Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2019, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (3): 324-334.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.03.011
• Ecotourism in China • Previous Articles Next Articles
LONG Fei1,2(), LIU Jiaming1,2,*(
), YU Hu1,2, ZHU He1,2, ZHANG Shuying1,2
Received:
2020-02-09
Accepted:
2018-11-28
Online:
2019-05-30
Published:
2019-05-30
Contact:
LIU Jiaming
About author:
First author: LONG Fei, E-mail:
Supported by:
LONG Fei,LIU Jiaming,YU Hu,ZHU He,ZHANG Shuying. The Evaluation System and Application of the Homestay Agglomeration Location Selection[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(3): 324-334.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.03.011
Target level | Comprehensive evaluation level | Weight | Element evaluation level | Weight of the upper level | Gross weight of the target level | Factor evaluation level | Weight of the upper level | Gross weight of the target level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A homestay agglomeration location selection | B1 Economic environment | 0.4396 | C1 Economic development | 0.3741 | 0.1645 | D1 GDP | 1.0000 | 0.1645 |
C2 Household disposable income | 0.1475 | 0.0648 | D2 Per capita disposable income of urban residents | 1.0000 | 0.0648 | |||
C3 Population size | 0.1043 | 0.0459 | D3 Resident population | 1.0000 | 0.0459 | |||
C4 Policy environment | 0.3741 | 0.1645 | D4 Reasonable travel & related planning | 0.5000 | 0.0823 | |||
D5 Policy support | 0.5000 | 0.0823 | ||||||
B2 Tourism development | 0.3039 | C5 Tourist reception | 0.3863 | 0.1174 | D6 Domestic tourist reception | 0.9728 | 0.1142 | |
D7 International tourist reception | 0.0272 | 0.0032 | ||||||
C6 Tourism income | 0.1686 | 0.0512 | D8 Total tourism revenue | 1.0000 | 0.0512 | |||
C7 Accommodation facilities | 0.0587 | 0.0178 | D9 Hotels | 0.2500 | 0.0045 | |||
D10 Number of homestays | 0.7500 | 0.0134 | ||||||
C8 Tourism resource enrichment | 0.3863 | 0.1174 | D11 Number of scenic area 3A above | 0.3152 | 0.0370 | |||
D12 Grade of scenic area | 0.3678 | 0.0432 | ||||||
D13 Ancient village & town | 0.2170 | 0.0255 | ||||||
B3 Geographical environment | 0.1405 | C9 Distance to central city | 0.3874 | 0.0544 | D14 Distance | 1.0000 | 0.0544 | |
C10 Distance to core tourism resources | 0.3874 | 0.0544 | D15 Distance | 1.0000 | 0.0544 | |||
C11 Climate | 0.0724 | 0.0102 | D16 Tourism peak season | 0.6667 | 0.0068 | |||
D17 Tourism climate comfort | 0.3333 | 0.0034 | ||||||
C12 Regional traffic | 0.1124 | 0.0158 | D18 Distance to airport | 0.4545 | 0.0072 | |||
D19 Distance to railway station | 0.4545 | 0.0072 | ||||||
D20 Distance to main highway | 0.0909 | 0.0014 | ||||||
C13 Close traffic | 0.0404 | 0.0057 | D21 Distance to bus stop/ subway station | 0.3333 | 0.0019 | |||
D22 Traffic convenience to core tourism destination | 0.6667 | 0.0038 | ||||||
B4 Supporting Facilities | 0.0545 | C14 Infrastructure facilities | 0.5418 | 0.0295 | D23 Supply of water, power, internet, sewage disposal | 1.0000 | 0.0295 | |
C15 Public service facilities | 0.3818 | 0.0208 | D24 Distance to large shopping & entertainment | 0.2782 | 0.0058 | |||
D25 Distance to large dining area | 0.5489 | 0.0114 | ||||||
D26 Distance to hospital | 0.1300 | 0.0027 | ||||||
D27 Distance to post office & other public services | 0.0429 | 0.0009 | ||||||
C16 Parking space condition | 0.0764 | 0.0042 | D28 Independent parking area & parking space | 1.0000 | 0.0042 | |||
B5 Operation condition | 0.0615 | C17 Cultural experience | 0.1805 | 0.0111 | D29 Tourist participation | 0.6667 | 0.0074 | |
D30 Local cultural characteristics | 0.3333 | 0.0037 | ||||||
C18 Human resource | 0.0642 | 0.0039 | D31 Difficulty in obtaining professionals | 0.4444 | 0.0017 | |||
D32 Human cost | 0.5556 | 0.0022 | ||||||
C19 Rent cost | 0.5572 | 0.0343 | D33 Rent cost | 0.6667 | 0.0229 | |||
D34 Community relations (residents attitude to homestay) | 0.3333 | 0.0114 | ||||||
C20 Architectural feature | 0.1982 | 0.0122 | D35 Regional feature & integrity | 1.0000 | 0.0122 |
Table 2 Indicators and weights of the homestay agglomeration location selection evaluation
Target level | Comprehensive evaluation level | Weight | Element evaluation level | Weight of the upper level | Gross weight of the target level | Factor evaluation level | Weight of the upper level | Gross weight of the target level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A homestay agglomeration location selection | B1 Economic environment | 0.4396 | C1 Economic development | 0.3741 | 0.1645 | D1 GDP | 1.0000 | 0.1645 |
C2 Household disposable income | 0.1475 | 0.0648 | D2 Per capita disposable income of urban residents | 1.0000 | 0.0648 | |||
C3 Population size | 0.1043 | 0.0459 | D3 Resident population | 1.0000 | 0.0459 | |||
C4 Policy environment | 0.3741 | 0.1645 | D4 Reasonable travel & related planning | 0.5000 | 0.0823 | |||
D5 Policy support | 0.5000 | 0.0823 | ||||||
B2 Tourism development | 0.3039 | C5 Tourist reception | 0.3863 | 0.1174 | D6 Domestic tourist reception | 0.9728 | 0.1142 | |
D7 International tourist reception | 0.0272 | 0.0032 | ||||||
C6 Tourism income | 0.1686 | 0.0512 | D8 Total tourism revenue | 1.0000 | 0.0512 | |||
C7 Accommodation facilities | 0.0587 | 0.0178 | D9 Hotels | 0.2500 | 0.0045 | |||
D10 Number of homestays | 0.7500 | 0.0134 | ||||||
C8 Tourism resource enrichment | 0.3863 | 0.1174 | D11 Number of scenic area 3A above | 0.3152 | 0.0370 | |||
D12 Grade of scenic area | 0.3678 | 0.0432 | ||||||
D13 Ancient village & town | 0.2170 | 0.0255 | ||||||
B3 Geographical environment | 0.1405 | C9 Distance to central city | 0.3874 | 0.0544 | D14 Distance | 1.0000 | 0.0544 | |
C10 Distance to core tourism resources | 0.3874 | 0.0544 | D15 Distance | 1.0000 | 0.0544 | |||
C11 Climate | 0.0724 | 0.0102 | D16 Tourism peak season | 0.6667 | 0.0068 | |||
D17 Tourism climate comfort | 0.3333 | 0.0034 | ||||||
C12 Regional traffic | 0.1124 | 0.0158 | D18 Distance to airport | 0.4545 | 0.0072 | |||
D19 Distance to railway station | 0.4545 | 0.0072 | ||||||
D20 Distance to main highway | 0.0909 | 0.0014 | ||||||
C13 Close traffic | 0.0404 | 0.0057 | D21 Distance to bus stop/ subway station | 0.3333 | 0.0019 | |||
D22 Traffic convenience to core tourism destination | 0.6667 | 0.0038 | ||||||
B4 Supporting Facilities | 0.0545 | C14 Infrastructure facilities | 0.5418 | 0.0295 | D23 Supply of water, power, internet, sewage disposal | 1.0000 | 0.0295 | |
C15 Public service facilities | 0.3818 | 0.0208 | D24 Distance to large shopping & entertainment | 0.2782 | 0.0058 | |||
D25 Distance to large dining area | 0.5489 | 0.0114 | ||||||
D26 Distance to hospital | 0.1300 | 0.0027 | ||||||
D27 Distance to post office & other public services | 0.0429 | 0.0009 | ||||||
C16 Parking space condition | 0.0764 | 0.0042 | D28 Independent parking area & parking space | 1.0000 | 0.0042 | |||
B5 Operation condition | 0.0615 | C17 Cultural experience | 0.1805 | 0.0111 | D29 Tourist participation | 0.6667 | 0.0074 | |
D30 Local cultural characteristics | 0.3333 | 0.0037 | ||||||
C18 Human resource | 0.0642 | 0.0039 | D31 Difficulty in obtaining professionals | 0.4444 | 0.0017 | |||
D32 Human cost | 0.5556 | 0.0022 | ||||||
C19 Rent cost | 0.5572 | 0.0343 | D33 Rent cost | 0.6667 | 0.0229 | |||
D34 Community relations (residents attitude to homestay) | 0.3333 | 0.0114 | ||||||
C20 Architectural feature | 0.1982 | 0.0122 | D35 Regional feature & integrity | 1.0000 | 0.0122 |
Evaluation indicators | Gross weight of the target level | Evaluation Standard / Score | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | ||
D1 GDP | 0.1645 | Below national ranking 60% | National ranking 60% | National ranking 50% | National ranking 40% | National ranking 30% | National ranking 20% |
D2 Per capita disposable income of urban residents (Y/Y) | 0.0648 | - | <20000 | >22000 | >25000 | >28000 | >30000 |
D3 Resident population (ten thousand) | 0.0459 | <10 | 10-50 | 50-100 | 100-500 | 500-1000 | >1000 |
D4 Reasonable travel & related plan | 0.0823 | - | Relatively detailed and scientific tour programming designed by one administrative level | Detailed and scientific tour programming designed by one administrative level | Relatively detailed and scientific tour programming designed by two administrative levels | Detailed and scientific tour programming designed by two administrative levels | Detailed and scientific tour programming designed by all three administrative levels |
D5 Policy support | 0.0823 | - | Relatively detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by one administrative level | Detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by one administrative level | Relatively detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by two administrative levels | Detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by two administrative levels | Detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by all three administrative levels |
D6 Domestic tourist reception | 0.1142 | Below national ranking 60% | National ranking 60% | National ranking 50% | National ranking 40% | National ranking 30% | National ranking 20% |
D7 International tourist reception | 0.0032 | Below national ranking 60% | National ranking 60% | National ranking 50% | National ranking 40% | National ranking 30% | National ranking 20% |
D8 Total tourism revenue | 0.0512 | Below provincial ranking 50% | Provincial ranking 50% | Provincial ranking 40% | Provincial ranking 30% | Provincial ranking 20% | Provincial ranking 10% |
D9 Hotels | 0.0045 | - | The number of rooms is insufficient and the grade is single | The number of rooms can meet the basic accommodation needs, no star hotels | There are plenty of rooms, a variety of grades and 3-star hotels | There are plenty of rooms, a variety of grades and 4-star hotels | There are plenty of rooms, a variety of grades and 5-star hotels |
D10 Number of homestay | 0.0134 | 0 | <500 | >500 | >1000 | >1500 | >2000 |
D11 Number of scenic area 3A above | 0.0370 | 0 | >10 | >20 | >30 | >40 | >50 |
D12 Grade of scenic area | 0.0432 | - | There are other tourist attractions | There are scenic spots. | There are 3A and above scenic spots | There are 4A and above scenic spots | There are 5A scenic spots |
D13 Ancient village & town | 0.0255 | 0 | <5 | >5 | >10 | >15 | >20 |
D14 Distance | 0.0544 | >300 km | <300 km | <250 km | <200 km | <150 km | <100 km |
D15 Distance | 0.0544 | - | ﹥20 km | ﹤20 km | ﹤15 km | ﹤10 km | ﹤5 km |
D16 Tourism peak season | 0.0068 | - | 2 months or more | 4 months or more | 6 months or more | 8 months or more | 10 months or more |
D17 Tourism climate comfort | 0.0034 | - | Suitable travel period more than 2 months | Suitable travel period more than 4 months | Suitable travel period more than 6 months | Suitable travel period more than 8 months | Suitable travel period more than 10 months |
D18 Distance to airport | 0.0072 | - | <75 km | <65 km | <55 km | <45 km | <35 km |
D19 Distance to railway station | 0.0072 | - | <40 km | <30 km | <20 km | <15 km | <10 km |
D20 Distance to main highway | 0.0014 | - | <40 km | <30 km | <20 km | <15 km | <10 km |
Evaluation indicators | Gross weight of the target level | Evaluation Standard / Score | |||||
0 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | ||
D21 Distance to bus stop/ subway station | 0.0019 | - | <5 km | <4 km | <3 km | <2 km | <1 km |
D22 Traffic convenience to core tourism destination | 0.0038 | Arrival is relatively difficult | There are few modes of transportation to choose from, which is not convenient enough | There is a choice of modes of transportation, which is relatively convenient | There is a choice of modes of transportation, which is more convenient | There are many modes of transportation available, which are convenient | There are many modes of transportation available, which are very convenient |
D23 Supply of water, power, internet, sewage disposal | 0.0295 | Not complete | Not quite complete | Generally complete | Relatively complete | Very complete | Extremely complete |
D24 Distance to large shopping& entertainment | 0.0058 | - | <20 km | <15 km | <10 km | <8 km | <5 km |
D25 Distance to large dining area | 0.0114 | - | <15 km | <10 km | <8 km | <5 km | <3 km |
D26 Distance to hospital | 0.0027 | - | <10 km | <8 km | <5 km | <3 km | <2 km |
D27 Distance to post office & other public service | 0.0009 | - | <15 km | <10 km | <8 km | <5 km | <3 km |
D28 Independent parking area & parking space | 0.0042 | No separate parking lot, no parking space | No separate parking lot, generally adequate parking space | No separate parking lot, plenty of parking space | There is an independent parking lot with generally adequate parking space | There is a separate parking lot with adequate parking space | There is a separate parking lot and plenty of parking spaces |
D29 Tourist participation | 0.0074 | - | Very low | Low | Moderate | High | Very high |
D30 Local cultural characteristics | 0.0037 | - | Relatively distinctive | General distinctive | Distinctive | Very distinctive | Extremely distinctive |
D31 Difficulty in obtaining professionals | 0.0017 | Difficult to obtain | More difficult to obtain | Not easy to obtain | Generally easy to obtain | Easy to obtain | Very easy to obtain |
D32 Human cost | 0.0022 | - | Very high | High | Moderate | Low | Very low |
D33 Rent cost | 0.0229 | Difficult to obtain housing sources | Far higher than the rental price of the local house | Higher than the rental price of the local house | The same as the rental price of the local house | Lower than the rental price of the local house | Far lower than the rental price of the local house |
D34 Community relations (residents’ attitudes to homestay) | 0.0114 | Oppose the operation of homestay | No attitude | Get along relatively well with homestay operators | Get along well with homestay operators | Get along very well with homestay operators | Get along extremely well with homestay operators |
D35 Regional features & integrity | 0.0122 | - | With certain regional characteristics, the architecture is not preserved well enough | With certain regional characteristics, the architecture is not well preserved | With certain regional characteristics, the architecture is relatively well preserved | With regional characteristics, the architecture is well preserved | With special regional characteristics, the architecture is extremely well preserved |
Table 3 Classification of the homestay agglomeration area site selection evaluation indicators
Evaluation indicators | Gross weight of the target level | Evaluation Standard / Score | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | ||
D1 GDP | 0.1645 | Below national ranking 60% | National ranking 60% | National ranking 50% | National ranking 40% | National ranking 30% | National ranking 20% |
D2 Per capita disposable income of urban residents (Y/Y) | 0.0648 | - | <20000 | >22000 | >25000 | >28000 | >30000 |
D3 Resident population (ten thousand) | 0.0459 | <10 | 10-50 | 50-100 | 100-500 | 500-1000 | >1000 |
D4 Reasonable travel & related plan | 0.0823 | - | Relatively detailed and scientific tour programming designed by one administrative level | Detailed and scientific tour programming designed by one administrative level | Relatively detailed and scientific tour programming designed by two administrative levels | Detailed and scientific tour programming designed by two administrative levels | Detailed and scientific tour programming designed by all three administrative levels |
D5 Policy support | 0.0823 | - | Relatively detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by one administrative level | Detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by one administrative level | Relatively detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by two administrative levels | Detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by two administrative levels | Detailed and scientific homestay industry policy designed by all three administrative levels |
D6 Domestic tourist reception | 0.1142 | Below national ranking 60% | National ranking 60% | National ranking 50% | National ranking 40% | National ranking 30% | National ranking 20% |
D7 International tourist reception | 0.0032 | Below national ranking 60% | National ranking 60% | National ranking 50% | National ranking 40% | National ranking 30% | National ranking 20% |
D8 Total tourism revenue | 0.0512 | Below provincial ranking 50% | Provincial ranking 50% | Provincial ranking 40% | Provincial ranking 30% | Provincial ranking 20% | Provincial ranking 10% |
D9 Hotels | 0.0045 | - | The number of rooms is insufficient and the grade is single | The number of rooms can meet the basic accommodation needs, no star hotels | There are plenty of rooms, a variety of grades and 3-star hotels | There are plenty of rooms, a variety of grades and 4-star hotels | There are plenty of rooms, a variety of grades and 5-star hotels |
D10 Number of homestay | 0.0134 | 0 | <500 | >500 | >1000 | >1500 | >2000 |
D11 Number of scenic area 3A above | 0.0370 | 0 | >10 | >20 | >30 | >40 | >50 |
D12 Grade of scenic area | 0.0432 | - | There are other tourist attractions | There are scenic spots. | There are 3A and above scenic spots | There are 4A and above scenic spots | There are 5A scenic spots |
D13 Ancient village & town | 0.0255 | 0 | <5 | >5 | >10 | >15 | >20 |
D14 Distance | 0.0544 | >300 km | <300 km | <250 km | <200 km | <150 km | <100 km |
D15 Distance | 0.0544 | - | ﹥20 km | ﹤20 km | ﹤15 km | ﹤10 km | ﹤5 km |
D16 Tourism peak season | 0.0068 | - | 2 months or more | 4 months or more | 6 months or more | 8 months or more | 10 months or more |
D17 Tourism climate comfort | 0.0034 | - | Suitable travel period more than 2 months | Suitable travel period more than 4 months | Suitable travel period more than 6 months | Suitable travel period more than 8 months | Suitable travel period more than 10 months |
D18 Distance to airport | 0.0072 | - | <75 km | <65 km | <55 km | <45 km | <35 km |
D19 Distance to railway station | 0.0072 | - | <40 km | <30 km | <20 km | <15 km | <10 km |
D20 Distance to main highway | 0.0014 | - | <40 km | <30 km | <20 km | <15 km | <10 km |
Evaluation indicators | Gross weight of the target level | Evaluation Standard / Score | |||||
0 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | ||
D21 Distance to bus stop/ subway station | 0.0019 | - | <5 km | <4 km | <3 km | <2 km | <1 km |
D22 Traffic convenience to core tourism destination | 0.0038 | Arrival is relatively difficult | There are few modes of transportation to choose from, which is not convenient enough | There is a choice of modes of transportation, which is relatively convenient | There is a choice of modes of transportation, which is more convenient | There are many modes of transportation available, which are convenient | There are many modes of transportation available, which are very convenient |
D23 Supply of water, power, internet, sewage disposal | 0.0295 | Not complete | Not quite complete | Generally complete | Relatively complete | Very complete | Extremely complete |
D24 Distance to large shopping& entertainment | 0.0058 | - | <20 km | <15 km | <10 km | <8 km | <5 km |
D25 Distance to large dining area | 0.0114 | - | <15 km | <10 km | <8 km | <5 km | <3 km |
D26 Distance to hospital | 0.0027 | - | <10 km | <8 km | <5 km | <3 km | <2 km |
D27 Distance to post office & other public service | 0.0009 | - | <15 km | <10 km | <8 km | <5 km | <3 km |
D28 Independent parking area & parking space | 0.0042 | No separate parking lot, no parking space | No separate parking lot, generally adequate parking space | No separate parking lot, plenty of parking space | There is an independent parking lot with generally adequate parking space | There is a separate parking lot with adequate parking space | There is a separate parking lot and plenty of parking spaces |
D29 Tourist participation | 0.0074 | - | Very low | Low | Moderate | High | Very high |
D30 Local cultural characteristics | 0.0037 | - | Relatively distinctive | General distinctive | Distinctive | Very distinctive | Extremely distinctive |
D31 Difficulty in obtaining professionals | 0.0017 | Difficult to obtain | More difficult to obtain | Not easy to obtain | Generally easy to obtain | Easy to obtain | Very easy to obtain |
D32 Human cost | 0.0022 | - | Very high | High | Moderate | Low | Very low |
D33 Rent cost | 0.0229 | Difficult to obtain housing sources | Far higher than the rental price of the local house | Higher than the rental price of the local house | The same as the rental price of the local house | Lower than the rental price of the local house | Far lower than the rental price of the local house |
D34 Community relations (residents’ attitudes to homestay) | 0.0114 | Oppose the operation of homestay | No attitude | Get along relatively well with homestay operators | Get along well with homestay operators | Get along very well with homestay operators | Get along extremely well with homestay operators |
D35 Regional features & integrity | 0.0122 | - | With certain regional characteristics, the architecture is not preserved well enough | With certain regional characteristics, the architecture is not well preserved | With certain regional characteristics, the architecture is relatively well preserved | With regional characteristics, the architecture is well preserved | With special regional characteristics, the architecture is extremely well preserved |
Location selection of the homestay agglomeration | Economic environment | Tourism development | Geographical environment | Supporting facilities | Operating condition | Wi | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic environment | 1.0000 | 0.5445 | 0.4335 | 0.2631 | 0.4667 | 0.4396 | 0.095 |
Tourism development | 0.2451 | 1.0000 | 0.4335 | 0.3684 | 0.2 | 0.3039 | |
Geographical environment | 0.0980 | 0.0544 | 1.0000 | 0.2631 | 0.2 | 0.1405 | |
Supporting facilities | 0.0980 | 0.0381 | 0.0173 | 1.0000 | 0.0667 | 0.0545 | |
Operating condition | 0.0686 | 0.0907 | 0.0288 | 0.0526 | 1.0000 | 0.0615 |
Table 1 Judgment matrix of A and B level indices
Location selection of the homestay agglomeration | Economic environment | Tourism development | Geographical environment | Supporting facilities | Operating condition | Wi | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic environment | 1.0000 | 0.5445 | 0.4335 | 0.2631 | 0.4667 | 0.4396 | 0.095 |
Tourism development | 0.2451 | 1.0000 | 0.4335 | 0.3684 | 0.2 | 0.3039 | |
Geographical environment | 0.0980 | 0.0544 | 1.0000 | 0.2631 | 0.2 | 0.1405 | |
Supporting facilities | 0.0980 | 0.0381 | 0.0173 | 1.0000 | 0.0667 | 0.0545 | |
Operating condition | 0.0686 | 0.0907 | 0.0288 | 0.0526 | 1.0000 | 0.0615 |
[1] | Bai X.2010. The thinking of location in the planning of modern service industry cluster area -- taking the modern service agglomeration area Xipu in chengdu as an example.Sichuan Architecture, 30(6): 8-10. (in Chinese) |
[2] | Bao J G, Chu Y F.1999. Tourism Geography. Beijing: Higher Education Press. (in Chinese) |
[3] | Bao J.1997 A systematic analysis of the influential factors to theme park development.Acta Geographica Sinica, 52(3): 237-245. (in Chinese) |
[4] | Chen J J, Chen J, Lin J L.2017. A Study on B & B cluster construction influence on rural tourism destination's brand image: Based on the data of Zhejiang Province.Rural Economy and Science-Technology, 28(7): 79-82. (in Chinese) |
[5] | Coltman M M.1989.Tourism Marketing.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. |
[6] | Fan Y Y.2015. The location selection of the economy hotel based on the analytic hierarchy process.Zhejiang Gongshang University, (in Chinese) |
[7] | Gao J, Qiu Y S.2009. Study on the GIS-based resort siting evaluation in scenic areas——Case study of Nan Kun Mountain, Guangdong Province.Human Geography, 24(6): 82-85. (in Chinese) |
[8] | Gray W S, Liguori S C.2002. Hotel and Motel Management and Opera- tions (the 4th Edition).Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice- Hall, 186-200. |
[9] | Li C.2017. Analysis on the location factor of rural micro-tourism project -- taking Meijiagou scenic area as an example.Rural science and technology, 13(5): 23-25. (in Chinese) |
[10] | Li H R, Wang X B.1995. A secret to success---An investigation report on Shenzhen’s “Splendid China”, “Chinese Ethnic Culture Village” and “the Window of the World”. Toursim Tribune, 9(5): 30-34.+61 (in Chinese) |
[11] | Li Q.2017. Study on construction status and bottleneck of industry support of beautiful countryside in Chengde. Tourism Overview, 2(2). (in Chinese) |
[12] | Li X J, Xie H B.2006. From the theory of industrial agglomeration, the location strategy of tourism hotel (micro) Southeast Communication——A case of Fuzhou city.Southeast Communication, 22(6): 75-77. (in Chinese) |
[13] | Liu J M, Ji R J.2001. Research on selecting development sites for resorts.Human Geography,16(5): 49-52, 71. (in Chinese) |
[14] | Long F, Liu J, Zhang S, et al.2018. Development characteristics and evolution mechanism of homestay agglomeration in Mogan Mountain, China.Sustainability. 10(9): 2964. |
[15] | Ma K L.2016. Study on resort site selection.Journal of Sichuan Tourism University, 123(2): 47-51. (in Chinese) |
[16] | Ma L H.2008. Research on location of tourism hotel based on multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation.Market Modernization,560(35): 25. (in Chinese) |
[17] | Qiu R D, Fu H Y.2008. Study on site selection of tourism real estate.Shanxi Architecture,34(2): 246-247. (in Chinese) |
[18] | Ritchie J R B,Crouch G I,Li T Y,et al. 2006. Tourism Destination Competitiveness Management. Tianjin: Nankai University Press. (in Chinese) |
[19] | Wang G X, Qian L L, Chen T, et al.2015. Evaluation of tourism environmental comfort and its spatial-temporal differentiation : a case study of West Lake in Hangzhou, China.Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(7): 2206-2216. (in Chinese) |
[20] | Wang R, Liu J M, Tian D J.2010. Research on site selection of sports& recreation tourism in islands: A case study of haitan island in Fujian Province. Tropical Geography, 30(06): 681-686, 692. (in Chinese) |
[21] | Weber A.1929. On the location of industries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |
[22] | Xiong G M.2016. Thoughts on development of B&B cluster: A supply chain perspective.Logistics Technology, 35(1): 146-148. (in Chinese) |
[23] | Zha A P, Xu N, Hou Z G.2017. Research on the suitability of micro-location of budget hotel: A case study on Jinjiang Inn Shanghai central city.Human Geography, 32(1): 152-160. (in Chinese) |
[24] | Zha G F.2017. Reserch on Shanghai boutique hotel commercial factors of micro-location. Shanghai Normal University. (in Chinese) |
[25] | Zheng C H, Chen W C.2010. Choosing sites for developing resorts.Science of Surveying and Mapping, 35(2): 180-182. (in Chinese) |
[26] | Zhou Q.2014. Analysis on the development of Taiwan homestay and its enlightenment.Taiwan Agricultural Research, 126(1): 13-18. (in Chinese) |
[1] | WANG Yan, XIE Hongzhong, ZHU Tao. Evaluation System for Yunnan Cultural Tourism Routes Based on a Five Component Model: Case Study of the Ancient Tea-horse Road in the South of Yunnan [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(5): 553-558. |
[2] | XUE Qian, SONG Wei, ZHANG Yili, MOU Fengyun. Research Progress in Ecological Carrying Capacity:Implications, Assessment Methods and Current Focus [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(5): 514-525. |
[3] | ZHANG Fengsong, LI Yanxia, YANG Ming, LI Wei, YAN Weijin . Copper Residue in Animal Manures and the Potential Pollution Risk in Northeast China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2011, 2(1): 91-96. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||