Assessing Industrial Past and Cultural Changes in Industrial Lands along the Hangzhou Section of the Grand Canal in China

Abstract

The Grand Canal has been fundamental in supporting Chinese industrialization, as evidenced in the great changes witnessed across industrial lands, but few studies have approached this issue from a cultural perspective. After an extensive industrial recession in the early 21st century, canal cities like Hangzhou have seen changes in the cultural functions of industrial lands, relocating, transforming, and demolishing factories and other constructions to develop new cultural spaces and products. A deep analysis of these cultural changes is, therefore, quite helpful to appreciate the features of and reasons for Chinese national policy setting in the cultural sections of the Grand Canal, such as the UNESCO World Heritage-recognized purpose of the Grand Canal, etc. Therefore, by focusing on the Hangzhou section of the Canal, and via the integration of high-resolution Google Earth images with a 1.5 spatial resolution, we dynamically monitored the land use of the 10 specifically selected industrial lands and interpretated the various uses of the areas from 2000 to 2020. Then, with archival data from 1950 to 2024 and fieldwork conducted over 1 year, and in consultation with major experts, we designed a mark sheet with factors and scores to comprehensively assess cultural changes in those lands. Consequently, the history of industrialization along the Hangzhou section was thoroughly analyzed with these investigations and data, and the reasons for and influence of cultural changes were presented in detail; subsequently, the outstanding problems were addressed, and suggestions were offered. This study contributes to a better understanding of Chinese cultural policy regarding cities along the Canal after the industrial decline, especially the critical implication of cultural loss within these cities. In addition, it also provides novel perspectives for cultural research, heritage conservation, and urban planning of canals or waterfront spaces for world heritage.

1. Introduction

In recent years, with the deepening appreciation of the concept and connotations of cultural heritage, a series of areas of trans-regional heritage, such as cultural routes and linear heritage, especially those along the Grand Canal, have become a rather hot topic of discussion in China and beyond [1]. Historically speaking, the Canal not only reflect the unity and continuity of natural and human landscapes [2], but also embody the dynamics of social, economic, and cultural development in various periods of history [3]. Before and after being inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, comprehensive research and practice has been conducted on different aspects of the Chinese Grand Canal, such as the value system of cultural heritage along the route [4], the development and performance of tourism products and trails [5], and the achievements and shortcomings of the conservation process in respect of the Canal [6]. In short, the majority of existing studies have focused on explaining its cultural, economic, and political value as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of its cultural tourism products and markets from a long-term perspective, and examining its profound impact on China’s north–south trade, ethnic integration, and national unity from ancient times to the present day. However, few of these studies focused on the emergence and disappearance of industrialization along the Canal in the context of typical widespread and the far-reaching cultural change on industrial lands after the year 2000, thus representing a research gap in this field.

Though typical in its linear cultural heritage, the Chinese Grand Canal is a gigantic systematic project connecting Chinese agricultural civilizations, characterized by having the world’s largest spatial coverage, passing through eight provinces, and providing continuous access more than 2500 years. Compared with other canals in the UNESCO World Heritage List, such as those in Belgium, Canada, France, and the Netherlands, the Chinese Grand Canal facilitated the rise and fall of the Grain Tribute System, one of the most unique Chinese cultural traditions in the world, and it had a profound influence on the unification of public psychology and the old empire. Similarly to the UK’s world heritage—Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal—the outstanding universal value of the Chinese Grand Canal in terms of engineering technology and water conservancy has also been internationally recognized both by TICCIH and the UNESCO file of Nomination 1443. Similarly to canals during industrial development in Great Britain [7], Canada [8], etc., and restricted by the means of transport and productivity levels, the Chinese Grand Canal has been provided prominent support for industrialization development in the cities along the route for hundreds of years [9]. After 1949, the central government of the PRC proposed the deployment of coastal industries, which offered a significant developmental opportunity for cities like Hangzhou and even the entire Zhejiang Province. In order to transform from a consumption-oriented city to a production-oriented city as soon as possible, Hangzhou, with its advantages of land and water transportation, began to lay out large numbers of modern industries along the Canal from 1951. Geographically speaking, the Hangzhou section mainly runs through the four districts of Linping, Yuhang, Gongshu, and Shangcheng. It starts from Tangxi Town of Linping district in the north and ends at the Qiantang River of Shangcheng district in the south, with a total length of about 39 km. In addition, Gongshu district, which represents the longest part of the route with a length of 27 km, was initially home to the majority of the city’s industrial lands [10], but almost all of them disappeared after 50 years. From a macro perspective, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, some of China’s major cities gradually entered the phase of counter-industrialization and de-industrialization, and began to focus on the development of cultural and creative industries. Meanwhile, China’s 12th Five-year Plan even proposed to promote its cultural industries as the pillar industry of the national economy, meaning its added value should account for more than 5% of GDP, while in 2009, the added value of China’s entire cultural industry accounted for about 2.5% of GDP. In this context, following the industrial recession, with water bodies within cities becoming high-quality tourism resources after from the 2000s, cities like Hangzhou have implemented diversified cultural practices by repurposing myriad remaining or forsaken industrial lands (mainly along the Canal) which exerted a profound influence on China’s canal cities. Therefore, focusing on World Heritage Sites in the Hangzhou section, based on the locational conditions, historical typicality, floor area, economic contribution, and especially cultural significance, our research specifically selected 10 industrial lands from the Hangzhou section to fully interpret the industrial past before cultural change. After that, with the help of data and fieldwork, especially expert reviews, we proposed nine variables within four factors (for details, see Section 2.3.3) to comprehensively access the process of this cultural change, with the objectives of critical interpreting cultural practices on canal cities like Hangzhou, and argued the cultural accomplishments, loss, and challenges both domestically and globally.

2. Materials and Methodology

2.1. Study Area

Historically speaking, the Hangzhou section originated in the Spring and Autumn period (5th century BC), took shape in the Sui dynasty (6th century AD), thrived in the Song and Yuan dynasties, and flourished until the Ming and Qing dynasties. In terms of geographical features, it flows through a subtropical monsoon climate with four distinct seasons, moderate annual temperatures, significant monsoons, and abundant rainfall. As the capital of Zhejiang Province, as well as its political, economic, and cultural center, Hangzhou’s industrialization and cultural traditions have been heavily dependent on the Grand Canal for a long time. The industrialization and industrial lands along the Hangzhou section of the Grand Canal were mainly distributed in the northeast of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, along the southeast coast of China (120°7′30″ E–120°11′30″ E, 30°18′0″ N–30°21′30″ N). Consequently, its urbanization rate had reached as high as 84.0% by the end of 2023, and it is remembered as one of the most famous cultural cities domestically and beyond, with three sites successfully inscribed on the World Heritage List. Meanwhile, the high urbanization rate and rapid development of the urban economy have led to a shortage of construction land and great protection pressure on cities/towns along the Hangzhou section. This not only accelerated cultural changes with the deconstruction of the original social structure along the route, but also quickly cleared industrial lands and removed all traces of industrialization to make way for cultural heritage sites and streets instead. In April 2017, the Regulations on the Protection of the Grand Canal World Heritage in Hangzhou were issued, aiming to strengthen the protection of the Grand Canal World Heritage in China, promote its preservation, research, and display of outstanding values, and give full play to the role of cultural heritage in the city’s development. The year 2024 marks the 10th anniversary of the successful nomination of the Grand Canal of China as a World Heritage Site. We deliberately selected 10 typical factories or plants to analyze the distinctive industrial past and cultural practices on industrial lands along the Hangzhou section (see Figure 1).

2.2. Data Resources and Acquisition

The 10 sites were mainly selected from relevant Chinese national and provincial industrial heritage lists, and basic relevant information was obtained from the Report on Hangzhou Industrial Heritage General Survey. The photos and images were mainly obtained by the authors from fieldwork with the use of drones. The attribute information, like latitude and longitude, was obtained from Google Earth, while the comprehensive information on annual utilization was acquired from Hangzhou Urban Construction Archives, etc. Using the Chinese GIS software package Rivermap (version: Pro 4.3)1, remote sensing images covering industrial remains (years 2000, 2010, and 2020) were acquired and analyzed. Accurate and reliable data on the land-use status of industrial remains and their surroundings (2020) were obtained from the Hangzhou Natural Resources Bureau. The data of the radar point cloud were collected via the equipment of an M300 RTK drone by Dajiang (manufacturer’s of it located at city of Shenzhen, China, it was firstly cited in [11]), and analyzed via the DJI Terra (version: Pro 4.1.0)2 software package. Meanwhile, we conducted more than 20 instances of field work, with close investigation and market research on the 10 cases individually or as one group. In addition, to objectively and thoroughly evaluate the selected sites, especially for factors and their corresponding scores, we collected and analyzed the consultation reports and mark sheets from 20 major experts in the fields of industrial heritage and canal tourism from a distance or jointly in situ (see

Table 1. List of main datasets.

Data Type	Data Name	Source and Other Description
Remote Sensing Data	Overlooking view of Google Earth images (2000, 2010, 2020)	Rivermap software package, 1.5 m spatial resolution
Geospatial Data	Land use and land cover in 2020	Hangzhou Natural Resources Bureau
Radar Data	Radar and point cloud	M300 RTK drone (Dajiang), DJI Terra software package
Fieldwork Data	>20 instances of fieldwork on 10 sites	Individual/group investigation, interview, consultation
Historical Archives	Historical pictures, events, and photos of Grand Canal	Hangzhou Urban Construction Archives, Hangzhou Urban Archives, Hangzhou Industrial Heritage General Survey, the Internet, etc.

).

Additionally, based on official historical archives, it was possible to organize the representative figures, events, and photos of the cultural change in the industrial lands of the study area at an early stage. Inside knowledge and subtle information, especially local anecdotes, were gained and analyzed via online and offline investigation, and the latest status was acquired from close fieldwork and surveys conducted by the authors. After that, comparative studies on the selected sites were completed, highlighting the indicators regarding the authenticity and integrity of industrial heritage. Consequently, cultural practices were generally divided into three types, according to which the problems were resolved and suggestions offered in turn.

2.3. Methodology

2.3.1. Flowchart of This Research

Besides comprehensive literature analysis, this research was completed mainly through three steps (see Figure 2). Firstly, we monitored the dynamic land use of the selected industrial lands via the utilization of high-resolution satellite imagery (HRSI) from the period 2000 to 2020, as well as detailed 2020 land use data, to highlight the changes during and after industrialization. Secondly, after the collection and analysis of almost all the relevant archives and the conduction of individual/collective fieldwork for nearly two years, close and deep investigations were conducted over the ten cases and beyond. Thirdly, we compared the ten cases and divided them into three types, within the context of cultural change and based on the evaluation of factors and scores, thereafter offering our suggestions for solving the problems.

2.3.2. Dynamic Monitoring of Land Use of Selected Industrial Lands

A dynamic and real-time updatable conservation methodology was applied for recording and interpreting the changes in area and usages of creation, formation, and evolution of the ten selected industrial lands along the Hangzhou section. Collecting HRSI from 2000 to 2020 and the 2020 land use information through local government departments, relevant archives, and local histories, etc., multiple industrial land-use changes were detected. In addition, a lidar scanner was used to scan the indoor and outdoor surfaces of the existing workers’ residential buildings to obtain point cloud data on the surfaces of the buildings, capture color information for the point cloud data, detect the texture and geometric characteristics of the buildings, and pre-process the point cloud data to achieve data optimization, while also ultimately generating a complete point cloud data file of the workers’ residential buildings attached to the industrial lands.

2.3.3. Comprehensively Assess Cultural Change with Factors and Scores

TICCIH’s official publication Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation [12] firmly established the major variables and central elements for conservation, especially for industrial heritage3. To comprehensively assess the cultural changes in the 10 sites, we designed a mark sheet with factors and scores (see

Table 2. Description of factors and scores in four aspects (source: own compilation).

Factor	Content	Performance Score	Performance Score Description	Data Source and Acquisition
Fundamental Elements (A)	Integrity (A1)	4′	Completed and Comprehensive	Field Work and Investigation and Expert Consultation
		2′	Fragmented and Comprehensive
		−2′	Totally Vanished
	Authenticity (A2)	4′	Accurate Information and Knowledge
		2′	Relevant Information and Knowledge
		−2′	False Information and Knowledge
Core Elements (B)	Interpretation of Production Process and Industrial Technology (B1)	6′	Sufficient and Accurate	Field Work and Investigation and Expert Consultation
		4′	Insufficient but Accurate
		2′	Sufficient but Inaccurate
		−2′	None or Insufficient and Inaccurate
	Interpretation of Industrial Spirit and History (B2)	6′	Objective and Comprehensive
		4′	Not Totally Objective and Comprehensive
		−2′	None or Fake
Intermediate Elements (C)	Access and Presentation of Industrial Archives (C1)	6′	Available and Convenient	Field Work and Investigation and Market Research
		4′	Available but Inconvenient
		2′	Unavailable but Convenient
	Construction and Maintenance of Industrial Heritage Museum (C2)	6′	Professional and Popular
		4′	Professional
		2′	Relevant
	Use of Digital Technology on Industrial Heritage (C3)	4′	Vivid and Interactive
		2′	Visible and Available
Extended Elements (D)	Tourism Line and Products (D1)	2′	Relevant and Diversified	Field Work and Market Research
		1′	Relevant
	Peripherals and Souvenirs (D2)	2′	Relevant and Diversified
		1′	Relevant

). Fundamental Elements (A): In terms of the very first factor, we directly introduced integrity (A1) and authenticity (A2) from the evaluation system of the UNESCO World Heritage List, especially for industrial architecture [13], as two sub-factors within it for the appraisal of the extent of the damage incurred by the heritage itself and the authenticity of everything presented. Additionally, the criteria A1/A2 were marked according to whether the heritage is completed and comprehensive, as well as offers accurate information and knowledge, with scores of 4′/2′/−2′, respectively. Core Elements (B): B assumes the most prominent and important cultural characteristics of industrial heritage, and its first sub-factor is the Interpretation of Production Process and Industrial Technology (B1), which was scored 6′/4′/2′/−2′ via the criteria of Sufficient and Accurate/Insufficient but Accurate/Sufficient but Inaccurate/None or Insufficient and Inaccurate. Similarly, the Interpretation of Industrial Spirit and History (B2) was marked 6′/4′/−2′ according to the criteria of Totally Objective and Comprehensive/Not Totally Objective and Comprehensive/None, or Fake. Intermediate Elements (C): Archives, museum, and digitalization are the most common medium via which industrial heritage could be mostly interpreted and promoted. Therefore, three sub-factors are Access and Presentation of Industrial Archives (C1), to mark 6′/4′/2′ according to the extent of availability and convenience, Construction and Maintenance of Industrial Heritage Museum (C2), to score 6′/4′/2′ by evaluating the degree of professionalism and number of visitors, and Use of Digital Technology on Industrial Heritage (C3), to score 4′/2′ mainly depending on the digital performance. Extended Elements (D): What is well accepted and confirmed is the close mutually beneficial relationship between industrial heritage and cultural tourism settings. Therefore, Tourism Line and Products (D1) and Peripherals and Souvenirs (D2) are determined as the extended elements. In addition, the case will be scored 2′ or 1′ when offering relevant and diversified or only relevant D1/D2 respectively.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Assessing the Industrial Past of Industrial Lands along Hangzhou Section

3.1.1. How the Chinese Grand Canal Supported and Shaped the Industrialization of Hangzhou

Where there is a canal, there is a wharf, and where there is a wharf, there is industrial development and the gathering of people. As the southernmost point of the Chinese Grand Canal, the Hangzhou section has witnessed the industrialization and deindustrialization of the whole city. The combination of HRSI (see Figure 3) illustrates the land-use changes (LUCs) in the ten selected cases, based on which the exact area of various new uses from the 2022 cases was counted separately (see Figure 4). The data and results clearly present the prominent cultural changes in industrial lands along the Hangzhou section. With the disappearance of most industries, the new usages especially cultural functions have been attached to the former industrial lands. Besides real estate, museums, parks, and expo centers were the main approaches for regenerating the space after the industrial recession of the Hangzhou section (see

Table 3. Status quo of industrial heritage along the Grand Canal (Hangzhou section) (source: the authors).

Number	Former Identification	Construction Year	Close/Relocate Year	Current Name	Current Function
1	Hangzhou Iron and Steel Plant	1957	2016	Grand Canal Hangzhou Steel Industrial Heritage Park	Creative Industries Park
2	Hangzhou Oil Refinery	1951	2018	Grand Canal Future Art and Technology Centre	Leisure Education
3	Zhejiang Jute Textile Factory	1950	2002	Dinghai West Garden	Real estate
4	Dahe Shipyard	1959	2008	Canal World	Creative Industries Park
5	Tongyi Government-run Yarn Factory	1896	1956	Chinese Fan Museum Handicrafts Living Museum	Museum Real estate
6	Hangzhou No. 1 Cotton Spinning Factory (partial)	1956	2008	Dahe Chengzhang	Real estate
7	Honglei Silk Weaving Factory	1966	2002	Hangzhou Arts and Crafts Museum, China	Museum
8	Hangzhou Silk United Dye Factory	1956	2000	Silk United 166	Creative Industries Park
9	Sinopec Xiaohe Oil Depot	1951	2019	Xiaohe Park	Leisure
10	Hangzhou Oxygen Plant Group Company Limited	1950	2008	Wulinzhixing Expo Center	Creative Industries Park

). However, before the decline, the Chinese Grand Canal greatly supported and shaped the industrialization of Hangzhou.

From the middle of the Ming Dynasty, the rise of capitalism, mainly focused on the silk weaving industry, emerged along the Hangzhou section of the Grand Canal. During the period of the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China, relying on water transportation of the Canal, the modern industrialization process in Hangzhou struggled to advance amidst the flames of war, which shaped the Gongshu district as the cradle of Hangzhou’s modern industries. In 1949, the total industrial output value of Zhejiang Province was only CNY 410 million, and the scale of enterprises and modes of production still depended on small and scattered handmade workshops. Furthermore, the secondary industry accounted for only 8.0 percent of the whole provincial GDP, while agriculture accounted for 68.5 percent. In order to change this unfavorable situation, as the capital city of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou naturally accelerated the industrialization process. In 1959, Hangzhou proposed to construct a “comprehensive industrial city” based on “heavy industry”, which was decisive for the evolution of Hangzhou’s urban space. According to the statistics, the layout of Hangzhou’s eight industrial categories included industries such as textiles, machinery, and metallurgy, among which the textile and machinery industries occupied half of Hangzhou’s whole stock of industrial systems at that time (see Figure 5). After that, seven major industrial areas and three industrial storage areas were deployed in the city and given investment, and more than eight of them were located along the Hangzhou section.

The Hangzhou section experienced the Westernization Movement and the rise of national industries at an early stage around the 1910s, shaping Hangzhou as a city with a long history of industrial development and as one of the birthplaces of China’s ethnic industry and commerce. After the founding of the PRC in 1949, the reformation of all public–private joint partnerships into state-run factories commenced, and the historical tradition of light textile industries was continued comprehensively. By the 1960s and 1970s, factories like the Zhejiang Jute Textile Factory, Hangzhou Silk United Dye Factory, and Hangzhou No. 1 Cotton Textile Factory (former Tongyi Government-run Yarn Factory) were successively established, along with the development of heavy industries such as Hangzhou Iron and Steel Factory and Hangzhou Oil Refinery, etc. After that, Gongshu district soon became the industrial center of Hangzhou and along with factories along the Canal contributed 60% of the city’s gross industrial output and emitted 70% of the exhaust and dust. In the 1980s and 1990s, due to the impact of a market-oriented economy and the reconstruction of state-owned enterprises, traditional industries, especially the light textile industry, gradually declined and entered a recession due to the shift from a labor-intensive industry to a service economy along the Canal, resulting in factory stagnation and worker unemployment. All of these factors meant that Gongshu district would be remembered as a polluted and extremely unpleasant shanty town where the underclass lived with a mixed population and a shortage of living infrastructure and public space. Then, tertiary industries such as tourism and creative businesses promptly launched with an emphasis on the reuse, transformation, and replacement of most discarded factories along the Canal. Districts along the Canal, such as Gongshu, had collectively become an important industrial base in Hangzhou and even in Zhejiang Province, and had enjoyed more than one hundred years of industrial development; for example, the Gongshu area started with the textile and machinery industry, moving on to pharmaceutical and chemical industries and the paper industry, and gradually established a relatively complete industrial system. After the founding of the PRC, from the very First Five-year Plan (1953–1957) onwards, the Chinese government has attached great importance to the construction of the industrial system for Hangzhou, mainly with the support of the Canal, and Gongshu has been determined as the main industrial development area of the whole city. Though limited in resources, an almost complete modern industrial system has formed in the Hangzhou section, with 39 major industrial categories and almost full coverage of medium/small industrial categories. Among the major industrial products, the output of Gongshu once ranked first in the whole country and beyond.

Thanks to the Canal, the area around Gongchen Bridge (a landmark of Hangzhou’s section of the Canal, and even the whole city; see Figure 6) became the most important foundation of Hangzhou’s modern industry after the 1950s (see

Table 4. Major industrial enterprises along the Hangzhou section (source: the authors).

Industrial Categories	Textile Industry	Machinery Industry	Metallurgical Industry	Pharmaceutical Industry	Chemical Industry	Papermaking Industry	Electronics and Daily Necessities Light Industry	Electronics and Building Materials Industry
Factories/Industrial Enterprises	Honglei Silk Weaving Factory	Hangzhou Chain General Factory	Hangzhou Changzheng Steel Rolling Mill	Hangzhou Zhuyangxin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.	Changzheng Chemical Factory	Huafeng Paper Mill	Hangzhou Hot Water Bottle Factory	Zhejiang Provincial Building Materials Group Co.
	Hangzhou No.1 Cotton Spinning Factory	Hangzhou Bearing Group Co., Ltd.	Hangzhou Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd.	Hangzhou Huadong Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.	Hangzhou Petrochemical Co., Ltd.	Hangzhou Xinhua Paper Co., Ltd.	Hangzhou Zhang Xiaoquan Group Co., Ltd.	Hangzhou Glass Group
	Hangzhou Silk United Dye Factory	Hangzhou Boiler Group Co., Ltd.		Hangzhou Minsheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.				Hangzhou Thermal Power Group
	Zhejiang Hemp Spinning Factory	Hangzhou Automobile Manufacturing Plant						Hangzhou Mid-levels Power Generation Co.
	Hangzhou Printing And Dyeing Factory	Hangzhou Textile Machinery Manufacturing General Factory
	Hangzhou No.1 Woolen Spinning Factory	Hangzhou Heavy Machinery Group Co., Ltd.
	Hangzhou No.2 Woolen Spinning Factory	Hangzhou Steam Turbine Power Group Co., Ltd.
		Hangzhou Dahe Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.
Total number	7	8	2	3	2	2	2	4

). In its heyday of the 1980s, the industrial output value along the Canal and its region accounted for 60% of Hangzhou’s main urban area, two-thirds of the city’s main urban area coal combustion was completed there, and nearly 70% of the area’s emissions and dust pollution also originated there. Today, these industries not only provide Hangzhou with significant GDP, tax revenue, and jobs, but also create huge amounts of coal ash, sewage, and soot. Around 2005, the water quality of all 61 waterways connecting the Grand Canal in Hangzhou city was below the class-5 water quality standard. The deterioration of the environment forced the Hangzhou government to decide to gradually close or relocate industrial enterprises along the Grand Canal in the main urban area, and the construction of an eco-friendly city and the restoration of the environment of the Grand Canal became the new development mission at that time.

3.1.2. Industrial Heritage from Industrial Lands after De-Industrialization in Hangzhou Section

After the 1990s, during the restructuring of industries and the relocation of enterprises in Hangzhou, the old factory areas around Gongchen Bridge and along the Canal gradually declined. Therefore, just like what happened in the UK after the 1950s de-industrialization started to sweep through both sides of the Canal in Hangzhou, and the once-thriving industrial areas promptly became shanty towns and slums. In detail, dilapidated shanty towns stretched out in patches, and sewage flowed in narrow alleys, which characterized the area by mixed housing, poor infrastructure, and a serious lack of public space. Additionally, the canal water at that time was dirty and smelly (see Figure 7), and many laid-off workers and several generations of the same family had to live in one cabin measuring less than ten square meters, even without a tap water supply. For the community, four or more families in the neighborhood had to share one public toilet, and the roads there were narrow and without any traffic lights (see Figure 7). The regional service industry was mainly for the lower and middle classes, and for a while, there were even folk prostitutes (see Figure 7). Nowadays, when original residents from there recall the whole place, their deepest impression is “crowded” and “dirty”. Therefore, from being the “core and birthplace of Hangzhou’s industrialization”, the place gradually shifted into a “Shanty Town”, especially the west side of Gongchen Bridge, which became an entirely marginal, forgotten, and deeply unpleasant place.

In December 1997, the Hangzhou Municipal Government commenced the “Old City Renovation Project”, one of ten flagship projects for civilians, around both sides of Gongchen Bridge, and water quality improvement of the Grand Canal throughout more than 2.5 square kilometers, ten thousand households, and 400 factories and organizations. One decade later, a more comprehensive and subtle conservation project was launched, especially for the west side of Gongchen Bridge, via the highlighting of ancient Chinese building styles and historical sightseeing.

By the 21st century, more than a quarter of China’s resource-based cities experienced the serious problem of resource depletion. The State Council of China announced a total of 69 national resource-exhausted cities (counties and districts) in three batches on 17 March 2008, 5 March 2009, and 20 August 2013, respectively, which meant that the total number of resource-exhausted cities accounted for nearly 11% of the total number of cities in China. Amongst those, many resource-based industries and factories were permanently closed and thereafter reconstructed or transformed to suit creative industries or cultural products, while “industrial heritage” has been used in the Chinese policy system. For China, 2006 witnessed a national industrial heritage movement with three major events: (1) on 18 April 2006, the First Forum on the Protection of Chinese Industrial Heritage issued Wuxi Advice [14], which was the first national official document aimed at the protection of Chinese industrial heritage; (2) in May 2006, the National Cultural Heritage Administration (NCHA) of China issued the Notice on Strengthening the Protection of Industrial Heritage, initially launching a comprehensive census on Chinese industrial heritage at the national level; (3) on 17 October 2006, the 15th International Conference on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) was held in the Chinese city of Xi’an, with “Industrial Heritage” established as the theme of the International Day for Monuments and Sites. Therefore, the Hangzhou Planning Bureau jointly with the Hangzhou Urban Planning and Design Institute carried out a census of Hangzhou’s industrial heritage, and one year later, Hangzhou issued and implemented the Hangzhou Industrial Heritage (Architecture) Protection Plan and Hangzhou Industrial Heritage Architecture Planning and Management Regulations, based on which the Hangzhou Consensus on the Protection and Utilization of Industrial Heritage was released in 2012. Specifically, industrial lands and heritage along the Canal were regarded as the most important factors with respect to policy scope and contents.

The industrial heritage generated from the Grand Canal in China not only includes a variety of historical and cultural elements, but has also witnessed the cultural change and social transformation of cities and communities along the route. Up to July 2023, there are 32 examples of Canal industrial heritage registered on five batches in the Chinese National Industrial Heritage List (totaling 194), which has been selected and released via the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) of the PRC since 2017. Like the practices in UK or others [15], China also implemented urban regeneration via industrial heritage by developing cultural industries regarding old mills [16]. Moreover, presently, a series of national/provincial policies focused on “Industrial Heritage along the China Grand Canal”: Zhejiang Provincial Regulations on Protection of the Grand Canal as World Cultural Heritage issued in 2021 proposed to encourage the display and promotion of Grand Canal heritage by relying on the former industrial sites; the Zhejiang Provincial Action Plan for the Promotion of the Development of Industrial Culture issued in 2022 proposed to promote the protection and utilization of the industrial heritage along the Grand Canal; the Measures for Administration of National Industrial Heritage issued in 2023 proposed to encourage the reuse of the selected heritage along the Canal. Especially with the construction of the “Chinese Grand Canal National Cultural Park” after 2020, one of the most important cultural projects in China at present, several large-scale industrial sites and examples of heritage such as the Hangzhou Iron and Steel Plant have been quickly and entirely deconstructed (see Figure 8).

3.2. Assessing the Cultural Changes in Industrial Lands along the Hangzhou Section

3.2.1. Cultural Change Driven by World Heritage Purpose

Figure 9 presents the results of the ten industrial lands applying the methodology detailed in Section 2.3.3. It is clearly demonstrated that though more than half of the cases performed decently in terms of the integrity and authenticity of the heritage from industrial lands, but none of the cases preserve the core elements, especially in the interpretation of production processes and industrial technology, as well as in terms of archives, museums, and digital technologies. Meanwhile, out of the strong pursuit of financial gain, almost all the cases have focused on investments in tourism and other cultural products. However, besides profits, the purpose and fruits of the UNESCO World Heritage List have also played a rather cardinal role in the process of profound cultural change.

Before and since being inscribed on the World Heritage List in June 2014, the Chinese Grand Canal has invested significantly in sustainable developments or adjustments of world-class cultural products not only along both sides of the Canal [17], but also throughout the Canal’s cultural belt. Hangzhou, as one of the major node cities along the Canal and the principal economic city of China, has made great efforts in cultural development around the Canal area in the city [18], even implementing a whole range of Comprehensive Renovation and Protection and Development projects. Besides the evolution of the industry itself, the very application and purpose of the UNESCO World Heritage List has also become a quite cardinal driving force of the changes in industrial lands along the Canal in Hangzhou. In fact, the moment when Hangzhou, jointly with other Chinese Canal cities, decided to apply for the “world-class title”, the Hangzhou section almost completely entered the “heritage era” and encountered new developmental opportunities, along with the comprehensive and profound cultural changes that happened throughout the whole area. In the Nomination file of the Chinese Grand Canal as a World Heritage site4, it simultaneously highlighted the protection and utilization of industrial heritage along the route. From the analysis performed using the AntConc (version 4.2.4) software package, with the exception of words or phrases like the grand canal/the canal/article/China/Chinese, “conservation” (749 times) and words such as heritage/site/environmental, area/zone/range, and management/requirement/measure have been jointly used most frequently (see Figure 10). Therefore, with the focus being on conservation, the atmosphere, and the environment of ancient China, after nearly 20 years of a heritage movement with Chinese characteristics, and since landscape, tourism, and ecology have become the main functions of canals in post-industrial societies, the Hangzhou section has been completely transformed, especially with regard to the changes in industrial lands (see Figure 11).

Gongchen Bridge, one of the major Chinese historical and cultural sites protected at the national level, represented not only the final stop along the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal (one of the three parts of the Chinese Grand Canal) in the past, but also half of Hangzhou’s history. From the late Qing Dynasty to the 1910s, the Gongchen Bridge area developed into a settlement of shipping, individual industrialists and modern industrial workers, while also being an important commercial center in modern Hangzhou. Meanwhile, the west side of Gongchen Bridge (“Qiaoxi” in Chinese) became a light textile industrial zone which has since been renovated as the Qiaoxi Conservation Area, which is not only one of the eight World Heritage sites in the Hangzhou section, but was also selected in the Second Batch of National Tourism and Leisure Streets issued by the PRC Ministry of Culture and Tourism. After the Chinese industrialization, Gongchen Bridge connected modern lifestyles and industrial factories with traditional history and residential buildings, and became an important link for the formation of Hangzhou’s modern industrial culture (see Figure 12). To fully utilize its status as a World Heritage site, Qiaoxi has integrated residential and commercial areas, creative industries, and cultural tourism, reflecting the modern design style, civilian residential culture, and warehousing and transportation features. Consequently, on the one hand, in terms of current provincial cultural policies and local cultural markets, the major cultural products focus mainly on the historic conservation areas and highlight the complex history and style of Hangzhou as the capital of the Chinese Southern Song Dynasty, while few elements relevant to the industrial past, spirits, or features remain. On the other hand, the few remaining industrial heritage cultural products present a fragmented, misleading, or even false industrial past, especially considering the profound changes witnessed or even damage caused to the “authenticity” and “integrity” of those examples of industrial heritage supported by the Canal.

3.2.2. TICCIH and Perspective of Industrial Heritage

For the purposes of the UNESCO World Heritage List, The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH) issued The International Canal Monuments List5 in 1996, and evaluated the Chinese Grand Canal as “one of the most influential waterways”, thus providing an industrial heritage perspective for it to be inscribed as a World Heritage site. Since the Wuxi Proposal was issued, “industrial heritage” has gradually moved from a being new subject in the academic realm to a rather prominent public issue for the whole society of China. Similarly to countries like the UK, which entered deindustrialization, plenty of industrial lands in major Chinese cities along the Canal, such as Hangzhou, were discarded, eradicated, or left derelict following rapid technological developments and changes in industrial production systems [19]. Additionally, since “regeneration via industrial heritage” [20] has been implemented successfully beyond the UK and Europe, industrial heritage has become a sustainable approach and an important geographical component that restores the cultural, social, and economic value of old industrial landscapes [21,22,23]. However, as industrial heritage is characterized by a complicated system, large scale, wide land area, bulky volume, and being too heavy to easily move, cultural development also suffers from an insufficient demand side, conflicting stakeholders, reuse issues, a lack of economic benefits, authenticity issues, and a lack of community awareness [24]. For instance, Xiaohe Park in Hangzhou, which used to be the Sinopec Xiaohe Oil Depot—the first oil depot of Zhejiang Province, founded in 1950—opened to the public in September 2022 and was built as an influential canal tourism spot characterized by artistic oil tanks, plants, workshops, and green belt along the Canal (Figure 13). Though tourists and the media are often prominently attracted, Xiaohe Park has been criticized via professional sections mainly due to the destruction of its authenticity and integrity, as well as the detraction of genius loci, especially when judged from high-resolution satellite imagery (HRSI) at different historical sections (see Figure 14). Therefore, though industrialization on the industrial lands has totally disappeared into history, the perspective of industrial heritage and local industrial culture should not be entirely erased and neglected.

4. Discussion

Industrial lands have witnessed, participated in, and experienced the very process of demolishment, eradication, or forsakenness after the widespread industrial recession of China following the early 21st century, and their combination with cultural industries has become the major characteristic of this cultural change. As the southernmost point of the Chinese Grand Canal, Hangzhou’s development has for quite a long time relied mainly on the Canal’s main business formats of rice shops, wooden shops, local specialty shops, and bamboo charcoal, and most residents are merchants, small homeowners, pier porters, canal trackers, and other urban civilians from the middle and lower classes. In the subsequent decades, the Hangzhou section experienced the industrialization, modernization, and urbanization of the whole city at different historical times, and then partially developed cultural products mainly via its many industrial lands and industrial heritage after this large-scale social change.

4.1. Quantitative Analysis

For a more visualized interpretation, the quantitative results of Figure 9 were compiled as a gradual change figure (see Figure 15). In addition, these results could be further analyzed according to three aspects: firstly, in general, none of the sites obtained a comparatively decent score since the highest one was only 24′ (the maximum possible score is 40′), and there were even four cases only scoring in single digits, and two cases just scored 10′. This clearly demonstrates that although industrial lands and industrial heritage were regarded as major resources to drive the cultural regeneration for the Canal sector in Chinese cities, the core of the industrial culture, especially its tightly bound relationship with the Canal, has not been fully interpretated. In addition, the major historical information on how those industrial lands supported the industrialization and daily lives of the public has not been comprehensively covered. Secondly, relatively speaking, the cases of the Hangzhou Silk United Dye Factory and Tongyi Government-run Yarn Factory both achieved the highest score. The primary reason for this is that the major leaders of the local government have strongly supported the conservation and adaptive reuse of the sites; for example, Mr. Wang Guoping, former Hangzhou Municipal Party Secretary, personally prevented the demolition of the sawtooth-shaped buildings of the Hangzhou Silk United Dye Factory. Furthermore, with the continuous efforts from the provincial government, the Tongyi Government-run Yarn Factory was enlisted in the National Key Cultural Relics Protection Units of China. Therefore, local governments have assumed great influence and responsibility towards cultural practices on industrial lands. Thirdly, almost none of the cases have laid emphasis on the interpretation of production processes, industrial technology, industrial spirit, and history, which should be critically evaluated especially considering the importance of activating and delivering the genius loci of the industrial past. Though it perhaps is not unusual in other sites or cases in the country, the purpose of the Chinese Grand Canal’s World Heritage status, as well as the local path dependence of making historical complexes in ancient style, especially in cities like Hangzhou and Yangzhou, was the main motivation behind it. Therefore, to some extent, the industrial lands and the existing industrial past were somehow intentionally concealed or whitewashed by policymakers, which has almost certainly caused cultural losses to some extent but also successfully produced new cultural significance and cultural spaces, especially in the process of cultural change along the Canal.

4.2. Make of Ancient Style

After the rather rapid heritage movement with Chinese style and active demands on the development of cultural and creative industries, especially the national purpose of being successfully inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, diversified cultural practices have been implemented in the industrial lands along the Hangzhou section. Though this kind of cultural change happened quite normally when plenty of Chinese cities successively entered post-industrialization society—an exception to this was the Zhejiang Hemp Textile Factory, which was almost demolished to create a modern residential neighborhood—the replacement of industrial past and lands with deliberately artificial ancient-style streets or complexes after mass demolition, in cities like Hangzhou, is still comparatively infrequent and could be defined as “make of ancient”. In general, this change can be observed and accessed via three types. The very first was to “Conceal” the industrial past of the industrial lands, and to deliberately hide the industrial elements, especially on the external façade of the factories, plants, or auxiliary buildings. For example, the Hangzhou No. 1 Cotton Spinning Factory, Tongyi Government-run Yarn Factory, and Honglei Silk Weaving Factory were successively reconstructed or changed into cultural museums run by a civilian-oriented thematic museum group, with the interpretation and presentation of Chinese historical traditional handicrafts like oil-paper umbrellas and green tea. The second type was the “Transformation” of original industrial lands into creative industry platforms or clusters. For example, the Dahe Shipyard and Hangzhou Oxygen Plant Group Company Limited were transformed, respectively, into “Canal World” and “Wulinzhixing Expo Center”—two comprehensive cultural and commercial parks with a cinema or restaurants replacing workshops and plants; the Hangzhou Silk United Dye Factory, one of the major programs of China’s First Five-year Plan, was totally transformed into a creative industrial park with a café, clothing shop, and photography studio. The last type was to “Emphasize” the industrial past. Like the Sinopec Xiaohe Oil Depot, the Hangzhou Iron and Steel Plant and Hangzhou Oil Refinery jointly stressed their industrial history and context, and shed light upon the intrinsic production flow even with a digital approach. Presently, they have been successively rebuilt into public canal industrial parks or art centers. However, what needs to be stressed is that industrial and public cultural practice, as seen in Xiaohe park, is still actually embedded into the landscape of the “artificial ancient” (see Figure 16).

4.3. Loss and Justified Reasons

After widespread industrial recession, the Chinese cultural tourism industry derived from industrial heritage commenced in the early 2000s and has boosted and propelled the local creative economy and nostalgia industry into prominence. However, at present, from the analysis above, relevant cultural products have either derogated the authenticity and integrity of local industrial history, or discarded its industrial spirit, with the industrial history of the whole city being largely obliterated. Additionally, almost none of the cultural products completely preserved the industrial heritage sites intact, such as the whole factory complex, the produce line, or workers’ community, since those traditional industrial cities have been eager to get involved with global competition rather than reflecting on and protecting their past industrial culture [25]; however, what makes industrial heritage important is it preserves the trace of technological progress, landscape evolution, and changes via humans upon the surface of the Earth [26]. What is worse, relevant cultural products either derogated the authenticity and integrity of local industrial history, or discarded its industrial spirit, even largely obliterating the industrial history of the whole city.

In Hangzhou, after the rapid process of economic development and deindustrialization, some factories, constructions, or plants deployed along the Canal were closed or demolished, and the surviving ones were constructed as cultural resources and shaped as cultural attractions characterized with ancient Chinese style rather than an industrial past. Furthermore, today, more than 60% of the creative industries and zones in Hangzhou have been transformed via industrial heritage, but few of them have improved public awareness of how Hangzhou has been shaped by its Canal industrial history, or offered the novel cultural experience of industrial heritage tourism [27], which has caused great cultural loss. Therefore, these fragmented, irrelevant, discarded, and ostensible reuses of industrial heritage have almost certainly produced fraudulent information and caused cultural damage, presenting the typically complicated relationship between heritage values and urban cultural development [28] In this regard, reasons justifying this could safely be concluded as follows: (1) To stress the long age of the Canal and its cultural heritage. As the Chinese Grand Canal has been flowing for thousands of years, creating an ancient environment along the route of Hangzhou, the capital of the Southern Song dynasty (1127–1279), could be quite helpful for highlighting the long age of its cultural heritage, as well as the whole city. In fact, this could even deliberately safeguard the ancient style and elements, such as the local government buildings, or installing another modern steel bridge for motorcars or electro-mobiles to protect Guangji Bridge. (2) To avoid showing the facts of recession in the industrial lands. “Dirty, smelly, and nasty” are the key words of industrial recession throughout the world. After the 2000s, considering the rapid economic boom and urbanization of China, dilapidated and rusty factories could surely be easily eradicated to quickly cover over the evidence of recession, and to integrate modern acoustic and optoelectronic technology with ancient buildings instead. (3) To promote economic development and land prices. Within the process and purpose of World Heritage, Hangzhou has invested significant resources in the area along the Grand Canal, and industrial lands in the area should naturally be cleared, and a premium water-friendly platform offered by the Canal could promptly promote local economic development and raise the price level of commercial properties around the area (see Figure 17).

4.4. Canal-Based Tourism Products via Industrial Lands

Globally speaking, most of canals have gone through the heritage movement in the post-industrial and anti-industrial eras, and canal-based tourism products have been developed in these former industrial lands; for example, in the Belgium Antwerp canal system, old warehouses were renovated into luxury hotels and the shipping dock was transformed into a sightseeing dock; in the 1970s, sludge was removed from the river bottom of the Japan Otaru canal, and water quality was improved to regenerate the historic view of the canal; located at the confluence of the Ruhr and the Rhine, Duisburg of Germany replaced its coal and steel industries with a sustainable tourism model. Hangzhou, as one of the nationally renowned Chinese tourist attractions and landmark cities along the Grand Canal, has given high priority to tourism development; for instance, Hangzhou Municipal Government specially established the Hangzhou Canal Comprehensive Protection, Development, and Construction Group Co. in 2003, and designed three special flagship water bus sightseeing lines in 2005. At present, the tourism products along Hangzhou’s section of the Canal can be divided into three categories: water sightseeing (such as a waterborne bus), historical blocks and towns (such as Qiaoxi Conservation Area), and cultural industries (such as LOFT49 Creative City Pioneer Zone). While successfully gaining significant economic benefits and reputation, it has simultaneously driven profound cultural change and loss, especially in terms of former industrial lands and industrial heritage along the route, especially their integrity and authenticity. Additionally, since tourism is the leading industry in the digital transformation of cultural heritage management, the digital contents and products for current Canal culture development (Hangzhou section) should be replenished and developed.

4.5. Suggestion for Digitalization

The mentioned loss and deficiency of industrial elements and context could somehow be changed via digital technologies. In recent times, digital reuse and access to heritage have become more than a global academic consensus. In the early 21st century, “digital” has been introduced as tools or supplements to the development of cultural heritage, with the purpose of landscape [29], edutainment [30], museums [31,32], and design. Subsequently, “digital” has been widely used in planning and reuse of heritage, and “digital” improvements and innovations have been organized as toolkits or systems, such as a virtual exhibition system called MNEME (from the Ancient Greek for ‘memory’) [33], and a digital solution that expresses the genius loci of architectural heritage by employing digital visualization [34]. While the digital reality of heritage become a reliable surrogate and permanent digital protection has been justified [35], the digitalization of cultural heritage, especially virtual reality and augmented reality (such as a virtual tour of Newcastle Merewether coal pit), has proceeded variously for conservation and cultural development. Internationally speaking, research and practice on cultural heritage have experienced a comprehensively digital movement for nearly 30 years, and China has strongly promoted the integration of culture and technology for more than two decades, especially with the elevation of the Digitization of Culture as a Chinese national strategy in March 2021, during which a comparatively novel cultural reality has been constructed, and a new context of cultural identity has been formed. “Intangibility” as the essence of cultural heritage [36] has justified a “staging authenticity” created by digital technology on information collection, smart heritage, immersive experience, online tourism, digital cultural creation, and public engagement towards the available heritage. The digitization of industrial heritage refers to the conversion of relevant information of industrial heritage into digital form, encoding and introducing it into computers for storage, calculation, analysis, model construction, and display. It has the advantages of reversibility, intuitiveness, innovation, and non-distortion. Emphasizing the application of digital technology in the protection and updating of industrial heritage can maximize the preservation of industrial heritage authenticity and reduce the loss of original information. Obviously, digitalization could break the geographical and temporal connections established by heritage elements [37], during the process of realization of basic values to advanced values [38].

In Hangzhou, three examples of World Heritage have been inscribed, and the digital transformation and Internet technology development of the whole city has been greatly promoted for more than 10 years. Indeed, Hangzhou is the first city in China to witness the application of GIS embedded with industrial heritage with the construction of the Hangzhou Industrial Heritage Database. Therefore, restoration, construction, and promotion in the digital world are quite needed. Additionally, as early as was officially issued, Article 23 stated that it is encouraged, and Article 26 proposes to encourage the integration of the use of the Grand Canal heritage with science and technology, develop related special cultural products and services, and promote the digital application of the Grand Canal heritage 6. On 18th April 2022, the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Economy and Information Technology and nine other provincial departments jointly released the Zhejiang Provincial Action Plan for Promoting the Development of Industrial Culture, highlighting the promotion of industrial heritage along the Grand Canal, as well as the use of modern information technologies to create a group of new digital, visual, and intelligent industrial museums for enhancing visitors’ sense of experience, participation, and interaction7. Less than one year later, the MIIT issued the Administration of National Industrial Heritage with emphasis on systematic participation and digital management in the preservation and utilization of national industrial heritage along the Chinese Grand Canal. Therefore, considering the irreversible damage to industrial buildings, elements, and components, the development of digitalized products for tourism, mainly focusing on the integration of the physical and virtual worlds, is more required now than before. Concerning its approach, through the rapid development of cultural digitalization in China, panorama view technology, point clouds, and other solutions have been collaboratively used and interpreted mainly over the relevant cases of Xiaohe Park, Silk United 166, and the Hangzhou Iron and Steel Group Industrial Heritage Park (see Figure 18).

5. Conclusions

In practice, a typical, widespread, and far-reaching cultural change over industrial lands has taken place in the Hangzhou section of the Chinese Grand Canal after extensive industrial recession and at a comparatively fast rate. By analyzing the whole process with abundant data, fieldwork, and investigations, what we mainly found could be safely concluded into three points: firstly, the main functions of the Canal have shifted from an important industrial base and transport platform to a cultural tourism setting, making visible the achievements of the Chinese government’s ecological management of the route; secondly, the Hangzhou section has transformed from an industrial zone and shanty town to an important economic center and recreational area in the city, and in this process, large numbers of industrial lands were dissipated into history, and changed to real estate, museums, creative industries parks, leisure and educational spots, and commercial complexes; but thirdly, unusually, Hangzhou has deliberately changed the industrial lands, which was the evidence of industrialization and urbanization after the founding of the PRC, to an artificial appearance of “ancient China”, which was not only an established policy before and after the Canal was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, but also, to a certain extent, an attempt to cater to the stereotype of “ancient China” in the world context. Although the presentation and dissemination of industrial culture has resulted in a cultural loss, it has also been more successful in enhancing economic and social benefits and the image of the region.

The contributions of our research could be argued mainly in three aspects: firstly, it critically presented the features of and reasons for the reuse of industrial lands along the Hangzhou section, offering a “cultural practice with Chinese characteristics” for a World Heritage context; secondly, it offered a novel interpretation and elucidation for what has happened throughout the major cities along the Canal after the 2000s in China, and meanwhile, it proposed applicable cultural scenes via remote sensing and an evaluation system; thirdly, it demonstrated the major changes in the Canal’s functions from industrialization and poor-quality households to tourism, leisure, and hospitality.

Finally, in terms of methodology, we suggest to appropriately apply HRSI and interpretate changes in land use not only economically or historically but also culturally, and to deliberately determine the factors in the assessment processes considering the research span and reality, and to especially think and argue globally with the emphasis on its world values. Not only for canals, the methodology of our research could also be carried out in waterfronts, ports, or harbors with the purpose of examining cultural developments in the world.