for adjusting the development direction and policies of regional cultural–tourism integration. Therefore, further analysis of the performance of cultural–tourism integration development, with a focus on the barrier factors, is required. Following the approach of Lu et al. (2011) [38], this study introduces three indicators for the diagnostic analysis: ① Factor contribution (F_j), which is the weight of a single factor towards the overall objective, ② indicator deviation (I_j), which represents the difference between the individual indicator value and 100%, and ③ barrier degree (O_ij, U_ij), representing the influence of individual indicators and category indicators on the coupling coordination of cultural and tourism industries. The specific calculation formulas are: F_j = R_i·W_j, I_j = 1 − X_j, where X_j represents the normalized value of the j-th indicator layer. The barrier degree of the j-th indicator on the cultural and tourism coupling coordination development is calculated as follows:

$$O_{\mathrm{j}}={\displaystyle \frac{I_{\mathrm{j}}\cdot F_{\mathrm{j}}}{{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm{j}=1}^n{F}_{\mathrm{j}}\cdot I_{\mathrm{j}}}}}\cdot 100\%$$

(11)

Based on the analysis of the restriction level of each individual evaluation factor, further study is conducted on the obstacle degree of each criterion-level indicator to the coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries. The formula is as follows:

$$U_{\mathrm{i}}={\displaystyle \sum O_{\mathrm{ij}}}$$

(12)

2.3.5. Geographical Detector

The geographical detector is widely used in driving force research and factor analysis. The principle is that if a variable X has a significant impact on variable Y, then X and Y should exhibit similarities in their spatial distribution. Referring to the approach of scholars such as Wang et al. (2017) [39], this study uses the GeoDetector (v2015) program and selects the Factor Detector for analysis to explore the driving factors of cultural and tourism industry integration development in the BTH urban agglomeration. The formula for GeoDetector is:

$$q=1-{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{h=1}^L{N}_h{{\displaystyle {\sigma }_h}}^2}}{N{\sigma }^2}}$$

(13)

In Equation (13), q represents the explanatory power of the independent variable X on the dependent variable Y, with a range of [0, 1]. The larger the value of q, the stronger the explanatory power of the independent variable. L denotes the number of strata for either the independent variable X or the dependent variable Y; N_h and σ_h² represent the number of units and the variance of cultural–tourism integration in the h stratum, respectively; N and σ² are the total number of units and the variance of cultural–tourism integration across the entire BTH urban agglomeration.

3. Coupling Development Level and Evolution Characteristics of the Cultural and Tourism Industries

3.1. General Characteristics of Cultural and Tourism Industries’ Coupling Coordination Development

The results from Figure 2 show that the average value of cultural industry development indicators ranges between 0.190 and 0.320, while the average value of tourism industry development indicators ranges between 0.170 and 0.370. The average coupling degree is between 0.820 and 0.870, and the average coupling coordination degree is between 0.370 and 0.540. From the perspective of the industry development evaluation index, the comprehensive development index of the cultural and tourism industries from 2010 to 2019 shows a fluctuating upward trend, with the growth rate of the tourism industry surpassing that of the cultural industry. This can be attributed to the strong multiplier effect and the significant economic driving benefits of the tourism industry. Regarding the average coupling degree, the study period was generally in a high-level coupling stage, meaning that the two major industry elements were highly synergistic throughout the period. However, from the perspective of the average coupling coordination degree, the overall coordination between the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration still appears insufficient. Specifically, from 2010 to 2011, the coupling coordination degree was between 0.300 and 0.400, indicating slight uncoordination; from 2012 to 2017, it ranged between 0.400 and 0.500, indicating a state of borderline uncoordination; and from 2018 to 2019, it ranged between 0.500 and 0.600, reflecting poor coordination. The coupling coordination relationship transitioned from the “uncoordinated state” to the “transition stage”, this evolution indicates that there is an interactive relationship between the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration, and this relationship is gradually strengthening. However, the level of coupling and coordinated development of the two systems in certain regions is still relatively low, and there is significant potential for improvement in the integration of the cultural and tourism industries.

From the three dimensions of development elements, development effects, and development environment, the study period shows an overall upward trend (Figure 3). The level of development element integration steadily increased, while the integrations of development effects and the development environment supplemented each other, showing an upward spiral trend. From 2010 to 2017, the integration of development elements was higher than that of development effects and development environment. However, from 2018 to 2019, the integration of development effects and development environment gradually surpassed the integration of development elements. This phenomenon indicates that the integration of development elements is the intrinsic driving force for the cultural–tourism integration development in the BTH urban agglomeration, while the integrations of development effects and development environment serve as the external driving forces.

Specifically, during the study period, the integration level of development elements in the cultural and tourism industries of the BTH urban agglomeration was at the leading position, but its growth rate was relatively slow. The average value increased from 0.087 to 0.102. The abundant cultural and tourism resources in the BTH urban agglomeration, along with their foundational industrial support and human capital, provided a solid development foundation for regional cultural–tourism integration and positively influenced the implementation of relevant policies [40].

The study found that the level of integration of the development environment for the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration saw a noticeable increase, with the average value rising from 0.042 in 2010 to 0.082 in 2019. This can be divided into two phases: From 2010 to 2017, relevant policies mainly made adjustments and reforms in the two dimensions of cultural and tourism collaborative development, such as the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Cultural Industry Collaborative Development Action Plan and the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Tourism Industry Collaborative Development Action Plan. However, there was a lack of multidimensional integration policies for cultural and tourism development, which made the promotion of cultural–tourism integration during this phase lack feasible grounds [41]. Particularly from 2013 to 2017, the integration of the development environment grew slowly. In 2018, the integration of the development environment saw a significant improvement, owing to the establishment of the ministry of culture and tourism. The policy dividends expanded new spaces for the integration of culture and tourism in the BTH urban agglomeration, and the driving force of development environment integration gradually became stronger than that of development elements and development effects and the mean values of coupling degree and coupling coordination degree.

From the perspective of development effect integration, between 2010 and 2015, the integration of development effects in the cultural and tourism industries of the BTH urban agglomeration underwent a slow change phase. The average level of integration increased from 0.054 to 0.074. During this period, the development scale of the cultural and tourism industries in the cities of the BTH region was relatively dispersed, and the infrastructure construction was incomplete, which limited the expansion of industrial scale and development effects. From 2015 to 2019, the level of integration of development effects significantly improved, with the average value rising from 0.074 to 0.114. During this period, the policy dividends from both national and regional public policies gradually began to take effect. The communication power and industry performance of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration were enhanced. After 2018, the integration of development effects surpassed the integration of development elements, becoming the main contributing factor to the integration of culture and tourism in the region.

3.2. Cultural and Tourism Industries’ Spatiotemporal Coupling Evolution Characteristics

3.2.1. Time-Series Features of Coupling Coordination Degree

The Coupling Coordination Degree Shows a Trend from “Uncoordinated” to “Coordinated”

Using the modified coupling coordination degree model, the coupling coordination values of the cultural and tourism industries in the cities of the BTH urban agglomeration from 2010 to 2019 were obtained (

Table 3. Types of cultural–tourism industry coupling coordination.

Years	Moderate Imbalance	Mild Imbalance	Almost Imbalance	Almost Coordination	Primary Coordination	Intermediate Coordination	Good Coordination
2010	Qinhuangdao, Cangzhou, Hengshui	Chengde, Zhangjiakou, Tangshan, Langfang, Baoding, Xingtai, Handan	Tianjin, Shijiazhuang			Beijing
2013	Hengshui	Langfang, Xingtai, Qinhuangdao, Cangzhou	Shijiazhuang, Chengde, Zhangjiakou, Tangshan, Baoding, Handan	Tianjin		Beijing
2016	Hengshui	Chengde, Tangshan, Langfang, Xingtai, Qinhuangdao, Cangzhou	Shijiazhuang, Zhangjiakou, Baoding, Handan		Tianjin		Beijing
2019			Chengde, Tangshan, Langfang, Xingtai, Qinhuangdao, Cangzhou, Hengshui	Shijiazhuang, Zhangjiakou, Baoding, Handan		Tianjin	Beijing

). It was found that, from 2010 to 2019, the interaction coupling status between the cultural and tourism industries underwent an evolving process, with the coupling coordination degree gradually increasing. Specifically, the coupling coordination level of the 13 cities in the BTH urban agglomeration evolved from 1 city in a intermediate coordination state, 2 cities in an almost imbalanced state, 7 cities in a mildly imbalanced state, and 3 cities in a moderately imbalanced state in 2010, to 1 city in a good coordination state, 1 city in an intermediate coordination state, 4 cities in an almost coordinated state, and 7 cities in an almost imbalanced state in 2019. At the same time, the regional coordination degree difference decreased from 0.514 in 2010 to 0.496 in 2019, gradually aligning with the requirements for coordinated development in the BTH region. With the deeper implementation of the BTH urban agglomeration coordinated development strategy, the concept of cultural and tourism collaborative development has gradually been integrated into the regional integration strategy framework. Local governments have formed effective communication and cooperation mechanisms, and under the leadership of the two core cities of Beijing and Tianjin, Hebei Province has been able to effectively learn from and absorb their successful development experiences and results. As a result, the interdependence between the cultural and tourism industries in these cities has strengthened, and the collaborative development of the cultural and tourism industries is gradually evolving from an “uncoordinated” state to a “coordinated” state [42].

The Speed of Integration Development Varies Across Regions

From the dynamic evolution of coupling coordination degrees, although the coupling coordination development level of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration has generally improved in recent years, the speed of development varies (Figure 4). Specifically, Beijing, Tianjin, and Shijiazhuang have maintained a leading position in the coupling development of the cultural and tourism industries. These cities’ comprehensive strength, high-quality cultural and tourism resources, and convenient transportation conditions have provided a solid foundation for their integration of culture and tourism [43]. In contrast, the coupling development levels of the cultural and tourism industries in cities such as Qinhuangdao, Cangzhou, Xingtai, and Hengshui are relatively low. The reasons for this include a lack of cultural and tourism resources, low transportation accessibility, and the failure to effectively combine cultural tourism with economic benefits, resulting in slower integration progress.

It is noteworthy that the cities Zhangjiakou and Handan have emerged as areas with rapid cultural–tourism integration development. Their rankings have improved significantly. Zhangjiakou, for instance, has risen from 10th to 6th, while Handan has moved up from 7th to 4th, indicating a significant improvement in their cultural–tourism integration levels. The regional-level measures for promoting cultural–tourism integration have proven to be effective. In contrast, Chengde is still in the phase where cultural–tourism integration is yet to develop. Its ranking has dropped by four places, indicating that the city’s integration development speed is slower than other areas in the BTH urban agglomeration. This suggests that the city needs to introduce more effective mechanisms and measures to promote cultural–tourism integration [44].

3.2.2. Evolution Analysis of Coupling Coordination Degree Types

The study uses the relative development index to analyze the evolution process of the coupling coordination degree types of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration [45]. The results in

Table 4. Priority types of tourism development.

Type	City
Culture-prioritized development followed by synchronous development	Beijing
Tourism-prioritized development followed by synchronous development	Tianjin
Culture-prioritized development	Cangzhou, Hengshui
Tourism-prioritized development	Chengde, Qinhuangdao, Tangshan
Culture-prioritized development followed by synchronous and then tourism-prioritized development	Zhangjiakou, Baoding, Shijiazhuang, Xingtai, Handan
Synchronous development followed by culture-prioritized and then tourism-prioritized development	Langfang

show that, during the process of cultural–tourism integration development, the number of cities prioritizing tourism development in the BTH urban agglomeration has been increasing year by year. Specifically, in 2010, the integration development across different regions showed diversification. Tianjin, Tangshan, Chengde, and Qinhuangdao were classified as tourism-prioritized development cities; Langfang was a “synchronous culture–tourism development” city; and the other regions were “culture-prioritized development” cities. By 2013, most cities maintained their original development status, but Langfang shifted from a “synchronous culture–tourism development” type to a “culture-prioritized development” type. By 2016, Zhangjiakou, Baoding, and Langfang transitioned from “culture-prioritized development” to “synchronous culture–tourism development”, indicating that the speed of tourism development gradually matched the pace of cultural development. By 2019, Beijing shifted from a “culture-prioritized development” type to “synchronous culture–tourism development”, and Tianjin transitioned from “tourism-prioritized development” to “synchronous culture–tourism development”, showing significant progress in cultural and tourism coordinated development. Zhangjiakou, Baoding, Xingtai, and Langfang changed from “synchronous culture–tourism development” to “tourism-prioritized development” types, while Shijiazhuang and Handan transitioned from “culture-prioritized development” to “synchronous culture–tourism development”, and then to “tourism-prioritized development”. This indicates that, over the ten years of development, the pace of tourism development in these cities significantly outpaced that of cultural development. Chengde, Qinhuangdao, and Tangshan maintained their “tourism-prioritized development” status, and the trend toward tourism-prioritized development continued to show positive progress.

Based on the evolution of the cultural–tourism coupling coordination degree types in the BTH urban agglomeration from 2010 to 2019, six types of evolution can be summarized for the 13 cities: ① Culture-prioritized development, ② tourism-prioritized development, ③ culture-prioritized development followed by synchronous development, ④ tourism-prioritized development followed by synchronous development, ⑤ culture-prioritized development followed by synchronous and then tourism-prioritized development, and ⑥ synchronous development followed by culture-prioritized and then tourism-prioritized development. From the evolution process, it is evident that Beijing and Tianjin demonstrate a trend of synchronous culture–tourism development and play a demonstrative and leading role in the context of regional cultural and tourism coordinated development (Figure 5).

In Hebei Province, the number of regions prioritizing tourism development has been increasing each year in the process of cultural–tourism integration. This trend explains, to some extent, the more significant effect of “culture driving tourism” in the cultural–tourism integration process of the BTH urban agglomeration. Hebei Province has a relatively good cultural industry foundation, and the radiating and driving effect of the cultural industry has gradually increased. By leveraging its infiltration and prosperity-enhancing functions, it has promoted the flourishing development of the tourism industry, leading to a steady increase in the tourism industry’s comprehensive contribution to urban socio-economic development and achieving the “culture driving tourism” effect. It is worth noting that five regions—Cangzhou, Hengshui, Qinhuangdao, Chengde, and Tangshan—have maintained a state of either culture-prioritized development or tourism-prioritized development. This indicates that these cities have not yet overcome their industrial development bottlenecks in the process of cultural–tourism integration. Promoting the “internal strengthening” of the tourism industry and enhancing the cultural industry’s connotation are key factors in advancing cultural–tourism integration.

3.2.3. Spatial Agglomeration Characteristics of Coupling Coordination Degree

Here, the study period is divided into four equal intervals: 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019, to further identify the spatial distribution pattern of cultural–tourism industry coupling and coordinated development in the BTH urban agglomeration (Figure 6).

From the spatial distribution characteristics of coupling coordination degree, the coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration exhibit certain “spatial agglomeration” features. Overall, the distribution pattern shows high values in the west, low values in the east, and high values in the middle with low values in the north and south. High-value areas tend to expand, while low-value areas tend to shrink. High-level regions are mainly concentrated in the core cities of Beijing and Tianjin, showing a clear “growth pole” characteristic. It is evident that the coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries largely depends on the comprehensive development level of cities. The integration of cultural and tourism industries in core cities within the region benefits from their highly concentrated high-quality cultural and tourism resources. It also relies on relatively accessible transportation and infrastructure, comprehensive public services, smooth flow of factors, and a broad market reach, which in turn creates a “siphon” effect for surrounding cities. In other words, the cultural and tourism talents, funds, and information from surrounding cities tend to flow unilaterally to the more developed core cities with higher levels of factor allocation. In the western and northeastern regions of Hebei Province, the cultural–tourism integration is at a moderate level. Relatively accessible transportation and infrastructure provide good conditions for the development of the regional cultural–tourism industry. Moreover, under the promotion of regional coordinated development strategies, Beijing’s “spillover effect” has been enhanced, with its “nurturing” role radiating and driving the development of the cultural and tourism industries in surrounding cities. The areas in need of further development in cultural–tourism integration are mainly concentrated in the southern Hebei region. The cities in this area have a weaker foundation for cultural and tourism development, with lower accessibility of transportation. Due to geographic location, economic strength, and other factors, they are unable to establish an orderly and coordinated relationship at a high level.

4. Influencing Factors for the Coupling Coordination Development of Cultural and Tourism Industries

4.1. Diagnosis of Internal Obstacles in the Coupling Coordination System

4.1.1. Guideline Layer Obstacle Factors

The study utilizes the obstacle degree model to assess the contribution rate of the leading obstacle factors and further diagnose the main influencing factors of cultural and tourism industry coupling and coordinated development in the BTH urban agglomeration from 2010 to 2019. Among the indicators, CE₁ represents cultural development elements, CE₂ represents cultural development effects, CE₃ represents cultural development environment, TE₁ represents tourism development elements, TE₂ represents tourism development effects, and TE₃ represents tourism development environment. According to

Table 5. Comprehensive ranking of subsystem obstacle factors in the development of cultural–tourism integration.

Years	First Obstacle Factor	Second Obstacle Factor	Third Obstacle Factor	Fourth Obstacle Factor	Fifth Obstacle Factor	Sixth Obstacle Factor
2010	CE2	TE1	TE2	TE3	CE3	CE1
2011	CE2	TE1	TE2	CE3	TE3	CE1
2012	CE2	TE1	TE2	CE1	TE3	CE3
2013	CE2	TE1	TE2	TE3	CE1	CE3
2014	CE2	TE1	TE2	TE3	CE1	CE3
2015	CE2	TE1	TE2	CE3	TE3	CE1
2016	CE2	TE1	TE2	CE3	TE3	CE1
2017	CE2	TE1	CE3	TE2	TE3	CE1
2018	CE2	TE1	TE2	CE1	CE3	TE3
2019	CE2	TE1	TE2	CE1	CE3	TE3

, during the 2010–2019 period, the structure of the obstacle degrees for the various criterion layers of the two subsystems remained relatively stable. The average obstacle degree rankings are as follows: Cultural development effects > tourism development elements > tourism development effects > cultural development elements > cultural development environment > tourism development environment. In the cultural industry system, the dominant obstacle factor is cultural development effects, which accounts for 37.74% of the entire system. In the tourism industry system, the main obstacle factor is tourism development elements, with a share of 35.90%. The primary obstacle factors are concentrated in the cultural development effects, which, to some extent, explains the growing trend of tourism-prioritized cities in the BTH urban agglomeration. Specifically, in the development effects dimension, the obstacle degree for cultural development effects is greater than that for tourism development effects. In the development environment dimension, the obstacle degree for the cultural development environment is also greater than that for the tourism development environment. This reflects a lack of momentum in the cultural subsystem, with the level of cultural development gradually lagging behind tourism development. As a result, the type of cultural–tourism integration is gradually shifting to a “tourism-prioritized development” model, which corresponds to the earlier transformation of tourism development types. Therefore, cultural industry development should actively leverage the tourism industry to provide endogenous momentum for high-quality cultural–tourism development. Additionally, from the perspectives of elements, effects, and environment, the degree of impact of obstacle factors is relatively lower for the development environment, which indicates that, in recent years, the BTH urban agglomeration has increased its investment in cultural–tourism coordinated development policies and industrial development. This has, to some extent, created favorable conditions for a cross-regional layout of regional cultural–tourism projects, resource integration, and joint marketing.

4.1.2. Indicator Layer Obstacle Factors

The coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH region exhibits a complex relationship with distinct regional differences. To identify specific barriers, the top five obstacle factors from each subsystem from 2010 to 2019 were extracted. In the cultural industry system, the leading obstacles remained consistent over the years, including public library holdings, employees in cultural and related industries, number of regulations on the development of cultural industries, density of enterprises in culture and related industries, and consumer price index for culture and recreation (

Table 6. Main obstacle factors and their degree of obstacles in the cultural industry system (%).

Year	Public Library Holdings	Employees in Cultural and Related Industries	Number of Regulations on the Development of Cultural Industries	Density of Enterprises in Culture and Related Industries	Consumer Price Index for Culture and Recreation
2010	21.91	16.41	15.20	14.44	9.63
2011	22.08	16.61	15.17	14.68	9.44
2012	22.88	17.23	16.00	15.53	9.75
2013	22.86	16.72	15.88	15.03	9.01
2014	22.84	16.90	16.11	14.84	8.95
2015	22.31	16.61	16.04	14.06	8.26
2016	21.86	16.52	15.84	13.41	8.58
2017	21.92	16.56	16.22	12.88	7.94
2018	23.02	17.52	15.34	12.71	9.60
2019	23.52	18.10	13.60	11.61	10.04

). Similarly, in the tourism industry subsystem, the top five barrier factors in each year included tourism reception capacity, number of regulations on the development of the tourism industry, total tourist arrivals, consumer price index per tourist, and employees in the tourism industry, with minimal variations in their proportions each year (

Table 7. Main obstacle factors and their degree of obstacles in the tourism industry system (%).

Year	Tourism Reception Capacity	Number of Regulations on the Development of the Tourism Industry	Total Tourist Arrivals	Consumer Price Index Per Tourist	Employees in the Tourism Industry
2010	14.00	12.41	10.68	10.02	9.51
2011	14.44	12.54	10.80	10.39	9.48
2012	14.80	12.64	10.88	10.09	9.41
2013	14.69	12.68	10.63	9.58	9.31
2014	14.62	12.53	10.37	9.66	9.56
2015	14.28	12.30	9.95	9.56	9.46
2016	14.42	12.63	9.79	9.94	9.69
2017	14.89	12.60	9.72	10.05	9.62
2018	16.23	11.48	10.00	10.47	10.29
2019	16.30	9.64	9.87	10.89	10.72

). These factors play a significant role in influencing the coordinated development of cultural and tourism industries in the BTH region. The reasons for the impact of these indicators on the harmonious development of culture and tourism in the BTH region are multifaceted. Firstly, public libraries not only serve as places for theoretical research and social education but also contribute to cultural identity, making tourism products more attractive. However, the limited resources in public libraries in most cities in the region hinder the development of culturally creative tourism products. Secondly, the integration of labor forces from the cultural and tourism industries is a key obstacle factor. Labor integration is crucial for regional cohesion, and the disparity in quantity and quality of human capital within the region hampers the cross-border integration of talent, restricting high-quality development of regional cultural and tourism integration. Thirdly, cultural and tourism consumption has become a driver for expanding domestic demand within the integration of culture and tourism. The current market growth in the BTH region has led to a mismatch between the supply of high-quality cultural and tourism experiences and the downward trend in per capita tourist spending, posing a challenge to the development of regional cultural and tourism integration. Finally, the development regulations and laws in the cultural and tourism industries also significantly affect the coordinated development of culture and tourism in the region. Regulatory policies can promote the integration of cultural and tourism industries, but there exists a threshold effect. Therefore, focusing on cultivating cross-border talent in emerging industries, diversifying cultural and tourism products, optimizing the business environment, and enhancing the variety of cultural and tourism products are crucial focal points for enhancing the development of cultural and tourism integration in the BTH region.

4.2. External Driving Factors of the Coupling Coordination System

4.2.1. Identification of Influencing Factors

To explore the external factors affecting the spatiotemporal evolution of the coupling and coordinated development of cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration, this study, based on a review of relevant literature [23,41], and combining the characteristics of the coupling development of the cultural and tourism industries in the region, selects the following seven influencing factors:

(1)

Urban environment (UE): The enhancement of the urban environment can significantly elevate the overall image of a region and provide novel business models and pathways for the integration of the cultural and tourism industries. This study measures the level of the urban environment using the green space within the built-up area of the region.

(2)

Traffic level (TL): Optimal transportation conditions substantially reduce the travel time costs for visitors, serving as a critical factor in attracting tourists. This study reflects the traffic level by the actual road area within the region.

(3)

Economic scale (ES): The level of economic development facilitates the efficient allocation of resources through the price mechanism, fosters the agglomeration of factors such as technology and skilled labor, and directly influences the efficiency of regional cultural–tourism integration. In this study, per capita GDP is employed to represent the region’s economic development level.

(4)

Industrial structure (IS): Both the cultural and tourism industries belong to the tertiary sector. The agglomeration of industries not only aids in optimizing the economic structure and promoting regional division of labor but is also closely intertwined with the consumption of cultural and tourism products and the capacity for employment absorption. This study uses the value added of the tertiary sector as a share of GDP to measure industrial structure.

(5)

Government investment (GI): Local government expenditures within the general public budget play a pivotal role in the construction of tourism infrastructure, the maintenance of scenic areas, and the enhancement of public services. By increasing investments in tourism infrastructure, the government directly elevates the physical development of the region, improving transportation, accommodation, and other conditions. To gauge the government’s participation in regional cultural–tourism integration, this study uses fiscal expenditure on public services as an indicator.

(6)

Technological innovation (TI): Technological innovation, as the primary productive force, is a crucial driver for the visualization and perceptibility of tourism resources and cultural symbols. Through technological innovation, the tourism industry can repackage existing tourism scenarios with cultural content that aligns with contemporary characteristics, further expanding the dissemination channels for cultural content [46]. This study employs the number of valid patent authorizations to measure the level of technological innovation in the region.

(7)

Digital construction (DC): Digital infrastructure transcends the spatial and temporal constraints of cultural and tourism experiences, giving rise to emerging business models in culture and tourism, innovating experiential modes, and advancing the modernization of industry regulation and governance. This study utilizes a weighted combination of factors such as long-distance cable line density, per capita telecommunications revenue, mobile phone penetration, internet penetration, and the proportion of professionals in information transmission, computer services, and software industries to comprehensively represent the level of digital construction in the region.

4.2.2. Analysis of the Driving Factors of Cultural and Tourism Industries’ Coupling Coordination

To identify the driving effects of various influencing factors, the natural breaks method was used to convert the numerical variables of the influencing factors into five categorical levels. A geographic detector was then employed to quantitatively analyze the explanatory degree of each factor on the spatiotemporal evolution of coupling coordination levels, as well as the strength of factor interactions. The results are shown in

Table 8. q-Values of the driving factors for the coupling coordination development of the cultural and tourism industries.

Factors	q-Value
	2010	2013	2016	2019	Average Value
UE	0.949 ***	0.919 **	0.903 **	0.939 **	0.927
TL	0.763 **	0.787 **	0.828 ***	0.908 **	0.821
ES	0.493	0.484	0.734 **	0.742 **	0.613
IS	0.917 ***	0.751	0.832 **	0.816 **	0.829
GI	0.803 **	0.818 ***	0.830 ***	0.935 ***	0.847
TI	0.954 ***	0.941 ***	0.919 **	0.918 **	0.933
DC	0.898 **	0.926 ***	0.832	0.913 **	0.892

Note: *** denotes significance at the 5% confidence level; ** denotes significance at the 10% confidence level.

. The factors influencing the spatial differentiation of the coupling coordination degree of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration, ranked by explanatory power, are as follows: TI > UE > DC > GI > IS > TL > ES. That is, technological innovation (TI), urban environment (UE), digital construction (DC), and government investment (GI) are the primary factors driving the spatial differentiation of the coupling coordination degree, while industrial structure (IS), traffic level (TL), and economic scale (ES) are secondary factors, each having a significant effect on the spatial differentiation of coupling coordination levels.

From the perspective of the specific roles of influencing factors, regional technological innovation (TI) has a significant impact on the coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration. The mean q-value of the detection factor is 0.933. Regional cultural–tourism integration requires innovative development in aspects such as organization, technology, and products. Technological innovation is a crucial support and path for this integration [47]. Specifically, technological innovation helps in the digital transformation of cultural heritage, enriches the supply of cultural and tourism products, and expands pathways for the activation and protection of intangible cultural heritage. Furthermore, technological innovation drives the upgrading of the cultural and tourism consumption structure, leading to the extension of the consumption space from traditional physical spaces to new digital and virtual spaces. This brings new activities and dynamics to the high-quality development of the cultural and tourism industries.

In terms of urban environment (UE), it plays a key role in the coupling and coordinated development of culture and tourism in the BTH urban agglomeration. Industrial integration theory emphasizes the mutual penetration and fusion of different industries to create new growth points and competitive advantages. In this urban agglomeration, the integration of cultural and tourism industries with urban greening can form unique urban landscapes and leisure environments, attracting more tourists. Green areas in built-up areas not only enhance urban ecological quality but also provide new content and experiences for cultural–tourism integration. Activities based on city parks, ecological wetlands, and other green constructions can promote cultural events and tourism projects, facilitating the integration of culture, tourism, leisure, and entertainment industries. Additionally, the imbalance in development within the BTH urban agglomeration can be mitigated by increasing the green areas in built-up zones, improving the urban environment, enhancing residents’ quality of life, and promoting balanced regional economic development. A good urban greening environment helps to increase the city’s attractiveness, encourage the inflow of talent and capital, and support cultural–tourism integration. Greening projects also require labor and support from related industries, further promoting industrial upgrading in the region [48].

In the area of digital construction (DC), the construction of digital infrastructure has an important impact on the coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration. In the era of the digital transformation of cultural and tourism experiences, the level of digitization increasingly affects cultural–tourism integration. Digital technology provides substantial data resources to support decision making and management for the integration of culture and tourism. Through data analysis, it is possible to more accurately grasp market dynamics and tourist demands, helping tourism destinations make precise decisions and perform efficient management [49]. Moreover, through innovative digital marketing methods and promotional channels, a broader audience can be attracted, further expanding the market scale and scope, thus providing strong support for the development of cultural–tourism integration.

The study results indicate that government investment (GI) has a significant impact on the coupling and coordinated development of the region’s cultural and tourism industries. The q-value of government investment increased from 0.803 in 2010 to 0.935 in 2019, indicating that local public service fiscal expenditures not only provide necessary financial support for the development of cultural and tourism industries but also promote the balanced development and deep integration of the region’s cultural and tourism industries through policy guidance and resource allocation. The government encourages and guides social capital into the cultural and tourism industries through measures such as setting up special funds and offering tax incentives. This reduces operational costs for tourism enterprises and enhances their market competitiveness. Given the economic and cultural tourism resource disparities between cities in the BTH urban agglomeration, the government supports the development of cultural and tourism industries in less-developed regions through fiscal transfer payments and regional cooperation projects, helping to narrow regional development gaps. Local fiscal expenditures also play an important role in talent development and technological innovation [50].

In terms of industrial structure (IS), it significantly influences the coupling and coordinated development of cultural and tourism industries in the region. Industrial structure upgrading is an essential support for high-quality economic development and an inherent requirement for improving the efficiency of cultural–tourism integration [51]. The increase in the proportion of the tertiary sector, particularly the service industry, indicates that the economic structure is transitioning toward greater reliance on knowledge, technology, and creativity, providing a favorable economic environment and market demand for the integration of cultural and tourism industries. The optimization of industrial structure helps break down barriers between industries, promotes the deep integration of the cultural and tourism industries, and creates competitive new business models and products [47]. This integration not only optimizes resource allocation and improves industrial operation efficiency but also drives the cultural and tourism industries toward sustainable development, focusing on green, low-carbon, and circular growth.

The study results show that the traffic level (TL) increased its q-value from 0.763 in 2010 to 0.908 in 2019, indicating that urban road construction has increasingly facilitated the coupling and coordinated development of cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration. The total road area in cities, as an essential part of regional infrastructure, plays a significant role in promoting cultural–tourism integration. The increase in urban road area helps reduce the spatial distance between cities, improving connectivity within the urban agglomeration. As the road network improves, cross-regional tourism becomes more convenient, increasing the range of tourism destinations and enhancing the tourist experience. Moreover, the integration of cultural and tourism industries requires breaking traditional industry boundaries, achieving the sharing and optimal allocation of resources such as capital, information, and labor [45]. The improvement in urban traffic levels provides a physical basis for resource sharing between cities, promoting the division of labor and cooperation in the region and forming cross-regional cultural and tourism product and service innovations.

Regarding economic scale (ES), the level of economic development drives the coupling and coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration. On the one hand, a high level of economic development provides sufficient material and financial support for regional cultural–tourism integration, improving the region’s tourism reception capacity and the ability to integrate cultural and tourism resources. On the other hand, economic development also drives the upgrading and transformation of related industries, providing broader space and platforms for cultural–tourism integration. At the same time, higher economic development levels also mean stronger regional competitiveness and attractiveness, which can attract more capital, labor, and technology to the cultural and tourism industries, further driving the depth and breadth of cultural–tourism integration. However, it is worth noting that the impact of economic scale is relatively small, mainly because cities with higher per capita GDP, such as Tangshan and Langfang, are industrial cities. These cities, despite being near Beijing and Tianjin, have fewer cultural tourism resources and less human capital compared to other cities, resulting in slower progress in cultural–tourism integration [52]. Therefore, despite regional economic development, its role in promoting cultural–tourism integration has not been fully realized.

4.2.3. Interaction Analysis of the Driving Factors of Cultural and Tourism Industries’ Coupling Coordination

The interaction detection of driving factors using the geographic detector method effectively uncovers the potential combined factors driving the coupling and coordinated development of cultural and tourism industries.

Table 9. Interaction Detection Values of Driving Factors for Coupling Coordination Development of the Cultural–Tourism Industries.

2010	UE							2013	UE
UE	0.949	TL						UE	0.919	TL
TL	0.961	0.763	ES					TL	0.957	0.787	ES
ES	0.993	0.844	0.493	IS				ES	0.985	0.875	0.484	IS
IS	0.973	0.984	0.938	0.917	GI			IS	0.976	0.952	0.924	0.751	GI
GI	0.978	0.826	0.848	0.996	0.803	TI		GI	0.976	0.851	0.878	0.981	0.818	TI
TI	0.979	0.971	0.995	0.994	0.977	0.954	DC	TI	0.968	0.972	0.982	0.987	0.961	0.941	DC
DC	0.985	0.971	0.923	0.985	0.995	0.987	0.898	DC	0.997	0.970	0.964	0.972	0.998	0.996	0.926
2016	UE							2019	UE
UE	0.903	TL						UE	0.939	TL
TL	0.950	0.828	ES					TL	0.971	0.908	ES
ES	0.978	0.902	0.734	IS				ES	0.972	0.986	0.742	IS
IS	0.953	0.966	0.905	0.832	GI			IS	0.985	0.991	0.963	0.816	GI
GI	0.974	0.862	0.895	0.977	0.830	TI		GI	0.954	0.964	0.986	0.984	0.935	TI
TI	0.955	0.970	0.963	0.974	0.953	0.919	DC	TI	0.975	0.973	0.932	0.972	0.952	0.918	DC
DC	0.948	0.941	0.905	0.846	0.947	0.963	0.832	DC	0.978	0.978	0.940	0.944	0.970	0.960	0.913

shows the results of interaction analysis of driving factors for cultural and tourism industry coupling coordination in the BTH urban agglomeration for the years 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. The results show that the interaction relationships between the seven influencing factors remain relatively stable, and there is a two-factor enhancement relationship between each pair. That is, the combined effect of two interacting factors on the explanation and driving of cultural and tourism industry coupling coordination is greater than the sum of their individual effects, represented as q(X₁∩X₂) > max(q(X₁), q(X₂)).

The top three pairs with the strongest interaction effects are industrial structure∩government investment (0.984), industrial structure∩technological innovation (0.982), and urban environment∩economic scale (0.982). This suggests that the region’s cultural–tourism integration has gradually shifted in its development logic and approach, from focusing on quantity growth to quality improvement, from emphasizing scale expansion to highlighting structural upgrades, and from relying on factor-driven growth to implementing innovation-driven growth. As the regional industrial structure optimizes, the integration of cultural and tourism industries is gradually shifting from traditional models to high-end, intelligent, and personalized models. This not only increases the added value of cultural and tourism products but also meets the modern consumer demand for high-quality leisure experiences. At the same time, government investment and technological innovation play important roles in this transition. The virtual transformation of cultural and tourism elements is an effective path for cultural–tourism integration development. The transformation methods mainly include culturalization of tourism elements and tourismization of cultural elements. Technological innovation can reduce transformation time costs, allowing these two elements to convert and present together in a virtual world [53]. Furthermore, government investment has accelerated the creation of technological innovation engines, fostering the agglomeration of modern services and emerging strategic industries, thus promoting the transformation and upgrading of the regional cultural and tourism industries. The BTH urban agglomeration faces a mismatch between cultural tourism resources and digital technology, especially in economically less-developed cities. By leveraging government investment and technological innovation, new business models and products can be developed, further optimizing cultural and tourism resource allocation and industry upgrading, thus effectively expanding the economic benefits of the cultural and tourism industries [46].

The analysis results show that the interaction between urban environment and economic scale plays a positive role in the coupling and coordinated development of the regional cultural–tourism industry. This suggests that in the process of deepening the integration of culture and tourism in the BTH urban agglomeration, it is essential to properly balance economic development with environmental protection [54]. The development of cultural–tourism integration relies not only on a robust and growing economic environment but also on a well-maintained urban green environment. A good urban environment can enhance a city’s tourism appeal and is a prerequisite for the sustainable development of the regional tourism economy. Accordingly, cultural–tourism integration becomes a balancing point for addressing the contradiction between economic development and environmental protection. Although cultural tourism activities may have some impact on the urban ecological environment, the development of cultural–tourism integration has facilitated the economic growth of tourist destinations and provided financial support for the restoration of urban green environments [55].

5. Discussion

This study attempts to build a more comprehensive evaluation system for the coordinated development of the cultural and tourism industries by introducing external policy and market environments into the existing input–output evaluation framework. This new element–effect–environment evaluation index system aims to more fully assess the level of coordinated development in the cultural and tourism sectors. Based on this system, a coupling coordination analysis is conducted to identify the key internal barriers and external driving factors that influence the coordinated development of regional cultural and tourism industries. This analysis has significant theoretical and practical implications.

The spatiotemporal coupling evolution of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration indicates that the development disparities between cities are continuously narrowing, showing spatial agglomeration characteristics, and the coordinated development of culture and tourism is trending positively. Specifically, the core cities of the BTH urban agglomeration are gradually evolving into a type where cultural and tourism developments progress in sync. This serves as a certain demonstration effect for the coordinated development of culture and tourism in other nodal cities. Additionally, the ranking changes in the coupling coordination degree among cities are relatively small, indicating a strong stability in the coordinated development of the urban agglomeration. This distinguishes it from other world-class urban agglomerations such as the Yangtze River Delta and the central Yangtze River region, showing distinct developmental features [56,57]. Nevertheless, the research reveals the presence of a “siphon effect” among regions, with an increasing number of cities prioritizing tourism development. Therefore, decision-makers should consider the actual development of the region when implementing improvement measures, leverage the radiating and leading role of core cities, and promote the enhancement of the cultural industry’s content. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights for decision-makers and practitioners in promoting the coordinated development of the cultural tourism industry in the BTH urban agglomeration.

(1)

Combining the analysis of coupled and coordinated effects, there is a certain degree of spatial dependence and differentiation in the coupled coordination of cultural and tourism industries in various regions of the BTH urban agglomeration. Particularly, Hebei Province, as a province surrounding Beijing and Tianjin, has contributed to the development of the “dual core” of Beijing and Tianjin without receiving much feedback. Furthermore, constrained by its own economic development and geographic location, the coordination of cultural and tourism industries in most cities in Hebei Province is not high. Therefore, the BTH urban agglomeration should strengthen top-level design, establish an unimpeded regional integrated development pattern for cultural tourism, and break through administrative barriers. The core areas of Beijing and Tianjin should be based on current development realities, actively exploring cooperation models with surrounding cities in multiple fields. By establishing cooperation with surrounding cities in industry development, capital investment, research and development, etc., a radiating driving effect can be formed to enhance regional resource allocation efficiency and increase cultural tourism competitiveness through achieving resource sharing and complementary advantages. At the same time, a regional talent integration governance mechanism should be established, the job rotation mechanism for cadres and talents among the three regions should be improved, the construction of an education and training system covering the three regions should be promoted, and, in accordance with the laws and trends of regional coordinated development of cultural tourism, characteristic projects to cultivate composite talents should be introduced. Additionally, regional administrative barriers should be broken, a mechanism for sharing and using talents cooperatively should be established, the flow of human resource elements should be strengthened, and the rational allocation and efficient utilization of talents in the cultural tourism industry should be promoted.

(2)

In the process of cultural–tourism integration, the study reveals that the BTH urban agglomeration has performed well in developing culture to promote tourism, but less so in using tourism to drive cultural development. The integration of culture and tourism depends on the approach and methods of integration. The region needs to focus on enhancing the pathways of cultural–tourism integration during development. Beijing and Tianjin, having shifted to a model of simultaneous cultural–tourism development, should leverage their role in driving development from the west to the east and south. In contrast, Hebei’s cities, which are increasingly adopting a culture-first development model, should emphasize the high-quality development of the tourism industry during integration, turning cultural resources into tourism competitiveness and broadening regional cultural dissemination channels [58]. Regional collaborations such as organizing festivals, conferences, and other events can serve as platforms for promoting regional cultural heritage. Libraries, tourist attractions, and cultural products can be used to share and promote the unique cultural characteristics of the area. Meanwhile, during integration, it is crucial to fully utilize the communicative and malleable nature of culture to deepen the connotation and extension of tourism products, thus improving regional tourism competitiveness [59], and continuously enhance the culture-driven tourism effect to foster deeper cultural–tourism integration.

(3)

The interaction between industrial structure and government investment and between industrial structure and technological innovation and the interplay between the urban environment and economic scale are more conducive to promoting the coordinated development of the regional cultural tourism industry. The BTH urban agglomeration should increase regional cooperation and government investment efforts, promote the sharing of cultural tourism resources and expand market opportunities, and build competitive cultural tourism brands. Well-known cultural tourism brands such as the Jing-Zhang Sports and Culture Belt, the Grand Canal National Cultural Park, and the Great Wall National Cultural Park should be promoted in the transformation of regional cultural tourism resources spanning the three regions into linear products, emphasizing regional cultural tourism IP images. Around sports events, collaborative efforts should be made to create sports tourism demonstration zones, focusing on “ice and snow+”, “Grand Canal+”, and “Great Wall+” initiatives, enhancing the integration of tourism and culture around core attractive elements, continually expanding the reach of regional cultural tourism brand promotion. Furthermore, cultural tourism integration implies the infusion of more cultural elements into the traditional tourism industry, necessitating the introduction of technology to drive industrial innovation [60]. The BTH urban agglomeration should prioritize the establishment of a cultural tourism data integration platform to more comprehensively integrate cultural elements and tourism resources. Leveraging cutting-edge technologies such as big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence, digitizing cultural heritage, landscapes, cultural and creative products, and other cultural tourism resources across the three regions, developing a complete digital collection system, and deepening the integration and innovation of the cultural tourism industry with digital technology could be carried out. This could be performed by utilizing big data platforms to uncover potential tourists, precisely and rapidly identifying changing customer demands and consumption trends, driving innovation and upgrading of cultural tourism products and services, and promoting further synergies between regional digital technology and the cultural tourism industry [61].

However, there are certain limitations in this study. Firstly, due to data constraints, this study focuses on data from 2010 to 2019. Future studies could extend the timeframe to capture more comprehensive trends. Secondly, regarding the research scale, this study adopts a city-level scale for the BTH urban agglomeration. To provide a more detailed spatial depiction of cultural–tourism integration in the region, future research could focus on a county-level scale. Thirdly, in terms of evaluation indicators, the study could be further expanded to refine the evaluation system, such as including more detailed indicators related to cultural–tourism policies, innovation, and other aspects, provided that data are available.

6. Conclusions

In the context of the ongoing integration of the cultural and tourism industries, this study, based on existing research, constructs a coupling coordination development evaluation index system for cultural and tourism industries, considering three dimensions: Development factors, development environment, and development effects. By measuring the coupling and coordination degree of the cultural and tourism industries in 13 cities of the BTH urban agglomeration, the study evaluates the contribution of internal barrier factors to the coupling and coordination system using the barrier degree model. It also explores the driving mechanisms of the coupling and coordination of cultural and tourism industries from seven aspects—urban environment, transportation levels, economic scale, industrial structure, government investment, technological innovation, and digital infrastructure—using the geographical detector. The key findings of the study are as follows:

(1)

Overall development of the BTH urban agglomeration: During the study period, the comprehensive evaluation index for the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration shows a fluctuating upward trend, with tourism industry growth being relatively faster, gradually surpassing the cultural industry. This trend is the result of multiple factors, including policy guidance and regional cooperation. The average coupling degree of the cultural and tourism industries ranged between 0.80 and 0.90, indicating a high level of coupling throughout the study period. This suggests that the two industries are closely interdependent, and their coupled development is relatively stable. The coupling coordination relationship evolved from an “uncoordinated state” from 2010–2011 to a “transition stage” from 2012–2019, passing through phases of slightly uncoordinated, borderline uncoordinated, and finally barely coordinated. While regional coordinated development has shown good progress, the overall system coupling coordination level remains relatively low, and there is considerable room for improving cultural–tourism integration.

(2)

Development elements, environment, and effects: The integration of development elements showed a steady upward trend during the study period, while the integration of development environment and development effects exhibited an upward spiral trend. From 2010 to 2017, the integration of development elements was higher than that of the development environment and effects, but from 2018 to 2019, the integration of development environment and effects gradually surpassed that of development elements. This indicates that development elements are the endogenous driving force for the cultural–tourism integration in the BTH urban agglomeration, while the integration of the development environment and effects serves as the external driving force.

(3)

Evolution of coupling coordination from 2010 to 2019: The coupling coordination degree of the cultural and tourism industries in the BTH urban agglomeration evolved from an “uncoordinated state” to a “coordinated state”. The level of integration in each region gradually improved year by year, from one city with intermediate coordination, two almost imbalanced, seven in mild imbalance, and three in moderate imbalance in 2010, to one city with good coordination, one with intermediate coordination, four almost coordinated, and seven almost imbalanced by 2019. The regional coordination degree gap narrowed, from 0.514 in 2010 to 0.496 in 2019, aligning more with the goals of regional coordinated development. The spatial pattern of integration showed a high degree in the west, a lower degree in the east, and a central area of higher levels contrasted by relatively lower levels in the north and south, with higher-value areas expanding and lower-value areas contracting. Regarding the speed of integration, Zhangjiakou and Handan formed rapidly developing cultural–tourism integration zones, while Chengde demonstrated a decline in its development ranking, indicating the need for more effective promotional measures.

(4)

Types of cultural–tourism integration development: Based on the evolution of the integration types of the 13 cities in the BTH urban agglomeration, six distinct types of cultural–tourism integration evolution were identified: Culture-prioritized development, tourism-prioritized development, culture-prioritized development followed by synchronous development, tourism-prioritized development followed by synchronous development, culture-prioritized development followed by synchronous and then tourism-prioritized development, and synchronous development followed by culture-prioritized and then tourism-prioritized development. The integration trend has gradually shifted towards tourism-prioritized development, with tourism development surpassing cultural development year by year, indicating the significant impact of cultural promotion on tourism. Both Beijing and Tianjin have exhibited a trend of simultaneous cultural–tourism development, playing a leading role in regional cultural–tourism integration.

(5)

Key barriers and driving mechanisms: The main barrier factors in the coupling coordination system of the cultural and tourism industries are concentrated in the cultural development effects, revealing the increasing trend of tourism-prioritized development in the cities of the BTH urban agglomeration. Technological innovation, urban environment, digital construction, and government investment are the primary factors influencing the spatial differentiation of the coupling coordination degree of the cultural and tourism industries, while industrial structure, transportation levels, and economic scale are secondary influencing factors. These factors significantly affect the spatial differentiation of coupling and coordination levels. The interaction between two-dimensional factors has a greater influence than one-dimensional factors, showing a positive interaction effect. Specifically, the interactions between industrial structure and government investment, industrial structure and technological innovation, and urban environment and economic scale have a more significant impact on the development of the cultural–tourism coupling, suggesting that the regional cultural–tourism integration is gradually shifting its development logic towards quality improvement, structural upgrades, and innovation-driven development.