EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2022 , Vol. 13 >Issue 6: 1087 - 1097

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.06.013

Tourism Resource and Ecotourism

Evaluation of Rural Tourism Resources based on the Tourists Perspective: A Case Study of Lanzhou City, China

  • PU Lili , 1 ,
  • LU Chengpeng , 2, * ,
  • CHEN Xingpeng 1, 2
Expand
  • 1. College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
  • 2. Institute of County Economic Development & Rural Revitalization Strategy, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
* LU Chengpeng, E-mail:

PU Lili, E-mail:

Received date: 2021-10-16

  Accepted date: 2022-03-20

  Online published: 2022-10-12

Supported by

The National Key Research and Development Program of China(2018YFC0704702)

The Lanzhou University of Arts and Sciences Outstanding Youth Research Talent Cultivation Program(2018JCQN007)

Fold

Abstract

Rural tourism has become a hot spot in China's tourism development. Based on the AHP model and the comprehensive evaluation method of fuzzy cognition, this paper builds an evaluation system for the evaluation of rural tourism resources, including resource value, environmental factors, reception conditions with three criterion layers, and 25 evaluation factors. We recovered 574 valid questionnaires through two online forms and field research in Lanzhou city, and then used them to complete the empirical analysis. The results show four main aspects of the tourists' perspective on rural tourism resources. Firstly, rural tourists are concerned about higher service facilities. The evaluation of rural tourism resources pays more attention to the reception conditions, and tourists pay more attention to the facilities of the reception conditions. In addition, the reception condition value accounts for a more concentrated 8-10 points (61.4%), which is higher than environmental elements (58.87%) and the value of the resource itself (54.26%). Secondly, tourists' attention to rural tourism resources mainly focuses on the pleasurable (0.1152), tour line design (0.1014), experience (0.0765), ornamental (0.0747) and other aspects. Thirdly, the degree of cognition mainly focuses on nature (4508), environmental safety (4469), pleasantness (4387), accommodation conditions (4367), tour line design (4363) and other aspects of the rural tourism resources. Fourthly, the cognition of rural tourism resources is basically given priority with 6-9 points, and environmental factors accounted for the highest portion. However, rural tourists have higher expectations for the popularization and education of rural tourism resources, but the sense of acquisition is relatively low. Through the further improvement and improvement of the naturalness of environmental resources, environmental safety of reception conditions, and the enjoyment of external traffic and resource value, the overall benefit of rural tourism resources is maximized. The results of this study can provide reference for the theoretical foundation of rural tourism resources.

Key words： rural tourism resources; recognition; tourist perspective; AHP; Lanzhou City

Cite this article

PU Lili , LU Chengpeng , CHEN Xingpeng . Evaluation of Rural Tourism Resources based on the Tourists Perspective: A Case Study of Lanzhou City, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022 , 13(6) : 1087 -1097 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.06.013

1 Introduction

Rural tourism is also known as agricultural tourism (Agritourism), farm tourism (Farm tourism), eco-tourism (Ecotourism), and geoscience tourism (Geotourism). It is an emerging form of tourism (Wang et al., 2021a) and a model (He et al., 2020) founded on a natural ecological environ ment (Ye et al., 2019). It occurs in rural gathering areas with major agricultural production relative to the city (Xiao et al., 2001), with the rural scenery, life and activities as the attractions (Du et al., 1999), with urban residents as the main goal (Guo et al., 2010), and a set of viewing, investigation, learning, participation, entertainment, shopping, and vacation as the tourism activities (Wang et al., 2006). It provides important opportunities for the development of modernization and the transformation of the rural lifestyle (Sun et al., 2006), and has also become an important way to guide the rural transformation and development in the marginal areas of large cities (Wei et al., 2018). It plays an important role in the activation path of ancient villages (Wu, 2016), the rural cultural revitalization path (Wang et al., 2019a), an important facilitator of intelligent tourism rural construction (Lin and Chen, 2019) and the path for guiding rural revitalization (Lu et al., 2019a). Rural life and the rural environment are the most attractive rural tourism resources (Luo, 2021a), and they have become the direct cause (Yuan, 2020) of attracting tourists to the tourist destination and the core attraction element (Chen, 2019a). Therefore, it is particularly important to scientific evaluate the rural tourism resources from the perspective of tourists to realize the continuous attractiveness and vitality of rural tourism resources.
Rural tourism resource evaluation is the basis for the rational development of rural tourism (He et al., 2020). It has been used for evaluating rural tourism resources relatively earlier, from the perspectives of landscape value (Morris and Romeril, 1986), sustainability (Xing et al., 2019), and rural ecotourism resource evaluation system (Chen, 2020), based on the AHP Method (Jin, 2009), etc. Rural tourism resource studies mainly focus on the development of rural tourism resources (Yang, 2019), spatial structure optimization (Geng et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019b; Yan et al., 2019), classification of rural tourism resources (Zhang, 2019) and evaluation (Zhang et al., 2017). The evaluation of rural tourism resources mainly focuses on the qualitative research using the SWOT method (Pang, 2017), entropy power method and COPRAS method (Wang and Geng, 2020), Delphi method (Chen and Fu, 2010), Hierarchical analysis method (AHP) (Yin et al., 2007), and applied functional evaluation method (Huo, 2019), and mainly considers the resource ontology evaluation as the starting point and basis. However, there are relatively few resource evaluation studies from the perspective of tourists. They mainly assess the satisfaction of tourism resources for evaluation, and can also explore the input and output efficiency of the tourism industry (Liu et al., 2021). This study is mainly from the perspective of tourists, and takes rural tourism in Lanzhou as an example for analyzing the cognition and evaluation of rural tourism resources, in order to provide a typical case study for the evaluation of rural tourism resources.

2 Methods and date processing

2.1 Studied cases

Lanzhou City is the provincial capital of Gansu Province, one of the important central cities in western China, an important industrial base and comprehensive transportation hub in northwest China, and an important node city in the Silk Road Economic Belt. Lanzhou tourism resources are rich in variety, and profound historical and cultural heritage (Huang, 2019). Lanzhou rural tourism development is at a medium level (Zhao, 2017). There are efforts to build Lanzhou into the silk road economic belt tourism distribution center, to show the Yellow River culture landmark tourism destination (CPC Lanzhou municipal committee on Lanzhou national economic and social development of the fourteenth five years and 2035 vision goals), and to put forward promoting the development of a rural tourism upgrade. In recent years, the rural development hot spots of Renshou Mountain, Lijiazhuang Pastoral Complex, Langjie Village, Qingcheng Ancient Town, Yuquan Village and Qingchuan Folk Culture Village have been constantly presented.
Firstly, the total rural tourism development trend of Lanzhou City is good. By 2019, Lanzhou rural tourism has received 1.39×107 tourists, 2.2 times the number in 2015, and rural tourism revenue reached 3.533 billion yuan, 3.3 times the amount in 2015 (Lanzhou 14th Five-Year Cultural Tourism Development Plan). These figures account for 16.93% of 8.2×107 domestic tourists and 4.67% of 76.65 billion yuan in domestic tourists of Lanzhou City.
Secondly, the development of rural tourism is obviously regional and spatial heterogeneous, and the regional difference in rural tourism income is far greater than the difference in the scale of rural tourism. First of all, the scale of rural tourism reception in Yuzhong County is the largest, the smallest is in Honggu District, and the scale of each county (district) shows obvious differences. In 2019, the number of rural tourists received in Yuzhong County was 5.52 times that of Honggu District. The number of rural tourists received in Yuzhong County, Chengguan District, Yongdeng County, Gaolan County, Qilihe District, Anning District, Xigu District, and Gaolan County accounted for 30.25%, 16.62%, 12.58%, 12.30%, 8.91%, 7.30%, 8.49% and 5.48% of the number of rural tourists, respectively. Second, in terms of the scale of rural tourism income, Yuzhong County is the largest and the smallest is Honggu District, and the scale of each county (district) is obvious. In 2019, Yuzhong County was 8.56 times that of Honggu District. The number of rural tourists received in Yuzhong County, Chengguan District, Yongdeng County, Gaolan County, Qilihe District, Anning District, Xigu District, and Gaolan County accounted for 44.53%, 10.60%, 11.75%, 8.51%, 5.61%, 7.17%, 9.50% and 5.20% of the number of rural tourists, respectively. Third, based on the per capita consumption level of rural tourism, the consumption level of counties (districts) varies greatly. In 2019, the per capita consumption of rural tourism in Lanzhou was only 227.45 yuan, or 24.03% of 946.37 yuan. Among them, the highest average rural tourism consumption level was in Yuzhong County at 366.51 yuan, 38.73% of the average tourism consumption in Lanzhou; while in Anning District it was 156.99 yuan, or 16.59% of the average domestic tourism consumption in Lanzhou.
Fig. 1 The number of tourists received and income of rural tourism in all counties (districts) of Lanzhou in 2019

2.2 Index system and data sources

According to the Classification, Investigation and Evaluation of Tourism Resources (GB/T18972-2017), the evaluation factors of “resource element value”, “resource influence”, “added value”, “ornamental recreation use value”, “historical, culture, scientific and artistic value”, “rare and strange degree”, “scale, abundance and probability” and “integrity” were selected. The evaluation index system of rural tourism resources was established from three standard levels, environmental atmosphere, development conditions (Wang and Geng, 2020), resource conditions, tourism conditions, development conditions, 8 project evaluation levels and 16 pleasure factors (Yin et al., 2007), resource elements, development conditions, social effect and landscape visibility (Zhang, 2019), and learned from the methods of research on tourism attraction, tourism service and tourism environment from the perspective of tourists (Wu et al., 2012). Drawing on relevant research and combined with the actual characteristics of Lanzhou, the evaluation index system of rural tourism resources in Lanzhou was constructed. Target layer A was built for rural tourism resource evaluation including the three criterion layers of Resource value (B1), which included cultural (Su, 2007; Xiao, 2021), local (Xie and Ji, 2019), inheritance (Ni, 2020), ornamental (Zeng and Ma, 2006; Wang et al., 2019c), pleasure (Tang, 2015), strange (Chen, 2019b), experiential (Xu, 2020), scale (Liu et al., 2019), popular science (Luo, 2021b), educational (Zhe, 2009); Environmental factors (B2) included rural (Huang and Wang, 2020), pastoral (Li, 2018), natural (Qin, 2014), simplicity (Huang, 2017), comfort (Liu and Chang, 2018), characteristic (Lu et al., 2021), combination (Zeng, 2015); and Reception conditions (B3) which included external transportation (Liu and Sun, 2010), internal traffic (Zhou et al., 2005), tour line design (Wu et al., 2020), accommodation conditions (Yan and Tan, 2021), tourism goods (Wang et al., 2021b), guide service (Yuan et al., 2021), personnel quality (Feng, 2019), environmental safety (Luo, 2017), for a total of C1-C25 evaluation factors (Table 1).
Table 1 The evaluation structure of rural tourism resources
Target layer (A) Criterion layers (B) Index layer (C)
Rural tourism resource evaluation
(A)		 Resource value
(B1)		 Cultural (C1)
Local (C2)
Inheritance (C3)
Ornamental (C4)
Pleasure (C5)
Strange (C6)
Experiential (C7)
Scale (C8)
Popular science (C9)
Educational (C10)
Environmental factors
(B2)		 Rural (C11)
pastoral (C12)
Natural (C13)
Simplicity (C14)
Comfort (C15)
Characteristic (C16)
Combination (C17)
Reception conditions
(B3)		 External transportation (C18)
Internal transportation (C19)
Tour line design (C20)
Accommodation conditions (C21)
Tourism goods (C22)
Tour guide (C23)
Personnel quality (C24)
Environmental safety (C25)
The distribution and collection of the questionnaires were performed from September to October 2019, mainly concentrated in Renshou Mountain, Lijiazhuang Pastoral Complex, Qingcheng Town, Yuquan Heights, Langjie Village, and Qingwangchuan Folk Culture Village. Six hundred questionnaires were distributed, and 586 questionnaires were collected, while 12 questionnaires from the respondents who answered the question within a short time were considered invalid. Therefore, 574 valid questionnaires were collected, for an effective rate of 95.67%.

2.3 Methods

Using the AHP method and the comprehensive evaluation method of fuzzy cognition, the judgment matrix was built. After inviting experts in rural tourism research and experts for consultation by questionnaire, the initially constructed index system was scored by pairwise comparison and the 1-9 scale method was used to build the judgment matrix of A-B and B-C (see Table 2-5 for details).
Table 2 A-B judgment matrix
A B1 B2 B3
B1 1 3 2
B2 1/3 1 1/3
B3 1/2 3 1
Table 3 B1-C judgment matrix
B1 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
C1 1 1/3 1 1/4 1/5 2 1/7 1/4 1/3 1/3
C2 3 1 1/2 1/5 1/5 1/2 1/4 1/2 1/3 1/5
C3 1 2 1 1/4 1/3 4 1/3 3 1/2 1/2
C4 4 5 4 1 1/3 3 1/2 6 1/3 3
C5 5 5 3 3 1 3 2 5 2 3
C6 1/2 2 1/4 1/3 1/3 1 1/4 1/2 1/7 1/5
C7 7 4 3 2 1/2 4 1 3 1/3 2
C8 4 2 1/3 1/6 1/5 2 1/3 1 1/3 1/4
C9 3 3 2 3 1/2 7 3 3 1 2
C10 3 5 2 1/3 1/3 5 1/2 4 1/2 1
Table 4 B2-C judgment matrix
B2 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17
C11 1 3 2 6 5 7 1/3
C12 1/3 1 2 3 3 4 1/5
C13 1/2 1/2 1 1 7 4 1/6
C14 1/6 1/3 1 1 4 3 1/5
C15 1/5 1/3 1/7 1/4 1 3 1/6
C16 1/7 1/4 1/4 1/3 1/3 1 1/6
C17 3 5 6 5 6 6 1
Table 5 B3-C judgment matrix
B3 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25
C18 1 3 1/3 1/2 3 2 1/3 1/2
C19 1/3 1 1/5 1/3 2 4 1/7 1/3
C20 3 5 1 2 5 5 3 5
C21 2 3 1/2 1 5 3 1/2 3
C22 1/3 1/2 1/5 1/5 1 3 1/3 1/5
C23 1/2 1/4 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 1/7 1/9
C24 3 7 1/3 2 3 7 1 3
C25 2 3 1/5 1/3 5 9 1/3 1

2.3.1 Consistency test

According to the establishment of the judgment matrix (Table 6), through the processing of the computer software system and the ranking of the rural tourism resource evaluation index level, the approximate maximum feature weight, the relevant standard layer B and the evaluation factor C were found. The CI and average randomness index RI of the judgment matrix were calculated, and the ratio CR=CI/RI < 0.1 (Xu, 1988; Cheng et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2012) is needed to pass the consistency test.
Table 6 Test for consistency check of the index in the evaluation of rural tourism resources
Matrix Maximum eigenvalue Weight N CI RI CR Consistency check
A-B 3.0536 W= (0.5278, 0.1396, 0.3325) 3 0.0964 1.87 0.052 <0.1, Adopt
B1-C 11.3167 W= (0.0336, 0.0351, 0.0651, 0.1414, 0.2182, 0.0319, 0.1449, 0.0476, 0.1814, 0.1007) 10 0.1463 1.49 0.098 <0.1, Adopt
B2-C 7.7934 W= (0.2297, 0.1217, 0.105, 0.0751, 0.0402, 0.0286, 0.3998) 7 0.1322 1.36 0.097 <0.1, Adopt
B3-C 8.9201 W= (0.0816, 0.0514, 0.3049, 0.1557, 0.0412, 0.0283, 0.2152, 0.1216) 8 0.1314 1.41 0.093 <0.1, Adopt

2.3.2 Indicator weight sorting

According to the hierarchy of evaluation indicators, the evaluation matrix and the consistency test of the matrix, the distribution of rural tourism index evaluation weights were obtained (Table 7). From the calculated weights, visitors pay more attention to the C5 (pleasure), C20 (tour line design), C9 (popular science), C7 (experiential), C4 (ornamental) and C24 (personnel quality) factors, indicating that visitors pay more attention to their own experience and sense of acquisition.
Table 7 Weight of rural tourism resource evaluation indicators
A B Indicator weight Evaluation factor C Indicator weight Total weight of indicators Index total weight sort
Evaluation for rural tourism resources B1 0.5278 C1 0.0336 0.0177 16
C2 0.0351 0.0185 15
C3 0.0651 0.0344 11
C4 0.1414 0.0747 5
C5 0.2182 0.1152 1
C6 0.0319 0.0168 19
C7 0.1449 0.0765 4
C8 0.0476 0.0251 14
C9 0.1814 0.0958 3
C10 0.1007 0.0532 8
B2 0.1396 C11 0.2297 0.0321 12
C12 0.1217 0.017 18
C13 0.105 0.0147 20
C14 0.0751 0.0105 22
C15 0.0402 0.0056 24
C16 0.0286 0.004 25
C17 0.3998 0.0558 7
B3 0.3325 C18 0.0816 0.0271 13
C19 0.0514 0.0171 17
C20 0.3049 0.1014 2
C21 0.1557 0.0518 9
C22 0.0412 0.0137 21
C23 0.0283 0.0094 23
C24 0.2152 0.0716 6
C25 0.1216 0.0404 10
In the specific analysis, Table 6 shows that the weight ranking of the standard layer of the rural tourism resource evaluation index is “resource value (0.5278) > reception conditions (0.3325) > environmental factor (0.1396)”. Table 7 shows that the evaluation factor C ranked the top 5 in the target level of the overall evaluation of rural tourism resource evaluation as mainly: “pleasure C5 (0.1152) > tour line design C20 (0.1014) > popular science C9 (0.0958) > experiential C7 (0.0765) > ornamental C4 (0.0747)”.

2.3.3 Calculation of visitor expectations

Through the recognition of the rural tourism resource evaluation factor in Lanzhou, the score is from 1 to 10. A higher score indicates, higher recognition of the tourists for the evaluation factor, the higher the score, the higher the recognition of the evaluation factor by tourists, the higher the recognition by tourists, and the lower the recognition. According to the 574 effective questionnaires from the actual survey, the fuzzy cognitive matrix of rural tourism resources was constructed. The construction of the index system shows the tourists' attention to resources, and the cognition is the feeling and degree of the tourists after their participation experience with the rural tourism resources. There is a certain gap between the ranking of awareness and cognition, which shows that there is a certain gap between the attention to resources and the cognition of tourists. It is important to reduce the difference between tourist cognitive ranking, and understand the expected and observed effect between resource attention and cognition after experience (Cheng et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2012). If it is positive, this means that the attention reaches the awareness, and a higher value indicates higher consistency and exceedance of the attention. If it is negative, the attention does not reach the awareness.

3 Results

3.1 Demographics of the survey respondents

As Table 8 shows, the rural tourists surveyed in Lanzhou were mainly male (62.54%), mainly traveling with friends (51.22%), would prefer to have men fill out the questionnaire to represent common views and ideas; Mainly visitors aged 18-40 years (80.49%), while Higher cultural level (67.94%), Customer service staff (23.34%), other (mainly for the surrounding urban and rural residents, 19.16%) and Students (18.64%) were predominant; Monthly income of 4501-5000 yuan (34.49%) and below 3500 (31.01%).
Table 8 Characteristics of the rural tourism tourists surveyed in Lanzhou City
Category Variable Percentage (%)
Gender Male 62.54
Female 37.46
Age <18 yr 4.53
18-25 yr 21.61
26-30 yr 16.72
31-40 yr 42.16
41-50 yr 8.71
51-60 yr 4.53
>60 yr 1.74
Educational background High school or below 26.30
College undergraduate and junior college 67.94
Postgraduate 5.75
Monthly income ≤3500 yuan 31.01
3501-4500 yuan 18.12
4501-5000 yuan 34.49
5501-10000 yuan 11.33
>10000 yuan 5.05
Profession Customer service staff 23.34
Student 18.64
Other 19.16
Salesman 7.49
Teacher 5.92
Operating personnel 4.18
Administrator 4.18
Office salaries 3.31
Civilian staff and other personnel 13.78
Travel modes Unit organization/Business meetings 5.75
Travel agency 21.60
Friends and relatives together 51.22
Alone 19.86
Other 1.57

Note: Organized according to the questionnaire data.

3.2 Evaluation and analysis of rural tourism resources

Tourists establish a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation relationship on their awareness of rural tourism resources. First, the membership of various evaluation factors is calculated according to the rating by tourists, and the other is the score results of the criterion layer and the target layer according to the membership of evaluation factors. According to the survey, the percentages for the scores are as follows: 1 (1.4%), 2 (1.2%), 3 (1.6%), 4 (4.9%), 5 (8.7%), 6 (9.8%), 7 (11.1%), 8 (23.7%), 9 (28.0%) and 10 (9.6%) establishing the fuzzy evaluation matrix shown in Table 9. The evaluation results were then multiplied by the standard layer B (Table 10 and Table 11). Judging from the judgment of the target level of rural tourism resources in Lanzhou, the rural tourism resources of Lanzhou are relatively well recognized and received a generally positive evaluation. Specifically, from the score point of view, the proportions from large to small as follows, 9 (25.02%), 8 (23.62%), 7 (16.70%), 6 (10.96%), 10 (9.6%), 5 (7.11%), 4 (4.25%), 3 (1.99%), 2 (1.04%) and 1 (0.62%).
Table 9 Fuzzy evaluation matrix for the recognition of rural tourism resources
Criterion layers (B) Evaluation factors (C) The score of the evaluation matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Resource value
(B1)		 C1 0.014 0.012 0.016 0.049 0.087 0.098 0.111 0.237 0.280 0.096
C2 0.014 0.017 0.017 0.045 0.080 0.098 0.164 0.183 0.291 0.091
C3 0.007 0.017 0.026 0.051 0.073 0.105 0.150 0.190 0.294 0.087
C4 0.005 0.007 0.012 0.031 0.070 0.096 0.155 0.432 0.094 0.098
C5 0.002 0.007 0.010 0.026 0.070 0.127 0.157 0.207 0.314 0.080
C6 0.014 0.003 0.035 0.056 0.075 0.117 0.138 0.185 0.296 0.082
C7 0.007 0.010 0.010 0.059 0.091 0.101 0.146 0.195 0.308 0.071
C8 0.010 0.009 0.026 0.047 0.087 0.118 0.120 0.430 0.077 0.075
C9 0.012 0.021 0.045 0.056 0.073 0.122 0.345 0.185 0.073 0.068
C10 0.014 0.021 0.031 0.056 0.063 0.098 0.146 0.192 0.298 0.082
Environmental factors
(B2)		 C11 0.012 0.009 0.012 0.061 0.061 0.117 0.129 0.206 0.300 0.094
C12 0.002 0.009 0.024 0.054 0.075 0.099 0.162 0.179 0.307 0.089
C13 0.002 0.009 0.019 0.049 0.070 0.103 0.122 0.209 0.091 0.328
C14 0.005 0.009 0.016 0.037 0.073 0.113 0.136 0.218 0.296 0.098
C15 0.003 0.010 0.010 0.030 0.077 0.110 0.159 0.430 0.082 0.089
C16 0.009 0.007 0.024 0.051 0.064 0.106 0.167 0.413 0.071 0.087
C17 0.005 0.012 0.026 0.044 0.087 0.110 0.145 0.193 0.305 0.073
Reception conditions (B3) C18 0.005 0.009 0.014 0.028 0.042 0.106 0.139 0.253 0.317 0.087
C19 0.002 0.005 0.024 0.023 0.066 0.108 0.153 0.247 0.291 0.080
C20 0.003 0.005 0.017 0.026 0.071 0.111 0.153 0.244 0.296 0.071
C21 0.002 0.007 0.009 0.031 0.064 0.115 0.174 0.233 0.300 0.064
C22 0.003 0.009 0.024 0.070 0.066 0.122 0.155 0.197 0.073 0.280
C23 0.023 0.030 0.033 0.071 0.071 0.087 0.127 0.193 0.291 0.073
C24 0.003 0.009 0.026 0.049 0.057 0.103 0.141 0.233 0.298 0.080
C25 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.035 0.063 0.099 0.143 0.256 0.298 0.099
Table 10 Evaluation of rural tourism resources in Criterion layers B
Criterion layers (B) The score of the evaluation matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B1 0.0081 0.0125 0.0218 0.045 0.075 0.1108 0.184 0.2405 0.2216 0.0805
B2 0.006 0.0102 0.0204 0.0488 0.0757 0.1097 0.1415 0.2137 0.2653 0.1095
B3 0.0034 0.0071 0.0167 0.0359 0.0631 0.1076 0.1507 0.2389 0.2894 0.0857
Table 11 Evaluation of rural tourism resources in rural tourism resource evaluation
Target layer (A) The score of the evaluation matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Resource evaluation of rural tourism 0.0062 0.0104 0.0199 0.0425 0.0711 0.1096 0.1670 0.2362 0.2502 0.0863
Firstly, in terms of their own factors, tourists pay more attention to the social facilities of reception conditions. The reception condition value accounts for the more concentrated 8-10 points, accounting for 61.4%. The score values are higher than environmental elements account for 58.87% and the score value of the resources itself (54.26%). Resource value scores were ranked from large to small as: 8 (24.05%), 9 (22.16%), 7 (18.40%), 6 (11.08%), 10 (8.05%), 5 (7.50%), 4 (4.50%), 3 (2.18%), 2 (1.25%) and 1 (0.81%). Environmental factors were sorted by percentage from large to small as: 9 (26.53%), 8 (21.37%), 7 (14.15%), 6 (10.97%), 10 (10.95%), 5 (7.57%), 4 (4.88%), 3 (2.04%), 2 (1.02%) and 1 (0.60%). Reception conditions were sorted by percentage from large to small as: 8 (23.89%), 9 (28.94%), 7 (15.07%), 6 (10.76%), 10 (8.57%), 5 (6.31%), 4 (3.59%), 3 (1.67%), 2 (0.71%) and 1 (0.34%).
Secondly, in the comparison between resource value, environmental factors and reception conditions, the proportions of resource value scores of 1-3 and 6-8 were higher than for the environmental factors and reception conditions, the proportion of 9-10 was lower than for the environmental factors and reception conditions, the score ratio of 4-5 was lower than the environmental factors and higher than the reception conditions. The scores of 4-5 and 10 were higher than the resource value and reception conditions. The score ratio of 7-8 was lower than the resource value and reception conditions. The score ratios of 1-3 and 6 were lower than resource value and higher than reception conditions. The score ratio of 9 is higher than resource value and lower than the reception conditions. The proportion of score 9 in reception conditions was higher than the resource value and environmental factors. The proportion of 1-6 was lower than the resource value and environmental factors. The score ratio of 7-8 was lower than resource value and higher than environmental factors. The score ratio of 10 was higher than resource value and lower than environmental factors.

3.3 Attention analysis of rural tourism resources

Figure 2 shows that tourists' attention to rural tourism resources is mainly focused on pleasure, tour line design, experience, appreciation and other aspects. First, pleasure (C5, 0.1152) has become the most concerning problem for rural tourists. The Lanzhou rural tourism destination has become mainly a rural tourism mode (51.22%) as the main reason, relatives and friends are more important as family compositions of two or more, the purpose has become leisure and relaxation, pleasure is in line with the characteristics of rural tourists, and the popular science (C9, 0.0958) has also become an important concern for relatives and friends. Tour line design (C20, 0.1014) has also become the focus, mainly based on self-service tourists (the proportion using buses and private cars is 55.57%), and the rationality of the line design of rural tourism resources has become a new focus. Second, in the development of rural tourism resources, experiential (C7, 0.0765), and ornamental (C4, 0.0747) are also high, indicating that tourists' demand for rural tourism pays equal attention to experience and sightseeing tourism products. The third level is paying attention to the personnel quality (C24, 0.0716), popular science (C9, 0.0558), educational (C10, 0.0532), accommodation conditions (C21, 0.0518) and environmental safety (C25, 0.0404) of rural tourist destinations, which are mainly for the guarantee of tourists' basic demands for high-quality service, reception facilities and environmental security. Finally, the pursuit of tourism goods (C22, 0.0137), tour guide (C23, 0.0094), characteristic (C16, 0.004) are not particularly obvious.
Fig. 2 Weight sequence for the evaluation of rural tourism resources

3.4 Degree of cognition analysis of rural tourism resources

Figure 3 shows that tourists' awareness of rural tourism resources mainly focuses on nature, environmental safety, pleasure, accommodation conditions, travel line design and other aspects. Firstly, the highest awareness of rural tourism resources in Lanzhou (4508) indicates that tourists pay more attention to the rural natural state during rural tourism research, the tourists associated with this survey are mainly 31-40 years old, and more of them are there to relieve the pressure of urban life. Secondly, this is followed by environmental safety (4469) and external traffic (4445), which shows that tourists pay more attention to the requirements of traffic and environmental safety in rural tourist destinations. Thirdly, the pleasure value of rural tourism resources (4387) and the internal transportation (4378), accommodation conditions (4367), tour line design (4363), etc., show that tourists pay attention to the sense of experience after tourism and to the quality of reception and price adjustment. Finally, the scale and attention of rural tourism resources (4112), tour guide (4095) and popular science (3869) are not high, which shows that rural tourists do not require the scale of rural tourism resources, and prefer independent entertainment activities, but not rural science.
Fig. 3 Degree of cognition in the rural tourism resource grades

3.5 Analysis of the expectations of rural tourism resources

From Table 12, the greatest disappointments are popular science (-22) and educational (-13), which do not provide what the tourists want, and while natural (19) and simple (14) are far better than expected. This is most likely because the tourism mode is mainly with relatives and friends (51.22%), and at the same time, it is also related to the characteristics of the tourists who are mainly College undergraduate and junior college (67.94%), so more is expected to obtain tourism products related to parent-child education, and rural tourism in Lanzhou tends to highlight the natural landscape and pastoral scenery, leading to this expected result of rural tourism.
Table 12 Differences in the sequence between attention and degree of cognition
Index C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25
D-value 2 -4 -6 -8 -3 -1 -11 -8 -22 -13 1 6 19 14 5 3 -9 10 12 -5 3 12 -1 -4 8

4 Discussion

One target layer of rural tourism resource evaluation (A), includes B1, B2, B3, resource value, environmental factors and reception conditions, and 25 evaluation factors, including cultural and local C1-C25. From the perspective of tourists, taking rural tourism in Lanzhou as an example, 600 questionnaires were distributed online by the authors, and 574 effective questionnaires were recovered, for a 95.67% efficiency. Based on hierarchical analysis and the fuzzy evaluation method, there are four main conclusions.
The evaluation of rural tourism resources is inconsistent with tourists' cognition. Tourism can enhance the density of the tourism economic network (Lu et al., 2019b), but tourists pay more attention to the reception conditions of the social facilities. Reception condition value accounts for a more concentrated 8-10 points, accounting for 61.4%.
These figures are higher than for the environmental elements which accounted for 58.87% and the value of the resource itself (54.26%), and the reception condition value (8-10 segment accounts for 61.4%) focuses on the demand for resource pleasure, tour line design, popular science, experience, appreciation, etc. Based on this, we should pay attention to the most original resources of the rural tourism resources in the process of rural tourism development in Lanzhou City, and the design should give more priority to men between 18-40 years old, and the structure characteristics of rural tourism products should highlight the natural resources, pleasure and experience, to obtain the participation of more tourists. Then, we should pay attention to the further optimization and improvement of rural tourism routes, and realize the more systematic development of complex rural tourism products with Renshou Mountain, Qingcheng Town, Langjie Village and other product systems around Lanzhou City. Finally, we should carry out the transformation and upgrading of the rural tourism product system on site, to provide popular science and strong family interactive tourism products for tourists with family-based travel modes.
Tourists' attention to rural tourism resources mainly focuses on pleasure, tour line design, experience, ornamental and other aspects, mainly to meet the personalized needs of the rural tourism tourist source market (Wu, 2021a). Pleasure (0.1152) was the most concerned value of rural tourists, followed by the experience of rural tourism resources (0.0765), and ornamental (0.0747), and high attention was also paid to the personnel quality of rural tourism destinations (0.0716), combined (0.0558), educational (0.0532), accommodation conditions (0.0518) and environmental safety (0.0404). Therefore, higher requirements are put forward for the hardware construction and service capacity of the service facilities in the process of rural tourism development, and further optimization of the soft environment facilities will be needed in order to meet the needs of the higher standards of tourists.
Tourists' awareness of rural tourism resources mainly focuses on nature, environmental safety, pleasure, accommodation conditions, travel line design and other aspects, which is more in line with the new development trends of the rural tourism industry (Wu et al., 2021b). First, the natural state represents the highest awareness of rural tourism resources in Lanzhou (4508), followed by environmental safety (4469) and external traffic (4445), and then the pleasure value of the rural tourism resources (4387) and the reception conditions of internal transportation (4378), accommodation conditions (4367), tour line design (4363), etc. Finally, the scale and attention of rural tourism resources (4112), tour guide (4095) and popular science (3869) are low. The highest disappointments are popular science (-22) and educational (-13), which do not live up to what tourists hoped, while natural (19) and simple (14) are far better than expected, mainly related to factors such as traveling family companions. Therefore, in the process of rural tourism development, it is necessary to pay more attention to the tourists' natural and local perceptions of resources, but also to the service facilities and line design that develop tourism products by relying on resources. At the same time, we should also carry out in-depth excavation and scientific displays of the cultural nature of rural tourism resources, to better meet the popular science needs of tourists.
Fourthly, the cognition of rural tourism resources is basically 6-9, and the score of environmental factors accounts for the highest level. However, tourists have high scientific and educational expectations of rural tourism resources, but gain less, and the resources far exceed tourists' expectations in terms of nature and simplicity. The data show that tourists with a monthly income of 4501-5000 yuan (34.49%) and below 3500 yuan (31.01%) pay more attention to the educational function of rural tourism and more attention to leisure experience, while there is still room for improvement in this aspect. Through the naturalistic state of environmental resources, the environmental safety of reception conditions, external traffic and the pleasure of resource value provide the comprehensive benefits to achieve its value.

5 Conclusions

In this paper, one target layer of rural tourism resource evaluation (A), includes B1, B2, B3, resource value, environmental factors and reception conditions, and 25 evaluation factors. The research shows four key aspects of rural tourists. Firstly, rural tourists are concerned about higher service facilities. Their evaluation of rural tourism resources pays more attention to the reception conditions, that is, the facilities of the reception conditions. Secondly, tourists' attention to rural tourism resources mainly focuses on the pleasurable, tour line design, experience, ornamental and other aspects. Thirdly, the degree of cognition mainly focuses on nature, environmental safety, pleasantness, accommodation conditions, tour line design and other aspects in rural tourism resources. Fourthly, in the cognition of rural tourism resources, environmental factors accounted for the highest level, but the rural tourists have higher expectations for the popularization and education of rural tourism resources, but the sense of acquisition is relatively low. The research reported in this article mainly obtained the data through the form of a questionnaire, evaluated the rural tourism resources from the perspective of tourists, and further studied the evaluation of rural tourism resources from the aspects of the resources themselves and product development.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Chen Q, Fu J. 2010. Research on evaluation of ancient village tourism resources based on visitor perception. Economic Geography, 30(2): 329-333. (in Chinese)

[2]
Chen X, Jiang X Q, Lu Y. 2020. Study on the rural ecotourism resource evaluation system. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 20: 101131. DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2020.101131.

DOI

[3]
Chen X Y. 2019a. Research on rural tourism development strategy based on tourists' participation. Journal of Anhui Business College (Social Sciences Edition), 18(2): 26-29. (in Chinese)

[4]
Chen Y. 2019b. Classification and evaluation of rural tourism resources in western Hunan minority areas. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 40(2): 205-210. (in Chinese)

[5]
Du J, Xiang P. 1999. Reflections on the sustainable development of rural tourism. Tourism Tribune, (1): 15-18, 73. (in Chinese)

[6]
Feng J. 2019. Investigation and potential analysis of rural tourism resources in Xinyang City. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 40(12): 307-312. (in Chinese)

[7]
Geng H, Li Y Q, Fan Z Y. 2019. Regional spatial disparity and influencing factors of the development of angertainment: A comparative study of Zhejiang, Hubei and Sichuan Provinces. Economic Geography, 39(11): 183-193. (in Chinese)

DOI

[8]
Guo H C, Han F. 2010. Review on the development of rural tourism in China. Progress in Geography, 29(12): 1597-1605. (in Chinese)

DOI

[9]
He X F, Zhang X Q, Zhang X M. 2020. Evaluation of rural tourism resources in Inner Mongolia based on AHP-FCE. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 34(10): 187-193. (in Chinese)

[10]
Huang X. 2019. Analysis on tourism space and image cognition of Lanzhou City based on Network Travel Notes. Diss., Lanzhou, China: Lanzhou University. (in Chinese)

[11]
Huang X, Wang L Y. 2020. Research on rural red tourism development from the perspective of cultural tourism integration. The Border Economy and Culture, (4): 54-56. (in Chinese)

[12]
Huang Y Q. 2017. Linhe Ancient City Floating Folk Song Festival tourism development strategy. Journal of Southern Forum, (2): 71-73. (in Chinese)

[13]
Huo Y P. 1982. Analysis and evaluation of regional tourism resources by functional scoring method-Taking Zhenjiang City of Jiangsu Province as an example. Territory & Natural Resources Study, 1982(2): 19-26. (in Chinese)

[14]
Jin Y. 2009. The evaluation of rural tourism resources based on the AHP method. Proceedings for the 4th Euro-Asia Conference on Environment and Corporate Social Responsibility: Tourism, Mice and Management Technique Session, PTI, Berlin, Germany: 52-58

[15]
Li D K. 2018. Research on new business forms of rural tourism-Take Luanchuan County, Luoyang City as an example. Journal of Luoyang Institute of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 33(1): 41-48. (in Chinese)

[16]
Lin D R, Chen Y Y. 2019. The dilemma and breakthrough of smart tourism rural construction: From smart trend to sustainable development. Tourism Tribune, 34(8): 3-5. (in Chinese)

[17]
Liu K, Wang K, Li C. 2019. Study on the spatial distribution stage evolution and development path of rural tourism destinations in Guizhou Province. Journal of Guizhou University (Natural Sciences), 36(5): 119-124. (in Chinese)

[18]
Liu L L, Chang Q. 2018. Evaluation study on the sustainable development of rural tourism in Shangluo. Henan Science, (8): 1319-1328. (in Chinese)

[19]
Liu W, Sun L. 2010. Exquisite behavior characteristics of Chengdu urban residents' rural tourist destinations. Journal of Southwest Minzu University (Humanities and Social Science), 31(3): 180-183. (in Chinese)

[20]
Liu Z, Lu C, Mao J, et al. 2021. Spatial-temporal heterogeneity and the related influencing factors of tourism efficiency in China. Sustainability, 13(11): 5825. (in Chinese)

DOI

[21]
Lu C P, Lu C Y, Pang M, et al. 2019b. Spatial structure and evolution of tourism economy of cities in Liaoning Province. Journal of Liaoning University (Natural Sciences Edition), 46(1): 10-19. (in Chinese)

[22]
Lu F, Yan W J, Zhang H. 2021. Measurement and spatial type of Rural Tourism Kinetic Energy System in Shandong Province. Journal of Shandong Institute of Commerce and Technology, 21(1): 20-25. (in Chinese)

[23]
Lu L, Ren Yi S, Zhu D C, et al. 2019a. The research framework and prospect of rural revitalization led by rural tourism. Geographical Research, 38(1): 102-118. (in Chinese)

[24]
Luo B. 2021b. A study on the development model of rural tourism in China. China Market, 2021(16): 33-36 3. (in Chinese)

[25]
Luo G Y. 2021a. The development characteristics of foreign rural tourism. Rural Revitalization, (2): 92-93. (in Chinese)

[26]
Luo J F. 2017. Rural tourism object safety risk evaluation and empirical research. Scientific and Technological Management of Land and Resources, 34(3): 96-103. (in Chinese)

[27]
Lv W Q. 2016. Wuhan Caidian District rural tourism resources evaluation and development countermeasures. Diss., Wuhan, China: Central China Normal University. (in Chinese)

[28]
Morris H, Romeril M. 1986. Farm tourism in England Peak National Park, The Environmentalist, 6(2): 105-110.

DOI

[29]
Ni Z F. 2020. Research on the development status and countermeasures of rural tourism-Take Nanling as an example. Journal of Liaoning Institute of Science and Technology, 22(4): 32-34. (in Chinese)

[30]
Pang W H. 2017. A SWOT analysis and development countermeasure on rural tourism planning in Longnan. Journal of Lanzhou University of Arts and Science (Social Science), 33(6): 64-68. (in Chinese)

[31]
Qin L. 2014. Study on ecological civilization evaluation of rural tourism destination. Diss., Bengbu, China: Anhui University of Finance and Economics. (in Chinese)

[32]
Su Q. 2007. A study on rural tourism and rural tourism development in China. Journal of Anhui Normal University (Natural Science), 30(3): 395-400. (in Chinese)

[33]
Sun J X, Bao J G. 2006. Tourism development and rural urbanization of Daizuyuan Community. Journal of Central South University for Nationalities (Humanities and Social Sciences), 26(2): 40-44. (in Chinese)

[34]
Tang J B. 2015. Research on the marketing strategy of rural tourism under the New Normal. Academic Journal of Jingchu, 16(4): 49-54. (in Chinese)

[35]
Wang B, Luo Z H, Hao S P. 2006. A study on the current situation of the development of rural tourism in Beijing. Tourism Tribune, 21(10): 63-69. (in Chinese)

[36]
Wang L, Yang X X, Xiang X, et al. 2019c. Research on risk assessment of rural tourism development: A case study of Chengkou County Heyu Township in Chongqing. Ecological Economy, 35(4): 140-145. (in Chinese)

[37]
Wang M, Wang Y Y, Zhu H. 2019b. Research on elite absorption and space production: The case of homestay inn village. Tourism Tribune, 34(12): 75-85. (in Chinese)

[38]
Wang N. 2019. Rural tourism and rural cultural renaissance: A consumer-sponsored perspective. Tourism Tribune, 34(6): 6-7. (in Chinese)

[39]
Wang Q S, He Z X. 2021a. Evaluation and countermeasures for sustainable development of rural tourism resources in Tianjin based on AHP. Journal of Tianjin University of Commerce, 41(4): 45-51. (in Chinese)

[40]
Wang Q, Geng X L. 2020. Evaluation of rural tourism resources by combining entropy weight method with COPRAS-A case study of Tongcheng City, Anhui Province. Resource Development & Market, 36(1): 89-94. (in Chinese)

[41]
Wang R, Dai M L, Ou Y H, et al. 2021b. Measurement of rural households' livelihood assets with cultural capital intervention: A case study of Likeng Village in Wuyuan. Tourism Tribune, 36(7): 56-66. (in Chinese)

[42]
Wei C, Ge D Z, Long H L, et al. 2018. The tourism-led rural transformation development mode in the metropolitan fringe region: The case of Wuhan City. Economic Geography, 38(10): 216. (in Chinese)

[43]
Wu B H. 2016. Rural tourism is an effective way to activate ancient villages. Farmers' Daily, 2016-06-25. (in Chinese)

[44]
Wu J, Ma Y F, Gao J. 2012. Evaluation of ancient capital tourism resources based on visitor perception. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 26(2): 186-191. (in Chinese)

[45]
Wu J J, Wang S, Lu Y, et al. 2021a. Exploring the pathway of rural tourism to help rural revitalization under the internet environment. Modern Rural Science and Technology, (6): 16-18. (in Chinese)

[46]
Wu J L, Liu S, Liu S L, et al. 2020. Vulnerability assessment and influencing factors of farmers towards rural tourism in Zhangjiajie. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 40(8): 1336-1344. (in Chinese)

DOI

[47]
Wu Y C. 2021b. On development strategy of rural tourism in terms of tourists' perception. Journal of Wuhan Business University, 35(4): 21-25. (in Chinese)

[48]
Xiao J. 2021. Rural tourism management from the perspective of regional cooperation. Western Travel, (5): 28-29. (in Chinese)

[49]
Xiao Y X, Ming Q Z, Li S Z. 2001. On the concept and types of rural tourism. Tourism Science, (3): 8-10. (in Chinese)

[50]
Xie C S, Ji Y Y. 2019. Cultural connotation and image presentation of “Rurality” in rural tourism. Journal of Shaoguan University (Social Science), 40(7): 62-67. (in Chinese)

[51]
Xing Y H, Li S, Liao J J, et al. 2019. Suitability evaluation of rural tourism based on AHP and fuzzy evaluation method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 267(3): 032007. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/267/3/032007.

DOI

[52]
Xu Q Q. 2020. Research on the current development of rural tourism products in South Jiangsu. China Journal of Commerce, (17): 145-146, 149. (in Chinese)

[53]
Yan F W, Yang X Z, Shu B Y. 2019. A study on the evolution process and mechanism of human settlement environment in rural tourist destinations: Taking Huihang Road as an example. Tourism Tribune, 34(10): 93-105. (in Chinese)

[54]
Yan Y, Tan Z. 2021. Investigation and analysis of leisure agriculture and rural tourism operators in Guangxi. China Collective Economy, (2): 5-7. (in Chinese)

[55]
Yang Z G. 2019. Development path of rural leisure tourism resources under sharing economy model. Agricultural Economics, (8): 61-63. (in Chinese)

[56]
Ye C L, Qin Y. 2019. A brief analysis on the development of leisure agriculture and rural tourism. Rural Economy and Science and Technology, 30(9): 80-83. (in Chinese)

[57]
Yin Z N, Yin J, Xu S Y. 2007. A study on the quantitative evaluation of rural tourism resources in Shanghai. Tourism Tribune, 22(8): 59-63. (in Chinese)

[58]
Yuan C, Kong X, Chen P Y, et al. 2021. Informal rural tour guides: Willing or reluctant participants? Tourism Tribune, 36(1): 87-98. (in Chinese)

[59]
Yuan Y. 2020. Research on rural tourism development model and planning and design strategy of Northern Shaanxi·Haojiaqiao. Diss., Xi'an, China: Xi'an University of Construction, Science and Technology. (in Chinese)

[60]
Zeng S S. 2015. Research on transformation and upgrading of Fenghua's rural tourism based on optimization of spatial distribution. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 43(15): 185-188. (in Chinese)

[61]
Zeng T X, Ma C Q. 2006. On the development of rural tourism resources. Journal of Shaoyang University, (5): 32-34. (in Chinese)

[62]
Zhang D Y. 2019. Study on classification and evaluation of rural tourism resources in Luoyang City. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 40(8): 74-79. (in Chinese)

[63]
Zhang J, Dong L Y, Hua G M. 2017. A review of rural tourism resources evaluation. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 38(10): 19-24. (in Chinese)

[64]
Zhao M. 2017. Characteristics and influencing factors analysis of rural tourism network in Lanzhou. Diss., Lanzhou, China: Northwest Normal University. (in Chinese)

[65]
Zhe M W. 2009. Study on rural-tourism planning model in Chongqing under the urban and rural overall development. Diss., Chongqing, China: Chongqing University. (in Chinese)

[66]
Zhou Y B, Xie Y P, Li Z R. 2005. Discussion on standardization of rural tourism. Journal of Guilin Institute of Tourism, 16(4): 5-10, 16. (in Chinese)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉