Journal of Resources and Ecology >
The Evaluation System and Application of the Homestay Agglomeration Location Selection
First author: LONG Fei, E-mail:81327821@qq.com
Received date: 2020-02-09
Accepted date: 2018-11-28
Online published: 2019-05-30
Supported by
China National Tourism Administration’s 10000 Travel Talent Program (WMYC20171039)
National Natural Science Foundation of China (41801139, 41731286)
Copyright
The location of the homestay agglomeration is closely related to its proximity to the resources environment and the humanities and social environments. From the macroscopic and microscopic aspects, this study uses the analytic hierarchy process and the expert consultation method to construct a relatively comprehensive evaluation system including economic and environmental factors, tourism development factors, geographical environment factors, supporting facilities and operating conditions. The evaluation index system consists of 20 evaluation indexes and 35 evaluation factors. Taking the Baileqiao in Hangzhou and Qianjiadian Town in Beijing as examples, the evaluation indexes are verified and applied. The results show that the main factors affecting the location of the homestay agglomeration are the economic and environmental factors. The evaluation index system is composed of a target layer, a comprehensive evaluation layer, a factor evaluation layer and an index layer. The target layer takes reasonable location of the homestay agglomeration as the overall objective; the comprehensive evaluation layer includes economic and environmental factors (0.4396), tourism development (0.3039), geographic and environmental factors (0.1405), and supporting facilities (0.0545). The comprehensive evaluation scores of Baileqiao and Qianjiadian homestay agglomerations are 92.644 and 88.734, respectively, indicating that both are reasonable homestay sites. This study is helpful for promoting the understanding of the homestay agglomeration location selection and the development and construction of homestay agglomeration sites.
Key words: homestay agglomeration; location selection; evaluation system; application
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 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.03.011
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 |
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 |
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 |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |