Exploring the Co-construction and Sharing Model for Linear Cultural Heritage Monitoring Archives: A Case Study of the Grand Canal in China

Exploring the Co-construction and Sharing Model for Linear Cultural Heritage Monitoring Archives: A Case Study of the Grand Canal in China | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Exploring the Co-construction and Sharing Model for Linear Cultural Heritage Monitoring Archives: A Case Study of the Grand Canal in China Qingqing Yang, Hao Yao, Shuonan Guo, Xinran Zhou, Ye Chen This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7785614/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Linear Cultural Heritage (LCH), such as the Great Wall and Grand Canal in China and the Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France, derives its significance from its interconnected whole rather than from the isolated significance of individual sites. Monitoring archives document the conditions, management, and development activities of all LCH components. Integrating and cross-validating these records is crucial for understanding LCH in its entirety and enabling integrated conservation. However, the cross-regional and cross-sectoral nature of LCH has produced various monitoring archives, hindering its effective management and conservation. Using China’s Grand Canal as a case study, this study examines the sources and scope of LCH monitoring archives while identifying the actors and resources involved in their co-construction and sharing. It summarizes practices of archive co-sharing and proposes a co-construction and sharing model for LCH monitoring archives. This model, centered on heritage site monitoring and management, was built on a common platform and unified data standards. It adopts a “two-level management” structure and “multi-departmental records integration,” fostering synergy between monitoring and archival systems. The Grand Canal case demonstrates that common co-construction and sharing of World Cultural Heritage monitoring archives meet universal needs and has universal scenario orientation. The proposed model offers a replicable framework for the long-term management and protection of world cultural heritage, particularly LCH. linear culture heritage monitoring archives co-construction and sharing model cultural heritage monitoring Figures Figure 1 1 Introduction Linear Cultural Heritage (LCH) originates from cultural routes and encompasses tangible and intangible cultural heritage within linear or banded regions containing distinctive cultural resources (Shan 2019 ). Combining linear distribution with cultural heritage, LCH spans broader spatial scales and incorporates more diverse elements than point-based heritage, revealing the richness of human history and regional identity more effectively. It embodies interconnected sites and contextual resources, reflecting dynamic cultural exchanges and forming a networked spatial relationship where collective value surpasses individual significance. Thus, expanding protection from isolated sites to entire linear areas helps preserve heritage clusters and interpret their overall value. Monitoring is a key tool in cultural heritage management, providing real-time or cyclical information for decision-making, risk prediction, and preventive conservation. Monitoring archives generated during the LCH monitoring document the management, protection, and development of various elements. Integrating monitoring archives from different heritage elements is vital for understanding LCH as a whole and achieving holistic, integrated conservation. The value of LCH lies in individual sites and their interconnections—a dimension that fragmented archives fail to capture, limiting holistic interpretation. Fragmentation also blocks macro-level insights, complicating the formulation of scientific conservation and sustainable management strategies. As LCH often spans multiple administrative regions (or even countries) and departments, its management is typically multi-level and decentralized. Consequently, monitoring archives are diverse, fragmented, and stored in various carriers and formats. Worsening this issue, archives maintained by separate regional and sectoral entities operate independently, creating information islands that restrict circulation and sharing. Therefore, effective archiving and integration of LCH monitoring data across regions has become a critical research focus. Multiregional, multi-sector involvement poses a major challenge in managing LCH globally. Current studies examine tourism development, ecological protection, geographic information, history, and culture, such as assessing the value of LCH (Brinia et al. 2019 ), constructing activation and utilization modes (Li & Zou 2022 ), and exploring protection modes (Liu et al. 2021 ). Among these, collecting, preserving, and applying LCH data has been the main research focus. Examples include creating LCH tourism maps using spatial, cultural, and tourism data (Huang et al. 2017 ), building digital twin systems with remote sensing based on unmanned aerial vehicles (Pan et al. 2024 ), and analyzing the spatial evolution of LCH structures (Li 2019 ). From the monitoring perspective, with growing global attention to cultural heritage and advances in research, more systematic methods have emerged. For instance, the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has gradually established reactive monitoring and periodic reporting mechanisms through its revision. Beyond official frameworks, scholars have extensively investigated cultural heritage monitoring practices, focusing on specific heritage sites across four domains: monitoring system design and implementation (Lin et al. 2015 ; Nalad C et al. 2015), technological applications in heritage monitoring (Gribaudo et al. 2017 ; Lin et al. 2022 ), tracking environmental and anthropogenic impacts, and advancing digital archiving using monitoring data (Lin et al. 2022 ). Among these, research on LCH often concentrates on individual sites, such as the Silk Road (Tang et al. 2024 ) and Great Wall, and mainly analyzes the application of monitoring methods or technologies. Few studies have examined archive monitoring from a holistic management perspective, despite the need for dynamic, cross-regional archival systems that enable integrated conservation and authentic interpretation. Existing research mainly emphasizes developing archival resources (Chang 2024 ; Zhao & Zhang 2024 ), archiving (Chen 2009 ), and integrating (Xu 2024) resources for specific LCHs while giving limited attention to cross-sector or cross-regional co-construction and sharing. To address these shortcomings, this study proposes a management model for the co-construction and sharing of LCH monitoring archives from an archival perspective, using the Grand Canal as a practical case. Based on literature analysis and practical investigation, this study extracts practical experience from three dimensions—resource, normative, and management—and integrates them into a comprehensive model for co-construction and sharing LCH monitoring archives. 2 Linear Culture Heritage and its Monitoring Archives: A Literature Review 2.1 Linear Culture Heritage, Heritage Corridors, and Cultural Routes Heritage takes many forms. Rivers, canyons, and roads are vital manifestations of cultural heritage that represent early human movement routes, reflect regional cultural development, and preserve community memory. However, with ongoing urban expansion and socio-historical changes, the integrity of these sites is increasingly at risk. Various countries and regions have begun to pay closer attention to these heritage resources, conducting extensive research. The official inclusion of “Heritage Canals” and “Heritage Routes” as World Heritage categories in 2005 marked an important step in defining this type of cultural heritage. Different regions emphasize similar cultural heritage in distinct ways, such as “heritage corridors” in the United States, “cultural routes” in Europe, and “Linear Cultural Heritage (LCH)” in China. Emerging from these earlier ideas, the concept of LCH requires an understanding of heritage corridors and cultural routes. 2.1.1 Heritage Corridors In the 1980s, the United States proposed the Heritage Corridor model to protect and utilize canals. Heritage corridors have a dual meaning. The first refers to the spatial organization of the system that manages and conserves linear landscapes and their cultural resources as integrated units. This method adopts a regional, holistic philosophy rather than localized management and, through the federally appointed Heritage Corridor Commission, guides, coordinates, and supports the management, conservation, and utilization of heritage corridors. The second meaning defines heritage corridors as an integrated conservation strategy that protects natural, economic, historical, and cultural resources within designated boundaries. This strategy enhances recreational and economic development while foregrounding cultural significance and multifunctional value (Diamant 1991 ). 2.1.2 Cultural Routes The Council of Europe launched the Cultural Routes Program in 1987 (Culture and Cultural Heritage, n.d.). From the social development and educational cooperation perspective, the European Institute of Cultural Routes (EICR) emphasizes the role of cultural routes in contemporary society, such as promoting youth cultural exchanges, fostering understanding of Europe’s universal values. This reflects the conceptual characteristics of the LCH protection with the European Union as a geocultural subject (Guo & Yang 2015 ). In 1994, the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Cultural Routes was established, and in 2008, it issued The ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes , which defines them as any land, water, or other communication route, physically delimited and historically functional, created to serve a clear purpose (“The ICOMOS Charter” 2008). ICOMOS emphasizes its role in promoting intercultural dialogue, continuity, and dynamism across time and space. UNESCO adopted the term “Heritage Route” and inscribed it as a special heritage category in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in 2005 (ICOMOS n.d.), highlighting their cultural significance through the exchange of ideas, spatial and temporal continuity, and the principle that the whole holds greater value than the sum of its parts. Despite the different perspectives (EICR focuses on contemporary social values, and ICOMOS/UNESCO focuses on historical and cultural values), all three agree that cultural routes facilitate intercultural dialogue, exhibit spatiotemporal continuity and dynamism, and possess holistic value beyond the simple superimposition of individual heritage elements. 2.1.3 Linear Cultural Heritage In 2006, Jixiang Shan, former director of China’s State Administration of Cultural Heritage, proposed the concept of LCH, defining it as “the tangible and intangible cultural heritage communities within a linear or belt-shaped area with a special collection of cultural resources.” The concept aims to form a connected cultural heritage network through effective linkage along the route, fostering a sustainable heritage ecosystem and facilitating holistic protection and revitalization (Shan 2006 ). China’s cultural heritage protection has shifted from focusing on relics to cultural heritage—from emphasizing single-element sites to safeguarding mixed heritage and cultural landscapes, from protecting discrete points and surfaces to managing large-scale heritage and LCH, and from preserving static sites to supporting dynamic and living heritage (Shan 2007 ). The concept of LCH has evolved, focusing on systematic and living cultural landscapes that reflect the historical development of the Chinese nation. Peking University’s team, led by Prof. Kongjian Yu (2009), established a national LCH network that integrates cultural heritage with ecological preservation, recreation, education, and aesthetics, identifying 19 contemporary cultural heritage sites across four types: transportation routes, military works, natural rivers and water conservation structures, and historically thematic events. Based on existing research and practice, LCH exhibits a “linear” spatial form, “culture” as a core attribute, and “heritage” as its value performance. They emphasize the comprehensive protection of all elements essential to a site’s authenticity and integrity, playing an irreplaceable role in preserving national historical memory and identity. Although heritage corridors, cultural routes, and LCH differ in emphasis, the recognition of such cultural heritage signals a global paradigm shift in how heritage values are assessed. This shift moves from fragmented to integrated conservation, from singular cultural significance to multifunctional values, and from static preservation to dynamic inheritance in contemporary society. Furthermore, this conceptual expansion underscores humanity’s growing emphasis on holistic protection and utilization of cultural heritage worldwide. It expresses the aspiration to catalyze intercultural dialogue and collaboration, strengthen ethnocultural identities and collective memory, and create distinctive national and regional cultural symbols. These concepts are not only concerned with the material preservation of heritage, but also emphasize the adaptive use of heritage, as well as its functionality and value in modern society, so as to achieve cultural inheritance and development in conservation. 2.2 Linear Culture Heritage Monitoring and Archival Management 2.2.1 Characterization of LCH Monitoring The concept of cultural heritage monitoring emerged from an international consensus on World Heritage Protection. Current practices are primarily guided by mechanisms established under the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage . Through extensive deliberation and practice, heritage conservators have developed reactive, periodic, and reinforced monitoring mechanisms widely adopted by state parties. According to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention , heritage monitoring involves the systematic observation and evaluation of the property’s state of conservation to ensure its outstanding universal value, integrity, and authenticity are maintained or enhanced after inscription. The content of heritage monitoring is extensive, comprising the heritage site's authenticity and integrity, external factors like development and environmental pressures, and security preparedness. (World Heritage Centre 2017 ). Beyond formal mechanisms, scholars have extensively discussed cultural heritage monitoring, underscoring its critical role in heritage management and the field’s complexity. Unlike other heritage types, LCH emphasizes the spatial distribution of linear or strip-like features, transforming cultural heritage from isolated “points” into a continuous, interrelated heritage system. It also conveys historical narratives that evolve over time, reflecting multicultural exchanges across temporal and spatial dimensions. These characteristics necessitate monitoring broad geographic areas, multiple heritage elements, and their interactions. However, LCH often spans multiple towns, regions, and even countries, involving diverse sectors and complex elements, which complicates holistic spatial management. Assessing the authenticity and integrity of LCH relies on comprehensive, continuous documentation. Therefore, physical dispersion caused by administrative or geographical boundaries can be mitigated through the integration and exchange of information. Coordination among regional management entities is essential to maintaining LCH’s integrity and continuity, making the archiving, preservation, sharing, and utilization of monitoring data critical and indispensable. 2.2.2 Linear Culture Heritage Monitoring Archives and Archives Work LCH monitoring comprises three components. First, the heritage site is monitored, focusing on its authenticity and integrity. In terms of integrity, LCH emphasizes the concept of “holistic,” which requires quantitative and volumetric assessment of heritage based on authenticity. Monitoring integrity involves tracking changes in spatial location, reductions in the number of heritage sites, and shifts in overall pattern. Second, factors affecting heritage value are monitored, including development pressures (e.g., industrial activities), natural disasters, environmental stressors, and tourism impacts. Third, safety and security monitoring addresses preparedness for natural and human-induced threats (Jiang et al. 2014 p.29). From this perspective, LCH monitoring is extensive, data-intensive, and requires significant effort. Unlike other heritage archives, monitoring archives are highly specialized, dynamic, and practical. They involve professional knowledge from fields such as hydrology, transportation, meteorology, and urban construction. Moreover, they must be consistently updated to reflect actual heritage conditions and provide real-time support for decision-making and management. Even after archiving, monitoring archives continue to serve as research data, management references, and foundational materials for conservation and development. Therefore, as an essential basis for monitoring, decision-making, and scientific research, the archiving, management, development, and utilization of LCH monitoring archives must meet strong practical demands—honoring the past while fulfilling responsibilities for the future. Scholars have recognized the importance of monitoring data for World Heritage since the inception of the World Heritage Monitoring Mechanism. In 1999, ICCROM and ICOMOS collaborated on a draft monitoring manual, emphasizing that “adequate and effective data collection must also reflect the complex interrelationships between all relevant factors in all relevant fields and focus on World Heritage values within the overall framework of the data established” (Grand Canal Heritage Protection and Management Office n.d.). However, research on LCH monitoring—converting technical applications, data collection, and knowledge representation—has largely overlooked the construction, management, and sharing of archival resources across regions and stakeholders. While collecting and archiving data for a single heritage site is feasible, coordinating archival sharing across multiple regions and actors remains challenging. Furthermore, in the digital era, cultural heritage monitoring relies primarily on informatization through which monitoring systems and databases are built to support monitoring, recording, early warning, and assessment. This reliance can create incompatibilities between systems in different regions, further complicating the development and sharing of monitoring archives across LCH regions. In conclusion, the management and protection of LCH require holistic and dynamic monitoring archives, built and shared across regions and stakeholders, to ensure comprehensive management and accurate interpretation of value. However, existing research has predominantly focused on site-specific data acquisition and organization, with limited attention to the construction, management, or cross-regional sharing of monitoring archives. To address these gaps, this study uses the Grand Canal as a case study to explore the sources, scope, and application of LCH monitoring archives, identify practical challenges in archival sharing, and propose a co-construction and sharing model to inform future practices. 3 Research Method: A Case Study on the Grand Canal This study employs a case study approach because the co-construction and sharing of LCH monitoring archives present a practical challenge that requires a practice-oriented method to identify specific needs and difficulties. Insights from such cases are intended to provide lessons applicable in other contexts. The Grand Canal is chosen as a case study due to its representativeness as an LCH, the systematic nature of its monitoring and early warning processes, and the prospective nature of its monitoring archive co-construction and sharing. The Grand Canal of China, also called the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal, is the world’s longest canal and was recognized as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 2014. It is an ancient Chinese water conservancy project, first excavated at the end of the Spring and Autumn Period (486 BC), with major expansions during the Sui (581–618 AD) and Yuan (1271–1368 AD) dynasties, linking natural river channels through dredging and repairing. It remains partially navigable, supporting regional irrigation, flood control, water supply, and cultural and economic exchange between northern and southern China. Spanning eight provincial-level administrative regions and 35 cities, the Grand Canal covers a basin area of 311,000 km².This megaproject crosses diverse landscapes and communities, exemplifying LCH. It has witnessed dynasties changes and historical development, accumulating profound cultural significance and making it a precious part of cultural heritage of humans. Owing to its vast, cross-regional span, early monitoring of the Grand Canal was fragmented and unsystematic. In 2006, the city of Yangzhou in Jiangsu Province took the lead and formally began work on a joint UNESCO World Heritage application. This pivotal endeavor catalyzed the systematic implementation of heritage monitoring, ultimately establishing a “two-tier platform with a three-level management” framework. During this process, the Grand Canal Heritage Conservation and Management Office standardized monitoring requirements across various heritage sections and successfully established a generalized platform for monitoring and early warning, supporting the overall monitoring system. Simultaneously, common indicators for monitoring data were developed, providing a vital basis for system functionality (Guoxin Sinan n.d.) and comprehensively constructing the Grand Canal heritage monitoring and early warning system, spanning management, platform, and data specifications (Jiang et al. 2014 , p.127). Moreover, the monitoring platform integrates the full lifecycle of monitoring data—from acquisition and processing to utilization and storage. Concurrently, by deploying a monitoring system, it integrates database and archival management systems. This synergy builds a unified “heritage monitoring and archiving system,” enabling multi-level data interfacing across “national, provincial, municipal, and heritage site” to achieve systematic archiving, preservation, management, and sharing of monitoring data. The case analysis is conducted in two stages. First, it examines the policy documents, technical architecture, operational mechanisms, and workflows of the Grand Canal’s monitoring system to identify the sources, scope, and value of monitoring archives while distilling practical experience in archival co-construction and sharing. Second, it abstracts these empirical findings into a generalized paradigm for the co-construction and sharing of LCH monitoring archives. 4 Co-Construction and Sharing Practice of the Grand Canal Monitoring Archives China has established a comprehensive monitoring and early warning system for the Grand Canal, encompassing data standardization, management models, and platform construction. The system incorporated monitoring data from 31 heritage sections, 85 heritage elements, and multiple departments into a unified framework, enabling a holistic understanding of the provenance and scope of Grand Canal archives. Standardized norms ensure consistent archive management, while the “two-tier platform and three-level management” framework clarifies roles and responsibility, laying the foundation for the co-construction and sharing of the Grand Canal monitoring archives at organizational and managerial levels. Additionally, the archival system’s embedded design within the monitoring platform provides technical support for collaborative construction and utilization. Based on these features, this study synthesizes Grand Canal practices into four dimensions: resources, norms, management, and technology. 4.1 Resource Layer: Clarifying the Scope and Sources of Monitoring Archives 4.1.1 Defining the Scope of Sources of Archives for Monitoring the Whole Region The scope of monitoring and archiving is primarily determined by the criterion of “the main factors affecting the outstanding universal value, authenticity and integrity of the heritage of the Grand Canal. (Wu 2014 )” Spatially, the “Guidelines for Monitoring and Archival System Construction of the Grand Canal Heritage” (National cultural heritage administration, 2013) stipulates the statutory monitoring area to include heritage core area and their buffer area—peripheral areas that may impact the Canal. Relevant river courses, hydraulic facilities, ancient architectural complexes, historical and cultural districts, and ruins within the heritage core area and buffer area were also included in the monitoring scope, with 31 heritage sections delineated. Moreover, 27 river sections and 58 key heritage sites of the 31 heritage sections were selected based on the characteristics of the heritage elements, totaling 85 monitoring units. Monitoring content is classified into three extensive categories: the heritage itself, environmental and anthropogenic factor, and management behavior. Heritage monitoring includes hydraulic remains, ancillary structures, related relics, and integrated heritage systems, covering specific elements such as river channels, ancient buildings, villages, dikes, and stone carvings. Monitoring of environmental and anthropogenic factors encompasses air quality, meteorological conditions, geology and hydrology, ecological environment, natural disasters, urban development, planning and construction, vessel traffic volume, population settlement, and pollution discharge. Management behavior monitoring focuses on five aspects: tourism, protective intervention, display and utilization, management and safeguarding, and security and fire prevention. Specific monitoring objects include tourist volume, progress of archaeological excavations, conservation projects, and the conditions of key services and display facilities. (Jiang et al. 2014 , p.139–146) Together, the data collected from these monitoring objects constitute a blueprint for the Grand Canal. This blueprint encompasses foundational information about the heritage site itself and dynamic data reflecting environmental changes, conservation measures, and management activities, all of which are essential components of monitoring archives. 4.1.2 Clarifying the Main Body of Monitoring File Formation At the national level, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage and the Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring Center oversee coordination across the country. At the provincial level, Provincial Cultural Heritage Bureaus and the Heritage Monitoring Centers manage upstream and downstream operations that direct the monitoring activities of local heritage sections. At the municipal and county levels, authorities are responsible for implementing daily monitoring tasks. Records generated during monitoring are primarily maintained by each heritage site. Horizontally, monitoring cannot be conducted solely by the Grand Canal administration; it requires cross-sectoral collaboration. Effective heritage monitoring integrates existing systems and equipment from multiple authorities, enabling comprehensive, basin-wide coverage through interdepartmental coordination. For instance, in the Yangzhou section of the Grand Canal, monitoring archives are sourced from the Grand Canal heritage sections organizations and various authorities overseeing different heritage sections. The Water Resources Bureau monitors the Huaiyang Canal Main Line's urban section, the Hydrology Bureau is responsible for water level monitoring and early warnings, and the Landscape Architecture Bureau tracks the urban greening situation and greening rate. Further collaboration comes from the Meteorological Bureau on catastrophic weather, the Earthquake Bureau on seismic events, and the Tourism Bureau on the tourism situation in the region, including the number of visitors to each heritage site, analysis, and tourism development (Jiang et al. 2014 , p.173). 4.2 Normative Layer: Ensuring Data Readability in Monitoring Archives Data standardization and normalization are essential prerequisites for effective information integration and sharing. The Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage has issued a series of technical specifications to support the construction of the World Heritage Monitoring Platform and related information management. These include the General Table of Chinese World Cultural Heritage Monitoring Data, Table of Meta data and Monitoring Indicators , Specification of Basic Data for China’s World Cultural Heritage , Norms of Coding of Chinese World Cultural Heritage Sites , Rules for Writing Monitoring Data for China’s World Cultural Heritage , and Technical Specification for Data Docking of China’s Monitoring and Early Warning Integrated Platform for World Cultural Heritage. ” These documents establish standards for the scope, naming, format, and recording of basic heritage data and monitoring indicators, providing critical guidance for data collection and forming a foundation for integrated monitoring and archiving. Building on this, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage uniformly formulated monitoring data specification, common monitoring indicators, and archive metadata sheets, tailored to the Grand Canal, unifying the standard of archive resources across all heritage sections. For instance, based on the Monitoring Indicator System of China’s World Cultural Heritage , the State Administration of Cultural Heritage formulated common monitoring indicators for the Grand Canal, including heritage monitoring, environmental and anthropogenic factor monitoring, and management behavior monitoring. Each heritage section then adapted these common indicators to its local context, refining the monitoring metrics accordingly. For example, the common indicators for a river object are broken down into more specific categories, such as “Basic Information”, “Quality of water environment”, “Functions of water bodies” and “Riverbed morphology.” Among these, the “Water level” indicator under “Basic Information” requires data points such as east longitude, north latitude, the highest and lowest monthly water levels, and the alert level in meters(Jiang et al. 2014 , p.165–168). 4.3 Management Layer: Coordinating the “Flow” of Monitoring Archival 4.3.1 Cross-Regional Synergy: “Two-Tier Platform, Three-Level Management” Architecture Management Model To coordinate the monitoring of each heritage section and enable basin-wide oversight, the Grand Canal monitoring program has implemented a “two-tier platform and three-level management” structure. The “two-tier platform” comprises a national integrated platform (first-tier) and heritage site-specific platforms (second-tier) built on a shared general platform, ensuring seamless coordination between the two tiers. The “three-level management” system establishes a hierarchical responsibilities monitoring organization spanning the national, provincial (municipalities directly under the central government), city, and county (heritage sections) levels. At the national level, the Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring Centre oversees overall planning, coordination, and guidance for monitoring activities. At the provincial level (municipalities directly under the central government), cultural relics departments supervise monitoring and management within their jurisdictions and oversee the operation of heritage management. Similarly, archive management is organized at the national and heritage section levels, with each focusing on its respective operational scopes. The National Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring Center has established a national archive center responsible for deploying monitoring and archive systems, formulating standards, and guiding archival work, serving a coordinating and overarching role. Each heritage section has also established a “Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring and Archives Centre” to coordinate the construction, integration, and accessibility of its archival resources (Zhang 2021 ). 4.3.2 Cross-Sectoral Collaboration: Functional Integration and Data Sharing Mechanism To strengthen exchanges and cooperation between different fields, the Grand Canal has established a collaborative mechanism between heritage management departments and other agencies. This mechanism coordinates major issues involving multiple sectors in the protection of the Grand Canal’s heritage and clarifies the division of responsibilities among departments and regions. Specifically, at the provincial level, a leading provincial group is headed by the deputy governor in charge and includes heads of the Department of Culture (Cultural Relics Bureau) and other related departments, as well as representatives from cities and municipalities along the route. At the city and county levels, similar leading groups were established, modeled after the provincial group, with offices responsible for daily coordination and the implementation of specific tasks. The leading group clarifies the responsibilities of each member unit (e.g., the Environmental Protection Bureau handles environmental monitoring, while the Water Conservancy Bureau oversees river maintenance and monitoring). It addresses major multi-industry issues through meetings, documents, and other coordination methods, responds promptly to unforeseen protection challenges, and ensures that monitoring and protection efforts proceeds in an organized manner. Based on their respective industrial fields and administrative authority, the relevant departments support the monitoring of the Grand Canal’s heritage by collaborating on routine inspections, providing necessary data and information (e.g., water quality, ecology, and navigational status), and cooperating in the development and application of specialized monitoring technologies. This approach creates a cross-sectoral synergy mechanism, facilitating functional integration and information sharing. 4.4 Technical Layer: Enabling Data “Usability” of Monitoring Archives 4.4.1 Technical Docking Between Local General Platforms and the National Integrated Platform To achieve comprehensive monitoring and management of the Grand Canal, the local monitoring and early warning systems must be technically integrated with the national integrated platform. This allows local systems to transmit monitoring data, early warning information, monitoring reports, and archives promptly. In turn, the national integrated platform can understand and guide the monitoring and early warning operations of the local system in real time, enabling holistic macro-level monitoring of the Grand Canal (Jiang Tang & Zhang 2014). The national integrated platform has established a “Heritage Archives” module to receive and regionally classify archive resources uploaded by heritage sections, facilitating the storage, management, and utilization of digital archives. The general platform for monitoring heritage sections includes an “archive information” module, which is subdivided into “basic information,” “archives management,” “documentation,” “academic exchange,” “treasury management” and “comprehensive query.” These sub-models support the collection, classification, maintenance, and retrieval of archival information. A standardized data-exchange interface connects the national integrated platform and the general platforms, enabling cross-regional data interaction. Based on this framework, heritage sections can adopt national monitoring indicator standards as their local benchmarks, reporting archive data catalogs, monitoring indicators, and early warning and disposal data for each segment to the national platform. Managers can access relevant archive information and monitoring data from local general platforms via the “archive information” module. Simultaneously, users from the national monitoring center down to provincial monitoring centers can log in to access and retrieve information for each heritage site segment. 4.4.2 Integrated Construction of Monitoring System and Archive System The Grand Canal has explored the integration of monitoring and archive systems. To facilitate the management and utilization of monitoring records, the Grand Canal assigned the archive management function to the heritage monitoring department, integrated heritage monitoring with archive management system, and developed the “heritage monitoring and archive system.” This measure effectively creates synergy between archival and monitoring processes and achieves the integration of archive resources. On the one hand, through the Grand Canal’s heritage monitoring and archive system, monitoring data can be archived instantly, and the resulting archives can serve as baseline heritage information, supporting subsequent monitoring work more efficiently and effectively. On the other hand, relying on the synergistic mechanism between the heritage management department and other relevant business departments, the “Heritage Monitoring and Archiving System” connects with monitoring units such as the environmental protection department, hydrology department, forestry department, and meteorology department. This allows monitoring data from different business departments to be uploaded and archived in real time through the system platform. Furthermore, this connection facilitates the flow of monitoring data resources across systems, enhancing the integration and sharing of monitoring archives within the region. 5 Co-Construction and Sharing Model of Linear Culture Heritage Monitoring Archives Taking the Grand Canal of China as an example, its monitoring and archive co-construction and sharing model primarily relies on the management structure of a “two-tier platform and three-level management.” By integrating the monitoring and archive systems, it establishes a full-process management framework that enables cross-regional and inter-sectoral coordination and synergy. This is illustrated as follows: Centered on the monitoring and management of heritage sections, the system leverages the two-tier platform structure (national integrated platform and general platforms for heritage sections) and a three-level hierarchy of powers and responsibilities (national-provincial-city-county levels). This structure coordinates monitoring data collection and archival management across 31 heritage sections and 85 heritage elements throughout the region. Standardized integration of muti- source, heterogeneous data has been achieved through unified standards. Supported by the “China Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring and Archiving System,” the model opens data interfaces with environmental protection, water conservancy, and other departments, promoting real-time archiving and dynamic sharing of monitoring data. It establishes a virtuous cycle of “monitoring data instantly builds archives” and “archival data support the monitoring work.” Within this ecosystem, monitoring archives are not static records but are integrated into monitoring and early-warning operations as benchmark data. Simultaneously, the archive system utilizes technical tools of the monitoring system to achieve full life-cycle management, forming a dynamic closed loop of “business-driven archiving and archive service business.” Based on this practice, this study summarizes and refines the approach of Grand Canal monitoring and archive co-construction and sharing and proposes a model for LCH monitoring and archive co-construction and sharing. Centered on heritage site monitoring and management and supported by general platforms and data standards, it ensures vertical coordination through a “two-level management” framework and facilitates horizontal collaboration via a “multi-departmental records integration” mechanism. By deeply integrating monitoring and archival systems, the model ultimately achieves comprehensive integration, dynamic management, and sustainable application of cultural heritage monitoring archive resources across the region (Fig. 1 ). 5.1 Heritage Site Monitoring Management as the Core This model of monitoring archive co-construction and sharing is not archive-centric; instead, it prioritizes the monitoring management of the heritage site, maintaining a close connection between monitoring archives and ongoing monitoring work. The development of the monitoring index system, the monitoring archive management system, and the integrated construction of the monitoring system all serve to enhance operational efficiency, presenting the integrity of monitoring information resources, accurately represent heritage conditions, and ultimately support the safeguarding and transmission of heritage values. This is exemplified by the Chinese Grand Canal, where archival management functions are assigned to the heritage monitoring and management department, alongside practices emphasizing synergistic management by multilevel and multisectoral agencies. First, the monitoring of LCH is based on a comprehensive understanding of its outstanding universal values. The material carriers of these values are treated as the objects of monitoring and protection, with factors affecting their preservation identified and a system of monitoring indicators established to guide the monitoring archives. Therefore, archiving monitoring data must accurately reflect the condition of monitoring and protection objects, presenting a comprehensive snapshot through the integration of monitoring records across time and space. For example, the Grand Canal employs standardized data interfaces within its monitoring system to ingest, integrate, and archive records in near real time. This approach ensures that monitoring records related to the same heritage element are organically integrated, providing an accurate representation of the heritage’s condition within defined spatiotemporal parameters. Second, while data acquisition is not an end in itself, it ultimately aims to provide decision support for early warnings, conservation management, and improved heritage protection outcomes. Therefore, the transition from monitoring data to monitoring archives is not linear. Archived and preserved monitoring archives serve as baseline data within monitoring management, providing essential information support and services. Monitoring archives are closely related to monitoring activities, and this relevance makes it challenging for archives to exist independently of the objects they document. Finally, the integrated development of monitoring work and archives is conducive to the consolidation of monitoring-related information (including heritage base information) at heritage sites, facilitating efficient monitoring across the region. Furthermore, co-construction does not require unified physical storage. Instead, individual heritage sections retain responsibility for archiving and management by adopting a logical archiving strategy. This approach enables stakeholders to access and share records online, balancing local operational utility with broader interregional and cross-sectoral information-sharing requirements. 5.2 Supported by Data Standards and General Platforms The LCH’s monitoring scope encompasses numerous diverse elements, including the condition of the heritage site, changes in the surrounding environment, anthropogenic influences, and natural disasters. For instance, in the case of the Grand Canal, monitoring content focuses on the structural stability of the river, bridges, locks, and dams and other heritage components; the aging of materials; and the impact of water quality, meteorological factors, land use, and tourism development along the route. This extensive scope necessitates a monitoring system capable of comprehensive, accurate data collection and analysis to support heritage conservation and facilitate coordinated regional decision making. Consequently, LCH monitoring archives are characterized by large volumes, diverse types, and continuous dynamic accumulations. These features require an archival management system with robust data storage and processing abilities, capable of integrating and managing heterogeneous monitoring records while providing timely, efficient, and sustained information support for monitoring and management activities. In the Grand Canal, standardization initiatives, particularly the development of general platforms and unified standards, have established a strong foundation for addressing the aforementioned challenges, setting an exemplary precedent. 5.2.1 Unifying Data Standards LCH monitoring involves extensive data collection and analyses. Unified data standards ensure the consistency and comparability of data across regions and functional departments and enable the integration and analysis of information from diverse sources within a unified framework. This approach improves the accuracy and reliability of monitoring data and facilitates more efficient and convenient data integration. For instance, in monitoring the Grand Canal, divergent data collection methods across regions can hinder interoperability and prevent effective integration of monitoring records. Key aspects of standardization include data formats, storage structures, directory systems, interface protocols, and archival service processes. 5.2.2 Building General Platforms Given the multi-regional and multisectoral nature of LCH monitoring, a unified monitoring platform is essential to transcend geographical and departmental boundaries, break down information silos, and enable cross-regional and cross-institutional sharing of monitoring records. For instance, the Grand Canal project refined common requirements for monitoring various heritage types and developed a shared platform for monitoring and early warning. Individual heritage sections then construct their monitoring systems based on this shared platform, tailored to local conditions and needs. These site-level platforms monitor heritage sections within their jurisdiction and connect upward to the Grand Canal’s common monitoring and early-warning platform. Although hydrology, meteorology, and other operational departments maintain their systems, they are authorized to interface with the unified monitoring system under a synergistic mechanism, and relevant monitoring data can be uploaded to the common platform through the monitoring exchange interface. This unified architectural framework facilitates timely data access and sharing among different heritage sections and operational departments, supports collaborative monitoring, and integrates decentralized monitoring activities into a cohesive framework, ensuring the holistic and systematic nature of monitoring. Through a universal platform, heritage sections can be monitored comprehensively, preventing the omission or duplication of monitoring contents due to geographical or departmental divisions, ensuring the consistency and completeness of monitoring data, and providing technical support for the co-construction and sharing of monitoring archives. 5.3 Management Structure Based on “Two-Level Management” and “Multi-Departmental Records Integration” Archiving and sharing LCH monitoring data inherently involves multiple stakeholders. Functionally, it spans multiple departments, including the heritage site management, hydrological, meteorological, cultural, and tourism departments. Geographically, it crosses different geographic regions and even administrative regions. We can provide strong support for interpreting the cultural significance of LCH and highlight its overall value only by dismantling these administrative and departmental barriers, promoting synergistic cooperation, and realizing the integrated and optimized configuration of LCH monitoring archives. Therefore, the co-construction and sharing of monitoring archives must link departments across regions to establish an efficient and coordinated synergistic mechanism. 5.3.1 Cross-Regional Synergies: Vertical Connectivity Through a “Two-Level Management” Structure Cross-regional synergies aim to overcome the information barriers in LCH monitoring created by geographical or administrative divisions. The outstanding universal value of LCH is reflected in the interconnection of heritage sections, which cannot be adequately conserved without comprehensive and systematic monitoring. The establishment of a “two-level management” representing the whole and its parts facilitates the integrated planning and coordinated management of LCH across regions and supports the co-construction and sharing of monitoring archives throughout the area. The “two-level management” structure refers to the establishment of a first-tier institution in the whole region, responsible for overall planning, cross-district coordination, resource integration, and ensuring the integrity, unity, and coordination of the LCH, and the establishment of a second-tier institution within each heritage section, responsible for the archival work of each heritage section and liaison with the higher-level institution. A systematic interconnection between these two levels technically enables cross-regional information flow, effectively balancing the need for holistic LCH conservation with the reality of multistakeholder management. 5.3.2 Inter-Sectoral Synergies: Horizontal Collaboration Through a “Multi-Departmental Records Integration” Mechanism Intersectoral synergy is aimed at addressing the fragmented distribution of resources and information silos caused by different stakeholders, allowing monitoring data from multiple business sectors work together to reflect the status of heritage assets and their influencing factors comprehensively and accurately. Through the synergy of multiple subjects, diverse monitoring records converge into an integrated system, achieving multi-departmental record integration and facilitating a comprehensive understanding of heritage sections. The concept of “multi-departmental records integration” derives from the “multi-plan integration (Integration of Multiple Plans into a Unified Spatial Planning System)”—a spatial governance approach that harmonizes sectoral plans, including urban and rural construction, land use, environmental protection, cultural relics protection, forest protection, comprehensive transportation, water resources, culture and tourism, and social services, within a unified spatial planning system. Its objective is to align key parameters such as protected sites and development boundaries across plans, establish a coordinated control system on an integrated geospatial platform, and ultimately optimize the spatial layout, resource allocation, and management efficiency. Rather than producing a single consolidated plan, “multi-plan integration” streamlines governance by consolidating disparate spatial data onto a shared reference platform, ensuring regulatory coherence. Similarly, the “multi-departmental records integration” focuses on linear heritage conservation, synthesizing monitoring records from cultural relics, environmental protection, water resources, transportation, land management, and other agencies. Using unified standards, synergistic mechanisms, and technical platforms, archival data are projected onto a unified spatiotemporal framework, creating a comprehensive map that integrates heritage structures, environmental parameters, and management activities across the protected heritage sections. Its core objectives were to dismantle departmental silos, ensure data interoperability, and support coordinated heritage governance. 5.4 Mutually Reinforcing Synergy of Monitoring and Archival Systems Monitoring and archival work are inherently interconnected, with data transmission links between the two systems being exceptionally close. In the context of LCH, monitoring requires substantial foundational heritage data as a benchmark, and the monitoring system’s operation is highly dependent on this extensive basic data. Furthermore, the monitoring data generated during monitoring form an important part of the LCH archives, while the monitoring records are significant in supporting monitoring management by providing information or baseline data, which serve as the foundation for the smooth progress of monitoring work. Therefore, a virtuous circle of mutual empowerment and achievement develops between the archive and monitoring systems. Mutual reinforcement between monitoring and archival systems necessitates their integrated development. This integration ensures consistency between real-time monitoring data and historical records, preventing data errors caused by system incompatibility or format discrepancies. It also eliminates information silos by effectively combining real-time monitoring data with the archives. Such deep integration enables dynamic interactions between monitoring and archival operations, offers a more comprehensive representation of the condition and value of LCH, and provides holistic and accurate informational support for its conservation and management. 6 Conclusion Drawn from the practical experience of the Grand Canal, this study proposes a co-construction and sharing model for Linear Cultural Heritage (LCH) monitoring archives. The model’s core contribution is a systematic framework designed to resolve the archival fragmentation common to LCH management. It is centered on heritage site monitoring and built upon two key pillars: the technical foundation of general platforms and unified data standards, and a dual management structure featuring “two-level management” for vertical, cross-regional coordination and “multi-departmental records integration” for horizontal, cross-sectoral collaboration. By establishing a mutually reinforcing synergy between monitoring and archival systems, this model provides a clear pathway for the holistic management and long-term sustainability of heritage conservation. The practice of the Grand Canal faces challenges common to LCH in general, although its monitoring and archive management depend on ongoing management work and have not been studied independently by scholars. However, it provides a reference for other LCH to develop and share monitoring records across resource management, institutional standardization, and administrative practices, making it broadly applicable. This model is expected to enhance the synergy of archive monitoring among departments in different regions, improving the overall management and conservation of LCH. Declarations Author Contribution Q.Y. and S.G. developed the conceptualization and methodology. Q.Y. performed the formal analysis, investigation, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. X.Z. was responsible for providing resources. Y.C. acquired the funding and provided supervision. All authors (Q.Y., H.Y., S.G., X.Z., and Y.C.) contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. References Brinia V, Psoni P, & Karanikola Z (2019) How to instill cultural values in the new generation through cultural promenades and ancient drama: A field research. Sustainability, 11(6), 1758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061758 Chang H (2024) Development strategies for linear intangible cultural heritage archival resources. Shanxi Archives 41(1): 170–172 Chen L (2009) The construction of Grand Canal trails system: A case study of Jining [Master’s thesis, Peking University]. Culture and Cultural Heritage (n.d.) Enlarged partial agreement on cultural routes. Council of Europe. Accessed 12 Jan 2025, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/cultural-routes Diamant R (1991) National heritage corridors: Redefining the conservation agenda of the 90s. The George Wright Forum 8(2): 13–16 Grand Canal Heritage Protection and Management Office (n.d.) Statement on the Grand Canal heritage monitoring platform. Accessed 1 Jan 2025, from http://www.cngrandcanal.cn/?yangzhou/405.html Gribaudo M, Iacono M, Mazzucchi D (2017) An IoT-based monitoring approach for cultural heritage sites: The Matera case. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Data Mining on Internet of Things (IoT) Systems. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 29(11):e4153. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.4153 Guo X, Yang H (2015) Conceptual comparison of cultural routes: Differences among UNESCO WHC, ICOMOS and EICR. J Hum Settlem West China 30(2):44–48. https://doi.org/10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20150209 Guoxin Sinan (Beijing) Geographic Information Technology Co., Ltd (n.d.) China Grand Canal World Cultural Heritage Monitoring Platform. Accessed 19 Feb 2025, from https://www.geo-compass.com/seachart/html/1/104/174/index.html Huang J, Li X, Wang Y (2017) Linear cultural heritage tourist map constructing method (China Patent No. CN106297537A). State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (n.d.) International Scientific Committees. Accessed 16 Feb 2025, from http://www.icoms-ciic.org/ International Scientific Committee on Cultural Routes (2008) The ICOMOS charter on cultural routes. Accessed 16 Feb 2025, from https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/3140/ Jiang S, Tang J, Zhang Y (2014) Monitoring technology and application of Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal heritage. Electronic Industry Press Li F (2019) Study on spatial structure evolution of linear cultural heritage: On the role of tourism. Geogr Geo-Inf Sci 35(5):133–140 Li F, Zou T (2022) Research on tourism development models for key nodes of linear cultural heritage: The case of Bisezhai, Yunnan. Geogr Geo-Inf Sci 38(5):138–144 Lin G, Wei H, Xu F (2022) Using UAV for the digital documentation, monitoring of culture architectural heritage: A case study of Sisheng Ancestral Hall, Shenzhen, China. Disegnarecon 15(29):14.1-14.14 Lin Y, Guo Q, Liu Y (2015) Construction of China’s “Large Ruins” monitoring system based on the comparative analysis of world cultural heritage monitoring—An example of the European-style palace of the Old Summer Palace. In: Yen YN (ed) Proceedings of the 25th International CIPA Symposium. Int Soc Photogramm Remote Sens, pp 171–176 Liu J, Wang M, Li H (2021) Research on the conservation and utilization of linear cultural heritage in territorial spatial planning: The case of Xianyang City. Urban Dev Stud 28(3):7–13 Nalad C, Meesad P (2015) The monitoring management system for tangible cultural heritage surveillance. In: 2015 2nd International Conference on Advanced Informatics: Concepts, Theory and Applications (ICAICTA). IEEE, pp 1–6. (https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAICTA.2015.7335380 ) Pan D, Li J, Chen W (2024) Method for collecting linear cultural heritage data based on unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing (China Patent No. CN117541938A). State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C. Shan J (2006) A preliminary study on large-scale linear cultural heritage conservation: Breakthroughs and pressures. South Cult Relics (3):2–5 Shan J (2007) Six major trends in cultural heritage protection. Xinhua Daily, p 7 Shan J (2019) From “cultural relics protection” to “cultural heritage protection”. Tianjin University Press Stovel H (2004) Monitoring world heritage. UNESCO. Accessed 2 June 2025, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000136571 Tang Y, Wang X, Li C (2024) Space observation for the sustainable utilization of world heritage sites along the silk roads: The routes network of Chang’an-Tianshan corridor. Int J Digit Earth 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2024.2402425 World Heritage Centre (2017) Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.17/01). UNESCO. Accessed 16 Feb 2025, from https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ Wu Y (2014) A model of world heritage monitoring in China: Practice of the Grand Canal heritage monitoring and archival system. World Herit (7):35–38 Xu J, Garramone M, Scaioni M (2024) Integration of HGIS/HBIM to reveal and reconstruct the vanished metal bridge heritage of the Chinese Eastern Railway main line. In: Diaz-Vilarino L (ed) Proceedings of the 19th 3D GeoInfo Conference 2024. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci, XLVIII-4/W12-2024, pp 161–166. (https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-4-W11-2024-161-2024 ) Yu K, Li D, Yuan H (2009) Construction of China's national linear cultural heritage network. Hum Geogr 24(3):11–16 Zhang C (2021) Research on the integration model of world cultural heritage archival resources [Master’s thesis, Nanjing University]. https://doi.org/10.27235/d.cnki.gnjiu.2021.001463 Zhao X, Zhang W (2024) A linear cultural heritage archival narrative model based on cultural memory theory. Shanxi Arch 41(4):29–37 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7785614","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":528304611,"identity":"24b8c0f2-4959-4cd6-a46f-a62c6b1bb4d6","order_by":0,"name":"Qingqing Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qingqing","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":528304613,"identity":"be9be10b-8a54-45f5-9f0c-e7bd6e5e54f6","order_by":1,"name":"Hao Yao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hao","middleName":"","lastName":"Yao","suffix":""},{"id":528304614,"identity":"c85f7b85-6378-4e60-a0a7-5cf357a3fa4e","order_by":2,"name":"Shuonan Guo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shuonan","middleName":"","lastName":"Guo","suffix":""},{"id":528304615,"identity":"d674d990-4726-4987-9b0c-375bf44952ae","order_by":3,"name":"Xinran Zhou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xinran","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhou","suffix":""},{"id":528304616,"identity":"b16d1673-8674-4eff-9775-af0b374ba6bb","order_by":4,"name":"Ye Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ye","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-05 15:38:25","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7785614/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7785614/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94397133,"identity":"9c80d5d1-f3ca-423a-b812-e95f1c63a23f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 13:56:29","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":174698,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ExploringtheCoconstructionandSharingModelforLinearCulturalHeritageMonitoringArchivesACaseStudyoftheGrandCanalinChina.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/a4387b195a21d657e2b9af66.docx"},{"id":94396231,"identity":"f3a98c54-b121-4dd2-a59e-f5f417294a54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 13:55:55","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6633,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"790c5ec44f6142e4845ca76f2ea11bae.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/6a3007b5b47ae8f14fcf7220.json"},{"id":94398980,"identity":"ed75889d-add0-43b4-ab8b-ada22f14c107","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 13:57:18","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":91885,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"790c5ec44f6142e4845ca76f2ea11bae1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/0cad56bc0f5ef0e50eeab2fd.xml"},{"id":94397467,"identity":"0eca9049-9f1c-41a5-98e3-d93368750d97","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 13:56:41","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":103104,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/520edc927f5f78d005ec7a04.png"},{"id":94399457,"identity":"196f5da4-fce8-4bd6-87a4-980f979df08d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 13:57:34","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":33073,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/9a44211fd72d5160da84ca63.png"},{"id":94397804,"identity":"535572e9-e484-4327-935d-8ff170d1b20c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 13:56:48","extension":"xml","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":89881,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"790c5ec44f6142e4845ca76f2ea11bae1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/e4ed7a4216885e32ee047697.xml"},{"id":94397976,"identity":"34f91662-4080-4d35-ac03-1f23cbe9fd9b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 13:56:55","extension":"html","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":95710,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/1f48dd24cadeed459bca5cf2.html"},{"id":94399605,"identity":"f6e9510d-0418-4952-9005-5f51f940ca1b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-27 13:57:39","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":127019,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCo-construction and Sharing Model for Linear Cultural Heritage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/f49566795922e7070855ec51.png"},{"id":101202404,"identity":"76977bf7-5310-4c6e-bf95-549ca11e566c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-27 09:30:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1372063,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7785614/v1/abfc932f-0979-421f-851c-fcb0ba73b43d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring the Co-construction and Sharing Model for Linear Cultural Heritage Monitoring Archives: A Case Study of the Grand Canal in China","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eLinear Cultural Heritage (LCH) originates from cultural routes and encompasses tangible and intangible cultural heritage within linear or banded regions containing distinctive cultural resources (Shan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Combining linear distribution with cultural heritage, LCH spans broader spatial scales and incorporates more diverse elements than point-based heritage, revealing the richness of human history and regional identity more effectively. It embodies interconnected sites and contextual resources, reflecting dynamic cultural exchanges and forming a networked spatial relationship where collective value surpasses individual significance. Thus, expanding protection from isolated sites to entire linear areas helps preserve heritage clusters and interpret their overall value.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMonitoring is a key tool in cultural heritage management, providing real-time or cyclical information for decision-making, risk prediction, and preventive conservation. Monitoring archives generated during the LCH monitoring document the management, protection, and development of various elements. Integrating monitoring archives from different heritage elements is vital for understanding LCH as a whole and achieving holistic, integrated conservation. The value of LCH lies in individual sites and their interconnections\u0026mdash;a dimension that fragmented archives fail to capture, limiting holistic interpretation. Fragmentation also blocks macro-level insights, complicating the formulation of scientific conservation and sustainable management strategies. As LCH often spans multiple administrative regions (or even countries) and departments, its management is typically multi-level and decentralized. Consequently, monitoring archives are diverse, fragmented, and stored in various carriers and formats. Worsening this issue, archives maintained by separate regional and sectoral entities operate independently, creating information islands that restrict circulation and sharing. Therefore, effective archiving and integration of LCH monitoring data across regions has become a critical research focus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMultiregional, multi-sector involvement poses a major challenge in managing LCH globally. Current studies examine tourism development, ecological protection, geographic information, history, and culture, such as assessing the value of LCH (Brinia et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), constructing activation and utilization modes (Li \u0026amp; Zou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and exploring protection modes (Liu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Among these, collecting, preserving, and applying LCH data has been the main research focus. Examples include creating LCH tourism maps using spatial, cultural, and tourism data (Huang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), building digital twin systems with remote sensing based on unmanned aerial vehicles (Pan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and analyzing the spatial evolution of LCH structures (Li \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom the monitoring perspective, with growing global attention to cultural heritage and advances in research, more systematic methods have emerged. For instance, \u003cem\u003ethe Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage\u003c/em\u003e has gradually established reactive monitoring and periodic reporting mechanisms through its revision. Beyond official frameworks, scholars have extensively investigated cultural heritage monitoring practices, focusing on specific heritage sites across four domains: monitoring system design and implementation (Lin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Nalad C et al. 2015), technological applications in heritage monitoring (Gribaudo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Lin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), tracking environmental and anthropogenic impacts, and advancing digital archiving using monitoring data (Lin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Among these, research on LCH often concentrates on individual sites, such as the Silk Road (Tang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and Great Wall, and mainly analyzes the application of monitoring methods or technologies. Few studies have examined archive monitoring from a holistic management perspective, despite the need for dynamic, cross-regional archival systems that enable integrated conservation and authentic interpretation. Existing research mainly emphasizes developing archival resources (Chang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Zhao \u0026amp; Zhang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), archiving (Chen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), and integrating (Xu 2024) resources for specific LCHs while giving limited attention to cross-sector or cross-regional co-construction and sharing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address these shortcomings, this study proposes a management model for the co-construction and sharing of LCH monitoring archives from an archival perspective, using the Grand Canal as a practical case. Based on literature analysis and practical investigation, this study extracts practical experience from three dimensions\u0026mdash;resource, normative, and management\u0026mdash;and integrates them into a comprehensive model for co-construction and sharing LCH monitoring archives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Linear Culture Heritage and its Monitoring Archives: A Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Linear Culture Heritage, Heritage Corridors, and Cultural Routes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeritage takes many forms. Rivers, canyons, and roads are vital manifestations of cultural heritage that represent early human movement routes, reflect regional cultural development, and preserve community memory. However, with ongoing urban expansion and socio-historical changes, the integrity of these sites is increasingly at risk. Various countries and regions have begun to pay closer attention to these heritage resources, conducting extensive research. The official inclusion of \u0026ldquo;Heritage Canals\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Heritage Routes\u0026rdquo; as World Heritage categories in 2005 marked an important step in defining this type of cultural heritage. Different regions emphasize similar cultural heritage in distinct ways, such as \u0026ldquo;heritage corridors\u0026rdquo; in the United States, \u0026ldquo;cultural routes\u0026rdquo; in Europe, and \u0026ldquo;Linear Cultural Heritage (LCH)\u0026rdquo; in China. Emerging from these earlier ideas, the concept of LCH requires an understanding of heritage corridors and cultural routes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1.1 Heritage Corridors\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the 1980s, the United States proposed the Heritage Corridor model to protect and utilize canals. Heritage corridors have a dual meaning. The first refers to the spatial organization of the system that manages and conserves linear landscapes and their cultural resources as integrated units. This method adopts a regional, holistic philosophy rather than localized management and, through the federally appointed Heritage Corridor Commission, guides, coordinates, and supports the management, conservation, and utilization of heritage corridors. The second meaning defines heritage corridors as an integrated conservation strategy that protects natural, economic, historical, and cultural resources within designated boundaries. This strategy enhances recreational and economic development while foregrounding cultural significance and multifunctional value (Diamant \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1.2 Cultural Routes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Council of Europe launched the Cultural Routes Program in 1987 (Culture and Cultural Heritage, n.d.). From the social development and educational cooperation perspective, the European Institute of Cultural Routes (EICR) emphasizes the role of cultural routes in contemporary society, such as promoting youth cultural exchanges, fostering understanding of Europe\u0026rsquo;s universal values. This reflects the conceptual characteristics of the LCH protection with the European Union as a geocultural subject (Guo \u0026amp; Yang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In 1994, the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Cultural Routes was established, and in 2008, it issued \u003cem\u003eThe ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes\u003c/em\u003e, which defines them as any land, water, or other communication route, physically delimited and historically functional, created to serve a clear purpose (\u0026ldquo;The ICOMOS Charter\u0026rdquo; 2008). ICOMOS emphasizes its role in promoting intercultural dialogue, continuity, and dynamism across time and space. UNESCO adopted the term \u0026ldquo;Heritage Route\u0026rdquo; and inscribed it as a special heritage category in \u003cem\u003ethe Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention\u003c/em\u003e in 2005 (ICOMOS n.d.), highlighting their cultural significance through the exchange of ideas, spatial and temporal continuity, and the principle that the whole holds greater value than the sum of its parts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the different perspectives (EICR focuses on contemporary social values, and ICOMOS/UNESCO focuses on historical and cultural values), all three agree that cultural routes facilitate intercultural dialogue, exhibit spatiotemporal continuity and dynamism, and possess holistic value beyond the simple superimposition of individual heritage elements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1.3 Linear Cultural Heritage\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2006, Jixiang Shan, former director of China\u0026rsquo;s State Administration of Cultural Heritage, proposed the concept of LCH, defining it as \u0026ldquo;the tangible and intangible cultural heritage communities within a linear or belt-shaped area with a special collection of cultural resources.\u0026rdquo; The concept aims to form a connected cultural heritage network through effective linkage along the route, fostering a sustainable heritage ecosystem and facilitating holistic protection and revitalization (Shan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). China\u0026rsquo;s cultural heritage protection has shifted from focusing on relics to cultural heritage\u0026mdash;from emphasizing single-element sites to safeguarding mixed heritage and cultural landscapes, from protecting discrete points and surfaces to managing large-scale heritage and LCH, and from preserving static sites to supporting dynamic and living heritage (Shan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The concept of LCH has evolved, focusing on systematic and living cultural landscapes that reflect the historical development of the Chinese nation. Peking University\u0026rsquo;s team, led by Prof. Kongjian Yu (2009), established a national LCH network that integrates cultural heritage with ecological preservation, recreation, education, and aesthetics, identifying 19 contemporary cultural heritage sites across four types: transportation routes, military works, natural rivers and water conservation structures, and historically thematic events. Based on existing research and practice, LCH exhibits a \u0026ldquo;linear\u0026rdquo; spatial form, \u0026ldquo;culture\u0026rdquo; as a core attribute, and \u0026ldquo;heritage\u0026rdquo; as its value performance. They emphasize the comprehensive protection of all elements essential to a site\u0026rsquo;s authenticity and integrity, playing an irreplaceable role in preserving national historical memory and identity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough heritage corridors, cultural routes, and LCH differ in emphasis, the recognition of such cultural heritage signals a global paradigm shift in how heritage values are assessed. This shift moves from fragmented to integrated conservation, from singular cultural significance to multifunctional values, and from static preservation to dynamic inheritance in contemporary society. Furthermore, this conceptual expansion underscores humanity\u0026rsquo;s growing emphasis on holistic protection and utilization of cultural heritage worldwide. It expresses the aspiration to catalyze intercultural dialogue and collaboration, strengthen ethnocultural identities and collective memory, and create distinctive national and regional cultural symbols. These concepts are not only concerned with the material preservation of heritage, but also emphasize the adaptive use of heritage, as well as its functionality and value in modern society, so as to achieve cultural inheritance and development in conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Linear Culture Heritage Monitoring and Archival Management\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 Characterization of LCH Monitoring\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept of cultural heritage monitoring emerged from an international consensus on World Heritage Protection. Current practices are primarily guided by mechanisms established under \u003cem\u003ethe Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage\u003c/em\u003e. Through extensive deliberation and practice, heritage conservators have developed reactive, periodic, and reinforced monitoring mechanisms widely adopted by state parties. According to \u003cem\u003ethe Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention\u003c/em\u003e, heritage monitoring involves the systematic observation and evaluation of the property\u0026rsquo;s state of conservation to ensure its outstanding universal value, integrity, and authenticity are maintained or enhanced after inscription. The content of heritage monitoring is extensive, comprising the heritage site's authenticity and integrity, external factors like development and environmental pressures, and security preparedness. (World Heritage Centre \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Beyond formal mechanisms, scholars have extensively discussed cultural heritage monitoring, underscoring its critical role in heritage management and the field\u0026rsquo;s complexity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnlike other heritage types, LCH emphasizes the spatial distribution of linear or strip-like features, transforming cultural heritage from isolated \u0026ldquo;points\u0026rdquo; into a continuous, interrelated heritage system. It also conveys historical narratives that evolve over time, reflecting multicultural exchanges across temporal and spatial dimensions. These characteristics necessitate monitoring broad geographic areas, multiple heritage elements, and their interactions. However, LCH often spans multiple towns, regions, and even countries, involving diverse sectors and complex elements, which complicates holistic spatial management. Assessing the authenticity and integrity of LCH relies on comprehensive, continuous documentation. Therefore, physical dispersion caused by administrative or geographical boundaries can be mitigated through the integration and exchange of information. Coordination among regional management entities is essential to maintaining LCH\u0026rsquo;s integrity and continuity, making the archiving, preservation, sharing, and utilization of monitoring data critical and indispensable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Linear Culture Heritage Monitoring Archives and Archives Work\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eLCH monitoring comprises three components. First, the heritage site is monitored, focusing on its authenticity and integrity. In terms of integrity, LCH emphasizes the concept of \u0026ldquo;holistic,\u0026rdquo; which requires quantitative and volumetric assessment of heritage based on authenticity. Monitoring integrity involves tracking changes in spatial location, reductions in the number of heritage sites, and shifts in overall pattern. Second, factors affecting heritage value are monitored, including development pressures (e.g., industrial activities), natural disasters, environmental stressors, and tourism impacts. Third, safety and security monitoring addresses preparedness for natural and human-induced threats (Jiang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e p.29). From this perspective, LCH monitoring is extensive, data-intensive, and requires significant effort.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnlike other heritage archives, monitoring archives are highly specialized, dynamic, and practical. They involve professional knowledge from fields such as hydrology, transportation, meteorology, and urban construction. Moreover, they must be consistently updated to reflect actual heritage conditions and provide real-time support for decision-making and management. Even after archiving, monitoring archives continue to serve as research data, management references, and foundational materials for conservation and development. Therefore, as an essential basis for monitoring, decision-making, and scientific research, the archiving, management, development, and utilization of LCH monitoring archives must meet strong practical demands\u0026mdash;honoring the past while fulfilling responsibilities for the future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScholars have recognized the importance of monitoring data for World Heritage since the inception of the World Heritage Monitoring Mechanism. In 1999, ICCROM and ICOMOS collaborated on a draft monitoring manual, emphasizing that \u0026ldquo;adequate and effective data collection must also reflect the complex interrelationships between all relevant factors in all relevant fields and focus on World Heritage values within the overall framework of the data established\u0026rdquo; (Grand Canal Heritage Protection and Management Office n.d.). However, research on LCH monitoring\u0026mdash;converting technical applications, data collection, and knowledge representation\u0026mdash;has largely overlooked the construction, management, and sharing of archival resources across regions and stakeholders. While collecting and archiving data for a single heritage site is feasible, coordinating archival sharing across multiple regions and actors remains challenging. Furthermore, in the digital era, cultural heritage monitoring relies primarily on informatization through which monitoring systems and databases are built to support monitoring, recording, early warning, and assessment. This reliance can create incompatibilities between systems in different regions, further complicating the development and sharing of monitoring archives across LCH regions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the management and protection of LCH require holistic and dynamic monitoring archives, built and shared across regions and stakeholders, to ensure comprehensive management and accurate interpretation of value. However, existing research has predominantly focused on site-specific data acquisition and organization, with limited attention to the construction, management, or cross-regional sharing of monitoring archives. To address these gaps, this study uses the Grand Canal as a case study to explore the sources, scope, and application of LCH monitoring archives, identify practical challenges in archival sharing, and propose a co-construction and sharing model to inform future practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Research Method: A Case Study on the Grand Canal","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a case study approach because the co-construction and sharing of LCH monitoring archives present a practical challenge that requires a practice-oriented method to identify specific needs and difficulties. Insights from such cases are intended to provide lessons applicable in other contexts. The Grand Canal is chosen as a case study due to its representativeness as an LCH, the systematic nature of its monitoring and early warning processes, and the prospective nature of its monitoring archive co-construction and sharing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Grand Canal of China, also called the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal, is the world\u0026rsquo;s longest canal and was recognized as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 2014. It is an ancient Chinese water conservancy project, first excavated at the end of the Spring and Autumn Period (486 BC), with major expansions during the Sui (581\u0026ndash;618 AD) and Yuan (1271\u0026ndash;1368 AD) dynasties, linking natural river channels through dredging and repairing. It remains partially navigable, supporting regional irrigation, flood control, water supply, and cultural and economic exchange between northern and southern China. Spanning eight provincial-level administrative regions and 35 cities, the Grand Canal covers a basin area of 311,000 km\u0026sup2;.This megaproject crosses diverse landscapes and communities, exemplifying LCH. It has witnessed dynasties changes and historical development, accumulating profound cultural significance and making it a precious part of cultural heritage of humans. Owing to its vast, cross-regional span, early monitoring of the Grand Canal was fragmented and unsystematic. In 2006, the city of Yangzhou in Jiangsu Province took the lead and formally began work on a joint UNESCO World Heritage application. This pivotal endeavor catalyzed the systematic implementation of heritage monitoring, ultimately establishing a \u0026ldquo;two-tier platform with a three-level management\u0026rdquo; framework. During this process, the Grand Canal Heritage Conservation and Management Office standardized monitoring requirements across various heritage sections and successfully established a generalized platform for monitoring and early warning, supporting the overall monitoring system. Simultaneously, common indicators for monitoring data were developed, providing a vital basis for system functionality (Guoxin Sinan n.d.) and comprehensively constructing the Grand Canal heritage monitoring and early warning system, spanning management, platform, and data specifications (Jiang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, p.127). Moreover, the monitoring platform integrates the full lifecycle of monitoring data\u0026mdash;from acquisition and processing to utilization and storage. Concurrently, by deploying a monitoring system, it integrates database and archival management systems. This synergy builds a unified \u0026ldquo;heritage monitoring and archiving system,\u0026rdquo; enabling multi-level data interfacing across \u0026ldquo;national, provincial, municipal, and heritage site\u0026rdquo; to achieve systematic archiving, preservation, management, and sharing of monitoring data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe case analysis is conducted in two stages. First, it examines the policy documents, technical architecture, operational mechanisms, and workflows of the Grand Canal\u0026rsquo;s monitoring system to identify the sources, scope, and value of monitoring archives while distilling practical experience in archival co-construction and sharing. Second, it abstracts these empirical findings into a generalized paradigm for the co-construction and sharing of LCH monitoring archives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4 Co-Construction and Sharing Practice of the Grand Canal Monitoring Archives","content":"\u003cp\u003eChina has established a comprehensive monitoring and early warning system for the Grand Canal, encompassing data standardization, management models, and platform construction. The system incorporated monitoring data from 31 heritage sections, 85 heritage elements, and multiple departments into a unified framework, enabling a holistic understanding of the provenance and scope of Grand Canal archives. Standardized norms ensure consistent archive management, while the \u0026ldquo;two-tier platform and three-level management\u0026rdquo; framework clarifies roles and responsibility, laying the foundation for the co-construction and sharing of the Grand Canal monitoring archives at organizational and managerial levels. Additionally, the archival system\u0026rsquo;s embedded design within the monitoring platform provides technical support for collaborative construction and utilization. Based on these features, this study synthesizes Grand Canal practices into four dimensions: resources, norms, management, and technology.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Resource Layer: Clarifying the Scope and Sources of Monitoring Archives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.1 Defining the Scope of Sources of Archives for Monitoring the Whole Region\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scope of monitoring and archiving is primarily determined by the criterion of \u0026ldquo;the main factors affecting the outstanding universal value, authenticity and integrity of the heritage of the Grand Canal. (Wu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026rdquo; Spatially, the \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Guidelines for Monitoring and Archival System Construction of the Grand Canal Heritage\u0026rdquo; (National cultural heritage administration, 2013)\u003c/em\u003e stipulates the statutory monitoring area to include heritage core area and their buffer area\u0026mdash;peripheral areas that may impact the Canal. Relevant river courses, hydraulic facilities, ancient architectural complexes, historical and cultural districts, and ruins within the heritage core area and buffer area were also included in the monitoring scope, with 31 heritage sections delineated. Moreover, 27 river sections and 58 key heritage sites of the 31 heritage sections were selected based on the characteristics of the heritage elements, totaling 85 monitoring units.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMonitoring content is classified into three extensive categories: the heritage itself, environmental and anthropogenic factor, and management behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHeritage monitoring includes hydraulic remains, ancillary structures, related relics, and integrated heritage systems, covering specific elements such as river channels, ancient buildings, villages, dikes, and stone carvings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eMonitoring of environmental and anthropogenic factors encompasses air quality, meteorological conditions, geology and hydrology, ecological environment, natural disasters, urban development, planning and construction, vessel traffic volume, population settlement, and pollution discharge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eManagement behavior monitoring focuses on five aspects: tourism, protective intervention, display and utilization, management and safeguarding, and security and fire prevention. Specific monitoring objects include tourist volume, progress of archaeological excavations, conservation projects, and the conditions of key services and display facilities. (Jiang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, p.139\u0026ndash;146)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTogether, the data collected from these monitoring objects constitute a blueprint for the Grand Canal. This blueprint encompasses foundational information about the heritage site itself and dynamic data reflecting environmental changes, conservation measures, and management activities, all of which are essential components of monitoring archives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.2 Clarifying the Main Body of Monitoring File Formation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the national level, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage and the Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring Center oversee coordination across the country. At the provincial level, Provincial Cultural Heritage Bureaus and the Heritage Monitoring Centers manage upstream and downstream operations that direct the monitoring activities of local heritage sections. At the municipal and county levels, authorities are responsible for implementing daily monitoring tasks. Records generated during monitoring are primarily maintained by each heritage site.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHorizontally, monitoring cannot be conducted solely by the Grand Canal administration; it requires cross-sectoral collaboration. Effective heritage monitoring integrates existing systems and equipment from multiple authorities, enabling comprehensive, basin-wide coverage through interdepartmental coordination. For instance, in the Yangzhou section of the Grand Canal, monitoring archives are sourced from the Grand Canal heritage sections organizations and various authorities overseeing different heritage sections. The Water Resources Bureau monitors the Huaiyang Canal Main Line's urban section, the Hydrology Bureau is responsible for water level monitoring and early warnings, and the Landscape Architecture Bureau tracks the urban greening situation and greening rate. Further collaboration comes from the Meteorological Bureau on catastrophic weather, the Earthquake Bureau on seismic events, and the Tourism Bureau on the tourism situation in the region, including the number of visitors to each heritage site, analysis, and tourism development (Jiang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, p.173).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Normative Layer: Ensuring Data Readability in Monitoring Archives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData standardization and normalization are essential prerequisites for effective information integration and sharing. The Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage has issued a series of technical specifications to support the construction of the World Heritage Monitoring Platform and related information management. These include the \u003cem\u003eGeneral Table of Chinese World Cultural Heritage Monitoring Data, Table of Meta data and Monitoring Indicators\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSpecification of Basic Data for China\u0026rsquo;s World Cultural Heritage\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eNorms of Coding of Chinese World Cultural Heritage Sites\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eRules for Writing Monitoring Data for China\u0026rsquo;s World Cultural Heritage\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTechnical Specification for Data Docking of China\u0026rsquo;s Monitoring and Early Warning Integrated Platform for World Cultural Heritage.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; These documents establish standards for the scope, naming, format, and recording of basic heritage data and monitoring indicators, providing critical guidance for data collection and forming a foundation for integrated monitoring and archiving. Building on this, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage uniformly formulated monitoring data specification, common monitoring indicators, and archive metadata sheets, tailored to the Grand Canal, unifying the standard of archive resources across all heritage sections. For instance, based on the \u003cem\u003eMonitoring Indicator System of China\u0026rsquo;s World Cultural Heritage\u003c/em\u003e, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage formulated common monitoring indicators for the Grand Canal, including heritage monitoring, environmental and anthropogenic factor monitoring, and management behavior monitoring. Each heritage section then adapted these common indicators to its local context, refining the monitoring metrics accordingly. For example, the common indicators for a river object are broken down into more specific categories, such as \u0026ldquo;Basic Information\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Quality of water environment\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Functions of water bodies\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Riverbed morphology.\u0026rdquo; Among these, the \u0026ldquo;Water level\u0026rdquo; indicator under \u0026ldquo;Basic Information\u0026rdquo; requires data points such as east longitude, north latitude, the highest and lowest monthly water levels, and the alert level in meters(Jiang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, p.165\u0026ndash;168).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Management Layer: Coordinating the \u0026ldquo;Flow\u0026rdquo; of Monitoring Archival\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3.1 Cross-Regional Synergy: \u0026ldquo;Two-Tier Platform, Three-Level Management\u0026rdquo; Architecture Management Model\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo coordinate the monitoring of each heritage section and enable basin-wide oversight, the Grand Canal monitoring program has implemented a \u0026ldquo;two-tier platform and three-level management\u0026rdquo; structure. The \u0026ldquo;two-tier platform\u0026rdquo; comprises a national integrated platform (first-tier) and heritage site-specific platforms (second-tier) built on a shared general platform, ensuring seamless coordination between the two tiers. The \u0026ldquo;three-level management\u0026rdquo; system establishes a hierarchical responsibilities monitoring organization spanning the national, provincial (municipalities directly under the central government), city, and county (heritage sections) levels. At the national level, the Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring Centre oversees overall planning, coordination, and guidance for monitoring activities. At the provincial level (municipalities directly under the central government), cultural relics departments supervise monitoring and management within their jurisdictions and oversee the operation of heritage management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, archive management is organized at the national and heritage section levels, with each focusing on its respective operational scopes. The National Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring Center has established a national archive center responsible for deploying monitoring and archive systems, formulating standards, and guiding archival work, serving a coordinating and overarching role. Each heritage section has also established a \u0026ldquo;Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring and Archives Centre\u0026rdquo; to coordinate the construction, integration, and accessibility of its archival resources (Zhang \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3.2 Cross-Sectoral Collaboration: Functional Integration and Data Sharing Mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo strengthen exchanges and cooperation between different fields, the Grand Canal has established a collaborative mechanism between heritage management departments and other agencies. This mechanism coordinates major issues involving multiple sectors in the protection of the Grand Canal\u0026rsquo;s heritage and clarifies the division of responsibilities among departments and regions. Specifically, at the provincial level, a leading provincial group is headed by the deputy governor in charge and includes heads of the Department of Culture (Cultural Relics Bureau) and other related departments, as well as representatives from cities and municipalities along the route. At the city and county levels, similar leading groups were established, modeled after the provincial group, with offices responsible for daily coordination and the implementation of specific tasks. The leading group clarifies the responsibilities of each member unit (e.g., the Environmental Protection Bureau handles environmental monitoring, while the Water Conservancy Bureau oversees river maintenance and monitoring). It addresses major multi-industry issues through meetings, documents, and other coordination methods, responds promptly to unforeseen protection challenges, and ensures that monitoring and protection efforts proceeds in an organized manner. Based on their respective industrial fields and administrative authority, the relevant departments support the monitoring of the Grand Canal\u0026rsquo;s heritage by collaborating on routine inspections, providing necessary data and information (e.g., water quality, ecology, and navigational status), and cooperating in the development and application of specialized monitoring technologies. This approach creates a cross-sectoral synergy mechanism, facilitating functional integration and information sharing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4 Technical Layer: Enabling Data \u0026ldquo;Usability\u0026rdquo; of Monitoring Archives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4.1 Technical Docking Between Local General Platforms and the National Integrated Platform\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo achieve comprehensive monitoring and management of the Grand Canal, the local monitoring and early warning systems must be technically integrated with the national integrated platform. This allows local systems to transmit monitoring data, early warning information, monitoring reports, and archives promptly. In turn, the national integrated platform can understand and guide the monitoring and early warning operations of the local system in real time, enabling holistic macro-level monitoring of the Grand Canal (Jiang Tang \u0026amp; Zhang 2014). The national integrated platform has established a \u0026ldquo;Heritage Archives\u0026rdquo; module to receive and regionally classify archive resources uploaded by heritage sections, facilitating the storage, management, and utilization of digital archives. The general platform for monitoring heritage sections includes an \u0026ldquo;archive information\u0026rdquo; module, which is subdivided into \u0026ldquo;basic information,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;archives management,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;documentation,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;academic exchange,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;treasury management\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;comprehensive query.\u0026rdquo; These sub-models support the collection, classification, maintenance, and retrieval of archival information. A standardized data-exchange interface connects the national integrated platform and the general platforms, enabling cross-regional data interaction. Based on this framework, heritage sections can adopt national monitoring indicator standards as their local benchmarks, reporting archive data catalogs, monitoring indicators, and early warning and disposal data for each segment to the national platform. Managers can access relevant archive information and monitoring data from local general platforms via the \u0026ldquo;archive information\u0026rdquo; module. Simultaneously, users from the national monitoring center down to provincial monitoring centers can log in to access and retrieve information for each heritage site segment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4.2 Integrated Construction of Monitoring System and Archive System\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Grand Canal has explored the integration of monitoring and archive systems. To facilitate the management and utilization of monitoring records, the Grand Canal assigned the archive management function to the heritage monitoring department, integrated heritage monitoring with archive management system, and developed the \u0026ldquo;heritage monitoring and archive system.\u0026rdquo; This measure effectively creates synergy between archival and monitoring processes and achieves the integration of archive resources. On the one hand, through the Grand Canal\u0026rsquo;s heritage monitoring and archive system, monitoring data can be archived instantly, and the resulting archives can serve as baseline heritage information, supporting subsequent monitoring work more efficiently and effectively. On the other hand, relying on the synergistic mechanism between the heritage management department and other relevant business departments, the \u0026ldquo;Heritage Monitoring and Archiving System\u0026rdquo; connects with monitoring units such as the environmental protection department, hydrology department, forestry department, and meteorology department. This allows monitoring data from different business departments to be uploaded and archived in real time through the system platform. Furthermore, this connection facilitates the flow of monitoring data resources across systems, enhancing the integration and sharing of monitoring archives within the region.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Co-Construction and Sharing Model of Linear Culture Heritage Monitoring Archives","content":"\u003cp\u003eTaking the Grand Canal of China as an example, its monitoring and archive co-construction and sharing model primarily relies on the management structure of a \u0026ldquo;two-tier platform and three-level management.\u0026rdquo; By integrating the monitoring and archive systems, it establishes a full-process management framework that enables cross-regional and inter-sectoral coordination and synergy. This is illustrated as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCentered on the monitoring and management of heritage sections, the system leverages the two-tier platform structure (national integrated platform and general platforms for heritage sections) and a three-level hierarchy of powers and responsibilities (national-provincial-city-county levels). This structure coordinates monitoring data collection and archival management across 31 heritage sections and 85 heritage elements throughout the region.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardized integration of muti- source, heterogeneous data has been achieved through unified standards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupported by the \u0026ldquo;China Grand Canal Heritage Monitoring and Archiving System,\u0026rdquo; the model opens data interfaces with environmental protection, water conservancy, and other departments, promoting real-time archiving and dynamic sharing of monitoring data. It establishes a virtuous cycle of \u0026ldquo;monitoring data instantly builds archives\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;archival data support the monitoring work.\u0026rdquo; Within this ecosystem, monitoring archives are not static records but are integrated into monitoring and early-warning operations as benchmark data. Simultaneously, the archive system utilizes technical tools of the monitoring system to achieve full life-cycle management, forming a dynamic closed loop of \u0026ldquo;business-driven archiving and archive service business.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on this practice, this study summarizes and refines the approach of Grand Canal monitoring and archive co-construction and sharing and proposes a model for LCH monitoring and archive co-construction and sharing. Centered on heritage site monitoring and management and supported by general platforms and data standards, it ensures vertical coordination through a \u0026ldquo;two-level management\u0026rdquo; framework and facilitates horizontal collaboration via a \u0026ldquo;multi-departmental records integration\u0026rdquo; mechanism. By deeply integrating monitoring and archival systems, the model ultimately achieves comprehensive integration, dynamic management, and sustainable application of cultural heritage monitoring archive resources across the region (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1 Heritage Site Monitoring Management as the Core\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis model of monitoring archive co-construction and sharing is not archive-centric; instead, it prioritizes the monitoring management of the heritage site, maintaining a close connection between monitoring archives and ongoing monitoring work. The development of the monitoring index system, the monitoring archive management system, and the integrated construction of the monitoring system all serve to enhance operational efficiency, presenting the integrity of monitoring information resources, accurately represent heritage conditions, and ultimately support the safeguarding and transmission of heritage values. This is exemplified by the Chinese Grand Canal, where archival management functions are assigned to the heritage monitoring and management department, alongside practices emphasizing synergistic management by multilevel and multisectoral agencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, the monitoring of LCH is based on a comprehensive understanding of its outstanding universal values. The material carriers of these values are treated as the objects of monitoring and protection, with factors affecting their preservation identified and a system of monitoring indicators established to guide the monitoring archives. Therefore, archiving monitoring data must accurately reflect the condition of monitoring and protection objects, presenting a comprehensive snapshot through the integration of monitoring records across time and space. For example, the Grand Canal employs standardized data interfaces within its monitoring system to ingest, integrate, and archive records in near real time. This approach ensures that monitoring records related to the same heritage element are organically integrated, providing an accurate representation of the heritage\u0026rsquo;s condition within defined spatiotemporal parameters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, while data acquisition is not an end in itself, it ultimately aims to provide decision support for early warnings, conservation management, and improved heritage protection outcomes. Therefore, the transition from monitoring data to monitoring archives is not linear. Archived and preserved monitoring archives serve as baseline data within monitoring management, providing essential information support and services. Monitoring archives are closely related to monitoring activities, and this relevance makes it challenging for archives to exist independently of the objects they document.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the integrated development of monitoring work and archives is conducive to the consolidation of monitoring-related information (including heritage base information) at heritage sites, facilitating efficient monitoring across the region. Furthermore, co-construction does not require unified physical storage. Instead, individual heritage sections retain responsibility for archiving and management by adopting a logical archiving strategy. This approach enables stakeholders to access and share records online, balancing local operational utility with broader interregional and cross-sectoral information-sharing requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Supported by Data Standards and General Platforms\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe LCH\u0026rsquo;s monitoring scope encompasses numerous diverse elements, including the condition of the heritage site, changes in the surrounding environment, anthropogenic influences, and natural disasters. For instance, in the case of the Grand Canal, monitoring content focuses on the structural stability of the river, bridges, locks, and dams and other heritage components; the aging of materials; and the impact of water quality, meteorological factors, land use, and tourism development along the route. This extensive scope necessitates a monitoring system capable of comprehensive, accurate data collection and analysis to support heritage conservation and facilitate coordinated regional decision making. Consequently, LCH monitoring archives are characterized by large volumes, diverse types, and continuous dynamic accumulations. These features require an archival management system with robust data storage and processing abilities, capable of integrating and managing heterogeneous monitoring records while providing timely, efficient, and sustained information support for monitoring and management activities. In the Grand Canal, standardization initiatives, particularly the development of general platforms and unified standards, have established a strong foundation for addressing the aforementioned challenges, setting an exemplary precedent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2.1 Unifying Data Standards\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eLCH monitoring involves extensive data collection and analyses. Unified data standards ensure the consistency and comparability of data across regions and functional departments and enable the integration and analysis of information from diverse sources within a unified framework. This approach improves the accuracy and reliability of monitoring data and facilitates more efficient and convenient data integration. For instance, in monitoring the Grand Canal, divergent data collection methods across regions can hinder interoperability and prevent effective integration of monitoring records. Key aspects of standardization include data formats, storage structures, directory systems, interface protocols, and archival service processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2.2 Building General Platforms\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven the multi-regional and multisectoral nature of LCH monitoring, a unified monitoring platform is essential to transcend geographical and departmental boundaries, break down information silos, and enable cross-regional and cross-institutional sharing of monitoring records. For instance, the Grand Canal project refined common requirements for monitoring various heritage types and developed a shared platform for monitoring and early warning. Individual heritage sections then construct their monitoring systems based on this shared platform, tailored to local conditions and needs. These site-level platforms monitor heritage sections within their jurisdiction and connect upward to the Grand Canal\u0026rsquo;s common monitoring and early-warning platform. Although hydrology, meteorology, and other operational departments maintain their systems, they are authorized to interface with the unified monitoring system under a synergistic mechanism, and relevant monitoring data can be uploaded to the common platform through the monitoring exchange interface.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis unified architectural framework facilitates timely data access and sharing among different heritage sections and operational departments, supports collaborative monitoring, and integrates decentralized monitoring activities into a cohesive framework, ensuring the holistic and systematic nature of monitoring. Through a universal platform, heritage sections can be monitored comprehensively, preventing the omission or duplication of monitoring contents due to geographical or departmental divisions, ensuring the consistency and completeness of monitoring data, and providing technical support for the co-construction and sharing of monitoring archives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3 Management Structure Based on \u0026ldquo;Two-Level Management\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Multi-Departmental Records Integration\u0026rdquo;\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eArchiving and sharing LCH monitoring data inherently involves multiple stakeholders. Functionally, it spans multiple departments, including the heritage site management, hydrological, meteorological, cultural, and tourism departments. Geographically, it crosses different geographic regions and even administrative regions. We can provide strong support for interpreting the cultural significance of LCH and highlight its overall value only by dismantling these administrative and departmental barriers, promoting synergistic cooperation, and realizing the integrated and optimized configuration of LCH monitoring archives. Therefore, the co-construction and sharing of monitoring archives must link departments across regions to establish an efficient and coordinated synergistic mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3.1 Cross-Regional Synergies: Vertical Connectivity Through a \u0026ldquo;Two-Level Management\u0026rdquo; Structure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCross-regional synergies aim to overcome the information barriers in LCH monitoring created by geographical or administrative divisions. The outstanding universal value of LCH is reflected in the interconnection of heritage sections, which cannot be adequately conserved without comprehensive and systematic monitoring. The establishment of a \u0026ldquo;two-level management\u0026rdquo; representing the whole and its parts facilitates the integrated planning and coordinated management of LCH across regions and supports the co-construction and sharing of monitoring archives throughout the area.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;two-level management\u0026rdquo; structure refers to the establishment of a first-tier institution in the whole region, responsible for overall planning, cross-district coordination, resource integration, and ensuring the integrity, unity, and coordination of the LCH, and the establishment of a second-tier institution within each heritage section, responsible for the archival work of each heritage section and liaison with the higher-level institution. A systematic interconnection between these two levels technically enables cross-regional information flow, effectively balancing the need for holistic LCH conservation with the reality of multistakeholder management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3.2 Inter-Sectoral Synergies: Horizontal Collaboration Through a \u0026ldquo;Multi-Departmental Records Integration\u0026rdquo; Mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntersectoral synergy is aimed at addressing the fragmented distribution of resources and information silos caused by different stakeholders, allowing monitoring data from multiple business sectors work together to reflect the status of heritage assets and their influencing factors comprehensively and accurately. Through the synergy of multiple subjects, diverse monitoring records converge into an integrated system, achieving multi-departmental record integration and facilitating a comprehensive understanding of heritage sections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept of \u0026ldquo;multi-departmental records integration\u0026rdquo; derives from the \u0026ldquo;multi-plan integration (Integration of Multiple Plans into a Unified Spatial Planning System)\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;a spatial governance approach that harmonizes sectoral plans, including urban and rural construction, land use, environmental protection, cultural relics protection, forest protection, comprehensive transportation, water resources, culture and tourism, and social services, within a unified spatial planning system. Its objective is to align key parameters such as protected sites and development boundaries across plans, establish a coordinated control system on an integrated geospatial platform, and ultimately optimize the spatial layout, resource allocation, and management efficiency. Rather than producing a single consolidated plan, \u0026ldquo;multi-plan integration\u0026rdquo; streamlines governance by consolidating disparate spatial data onto a shared reference platform, ensuring regulatory coherence. Similarly, the \u0026ldquo;multi-departmental records integration\u0026rdquo; focuses on linear heritage conservation, synthesizing monitoring records from cultural relics, environmental protection, water resources, transportation, land management, and other agencies. Using unified standards, synergistic mechanisms, and technical platforms, archival data are projected onto a unified spatiotemporal framework, creating a comprehensive map that integrates heritage structures, environmental parameters, and management activities across the protected heritage sections. Its core objectives were to dismantle departmental silos, ensure data interoperability, and support coordinated heritage governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.4 Mutually Reinforcing Synergy of Monitoring and Archival Systems\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMonitoring and archival work are inherently interconnected, with data transmission links between the two systems being exceptionally close. In the context of LCH, monitoring requires substantial foundational heritage data as a benchmark, and the monitoring system\u0026rsquo;s operation is highly dependent on this extensive basic data. Furthermore, the monitoring data generated during monitoring form an important part of the LCH archives, while the monitoring records are significant in supporting monitoring management by providing information or baseline data, which serve as the foundation for the smooth progress of monitoring work. Therefore, a virtuous circle of mutual empowerment and achievement develops between the archive and monitoring systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMutual reinforcement between monitoring and archival systems necessitates their integrated development. This integration ensures consistency between real-time monitoring data and historical records, preventing data errors caused by system incompatibility or format discrepancies. It also eliminates information silos by effectively combining real-time monitoring data with the archives. Such deep integration enables dynamic interactions between monitoring and archival operations, offers a more comprehensive representation of the condition and value of LCH, and provides holistic and accurate informational support for its conservation and management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eDrawn from the practical experience of the Grand Canal, this study proposes a co-construction and sharing model for Linear Cultural Heritage (LCH) monitoring archives. The model\u0026rsquo;s core contribution is a systematic framework designed to resolve the archival fragmentation common to LCH management. It is centered on heritage site monitoring and built upon two key pillars: the technical foundation of general platforms and unified data standards, and a dual management structure featuring \u0026ldquo;two-level management\u0026rdquo; for vertical, cross-regional coordination and \u0026ldquo;multi-departmental records integration\u0026rdquo; for horizontal, cross-sectoral collaboration. By establishing a mutually reinforcing synergy between monitoring and archival systems, this model provides a clear pathway for the holistic management and long-term sustainability of heritage conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe practice of the Grand Canal faces challenges common to LCH in general, although its monitoring and archive management depend on ongoing management work and have not been studied independently by scholars. However, it provides a reference for other LCH to develop and share monitoring records across resource management, institutional standardization, and administrative practices, making it broadly applicable. This model is expected to enhance the synergy of archive monitoring among departments in different regions, improving the overall management and conservation of LCH.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eQ.Y. and S.G. developed the conceptualization and methodology. Q.Y. performed the formal analysis, investigation, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. X.Z. was responsible for providing resources. Y.C. acquired the funding and provided supervision. All authors (Q.Y., H.Y., S.G., X.Z., and Y.C.) contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrinia V, Psoni P, \u0026amp; Karanikola Z (2019) How to instill cultural values in the new generation through cultural promenades and ancient drama: A field research. Sustainability, 11(6), 1758. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su11061758\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su11061758\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChang H (2024) Development strategies for linear intangible cultural heritage archival resources. Shanxi Archives 41(1): 170\u0026ndash;172\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen L (2009) The construction of Grand Canal trails system: A case study of Jining [Master\u0026rsquo;s thesis, Peking University].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCulture and Cultural Heritage (n.d.) Enlarged partial agreement on cultural routes. Council of Europe. Accessed 12 Jan 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/cultural-routes\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/cultural-routes\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiamant R (1991) National heritage corridors: Redefining the conservation agenda of the 90s. The George Wright Forum 8(2): 13\u0026ndash;16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrand Canal Heritage Protection and Management Office (n.d.) Statement on the Grand Canal heritage monitoring platform. Accessed 1 Jan 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.cngrandcanal.cn/?yangzhou/405.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.cngrandcanal.cn/?yangzhou/405.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGribaudo M, Iacono M, Mazzucchi D (2017) An IoT-based monitoring approach for cultural heritage sites: The Matera case. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Data Mining on Internet of Things (IoT) Systems. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 29(11):e4153. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.4153\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/cpe.4153\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuo X, Yang H (2015) Conceptual comparison of cultural routes: Differences among UNESCO WHC, ICOMOS and EICR. J Hum Settlem West China 30(2):44\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20150209\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20150209\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuoxin Sinan (Beijing) Geographic Information Technology Co., Ltd (n.d.) China Grand Canal World Cultural Heritage Monitoring Platform. Accessed 19 Feb 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.geo-compass.com/seachart/html/1/104/174/index.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.geo-compass.com/seachart/html/1/104/174/index.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang J, Li X, Wang Y (2017) Linear cultural heritage tourist map constructing method (China Patent No. CN106297537A). State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (n.d.) International Scientific Committees. Accessed 16 Feb 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.icoms-ciic.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.icoms-ciic.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Scientific Committee on Cultural Routes (2008) The ICOMOS charter on cultural routes. Accessed 16 Feb 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/3140/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/3140/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang S, Tang J, Zhang Y (2014) Monitoring technology and application of Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal heritage. Electronic Industry Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi F (2019) Study on spatial structure evolution of linear cultural heritage: On the role of tourism. Geogr Geo-Inf Sci 35(5):133\u0026ndash;140\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi F, Zou T (2022) Research on tourism development models for key nodes of linear cultural heritage: The case of Bisezhai, Yunnan. Geogr Geo-Inf Sci 38(5):138\u0026ndash;144\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin G, Wei H, Xu F (2022) Using UAV for the digital documentation, monitoring of culture architectural heritage: A case study of Sisheng Ancestral Hall, Shenzhen, China. Disegnarecon 15(29):14.1-14.14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin Y, Guo Q, Liu Y (2015) Construction of China\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Large Ruins\u0026rdquo; monitoring system based on the comparative analysis of world cultural heritage monitoring\u0026mdash;An example of the European-style palace of the Old Summer Palace. In: Yen YN (ed) Proceedings of the 25th International CIPA Symposium. Int Soc Photogramm Remote Sens, pp 171\u0026ndash;176\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu J, Wang M, Li H (2021) Research on the conservation and utilization of linear cultural heritage in territorial spatial planning: The case of Xianyang City. Urban Dev Stud 28(3):7\u0026ndash;13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNalad C, Meesad P (2015) The monitoring management system for tangible cultural heritage surveillance. In: 2015 2nd International Conference on Advanced Informatics: Concepts, Theory and Applications (ICAICTA). IEEE, pp 1\u0026ndash;6.\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e(https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAICTA.2015.7335380\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"(10.1109/ICAICTA.2015.7335380\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePan D, Li J, Chen W (2024) Method for collecting linear cultural heritage data based on unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing (China Patent No. CN117541938A). State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShan J (2006) A preliminary study on large-scale linear cultural heritage conservation: Breakthroughs and pressures. South Cult Relics (3):2\u0026ndash;5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShan J (2007) Six major trends in cultural heritage protection. Xinhua Daily, p 7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShan J (2019) From \u0026ldquo;cultural relics protection\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;cultural heritage protection\u0026rdquo;. Tianjin University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStovel H (2004) Monitoring world heritage. UNESCO. Accessed 2 June 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000136571\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000136571\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTang Y, Wang X, Li C (2024) Space observation for the sustainable utilization of world heritage sites along the silk roads: The routes network of Chang\u0026rsquo;an-Tianshan corridor. Int J Digit Earth 17(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2024.2402425\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17538947.2024.2402425\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Heritage Centre (2017) Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.17/01). UNESCO. Accessed 16 Feb 2025, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu Y (2014) A model of world heritage monitoring in China: Practice of the Grand Canal heritage monitoring and archival system. World Herit (7):35\u0026ndash;38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu J, Garramone M, Scaioni M (2024) Integration of HGIS/HBIM to reveal and reconstruct the vanished metal bridge heritage of the Chinese Eastern Railway main line. In: Diaz-Vilarino L (ed) Proceedings of the 19th 3D GeoInfo Conference 2024. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci, XLVIII-4/W12-2024, pp 161\u0026ndash;166.\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e(https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-4-W11-2024-161-2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"(10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-4-W11-2024-161-2024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu K, Li D, Yuan H (2009) Construction of China's national linear cultural heritage network. Hum Geogr 24(3):11\u0026ndash;16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang C (2021) Research on the integration model of world cultural heritage archival resources [Master\u0026rsquo;s thesis, Nanjing University]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.27235/d.cnki.gnjiu.2021.001463\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.27235/d.cnki.gnjiu.2021.001463\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao X, Zhang W (2024) A linear cultural heritage archival narrative model based on cultural memory theory. Shanxi Arch 41(4):29\u0026ndash;37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"linear culture heritage, monitoring archives, co-construction and sharing model, cultural heritage monitoring","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7785614/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7785614/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eLinear Cultural Heritage (LCH), such as the Great Wall and Grand Canal in China and the Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France, derives its significance from its interconnected whole rather than from the isolated significance of individual sites. Monitoring archives document the conditions, management, and development activities of all LCH components. Integrating and cross-validating these records is crucial for understanding LCH in its entirety and enabling integrated conservation. However, the cross-regional and cross-sectoral nature of LCH has produced various monitoring archives, hindering its effective management and conservation. Using China\u0026rsquo;s Grand Canal as a case study, this study examines the sources and scope of LCH monitoring archives while identifying the actors and resources involved in their co-construction and sharing. It summarizes practices of archive co-sharing and proposes a co-construction and sharing model for LCH monitoring archives. This model, centered on heritage site monitoring and management, was built on a common platform and unified data standards. It adopts a \u0026ldquo;two-level management\u0026rdquo; structure and \u0026ldquo;multi-departmental records integration,\u0026rdquo; fostering synergy between monitoring and archival systems. The Grand Canal case demonstrates that common co-construction and sharing of World Cultural Heritage monitoring archives meet universal needs and has universal scenario orientation. The proposed model offers a replicable framework for the long-term management and protection of world cultural heritage, particularly LCH.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring the Co-construction and Sharing Model for Linear Cultural Heritage Monitoring Archives: A Case Study of the Grand Canal in China","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-26 01:00:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7785614/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0f9cac80-7f14-4b32-b212-373036d8e200","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-18T22:08:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-26 01:00:11","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7785614","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7785614","identity":"rs-7785614","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}