Journal of Resources and Ecology >
Night Tourism Satisfaction in the Qinghefang Tourism and Leisure Block based on an Improved Kano Model
Received date: 2023-03-15
Accepted date: 2023-06-13
Online published: 2023-12-27
Supported by
The Humanities and Social Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China(18YJAZH057)
The National Language Commission of China(WT136-66)
Night tourism prolongs the activity time of tourism and leisure blocks, while tourism and leisure blocks provide activity places for night tourism. This study introduces the Kano model into the field of satisfaction research, makes improvements according to its advantages and disadvantages, builds an evaluation index system for night tourism satisfaction in tourism and leisure blocks, and combines that system with a questionnaire to determine the priority for optimizing each factor using the main and vice qualities, dispersion degree, and sensitivity comparison analysis. Based on the results, several optimization suggestions are proposed. The results show that: (1) Night tourism in Qinghefang groups mainly involves young people; (2) The overall satisfaction level is relatively high; (3) One attractive factor, seven one-dimensional factors, ten indifference factors, and three reverse factors in four layers (facility, service, experience, and project) were identified; (4) The priority for improvement should be service layer > facility layer > experience layer > project layer; (5) Background music, cultural connotation, festival projects, etc. are favored by visitors; and (6) Transportation, service attitude, and the sense of participation urgently require optimization.
ZHU Xi , LIU Min , SUN Yadong , ZHANG Ruixin , GOU Haixia . Night Tourism Satisfaction in the Qinghefang Tourism and Leisure Block based on an Improved Kano Model[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2024 , 15(1) : 55 -65 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2024.01.005
Table 1 Factors influencing night tourism satisfaction in tourism and leisure blocks |
Layers | Factors | Description |
---|---|---|
Facility (A) | A1 Transportation | Convenience, orderliness, and accessibility of transportation |
A2 Lighting brightness | Suitability of light intensity | |
A3 Lighting aesthetics | Is the lighting landscape aesthetically pleasing? | |
A4 Security | Monitoring, patrol, security, facility maintenance, first aid equipment | |
A5 Price level | Prices of items such as products and services | |
A6 Guided tour | Accuracy and clarity of indication systems | |
A7 Hygiene | Cleanness of roads, scenes, food, etc. | |
A8 Rest | Reasonable density of recreational facilities | |
A9 Background music | Whether the sound of water, bells, singing and dancing is abundant and suitable | |
A10 Noise | Whether the noise is excessive or uncomfortable | |
Service (B) | B1 Service attitude | Are the service staff polite and attentive? |
B2 Service skills | Are the service staff skilled? | |
B3 Complaint handling | Whether a complaint is conveniently resolved; the timeliness and rationality of the resolution | |
Experience (C) | C1 Local features | Local folk customs |
C2 Crowding degree | Is the ratio of space size to passenger flow reasonable? | |
C3 Cultural connotation | Culture in products | |
C4 Sense of participation | Whether there are interactive links and participation | |
Project (D) | D1 Sightseeing projects | Mainly to watch the night city landscape, with a certain natural landscape, strong dependence on lighting and other infrastructure facilities |
D2 Deductive projects | Mainly based on performing arts activities, with a specific stage space, dynamic products with outstanding viewing type, weak participation | |
D3 Festival projects | Focus on viewing and cultural experience during traditional festivals | |
D4 Experience projects | Personal participation, small-scale, and widely distributed, mainly focusing on tasting snacks, folk experience, shopping, and entertainment |
Table 2 Kano evaluation form |
Factors | Negative problem | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I like this | It has to be like this | I do not care | I can endure this | I hate this | ||
Positive problem | I like this | Q | A | A | A | O |
It has to be like this | R | I | I | I | M | |
I do not care | R | I | I | I | M | |
I can endure this | R | I | I | I | M | |
I hate this | R | R | R | R | Q |
Note: Q represents questionable answer; R represents reverse quality; I represents in different quality; O represents one dimensional quality; M represents must save (must be) quality; A represents attractive quality. |
Table 3 Cross analysis of visitor type and night tourism frequency |
X/Y | None | 1-3 times | More than three times | Subtotal (Visitor type) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Local residents | 8 | 21 | 13 | 42 (22.95%) |
Non-local tourists | 12 | 54 | 75 | 141 (77.05%) |
Subtotal (Night tourism frequency) | 20 (10.93%) | 75 (40.98%) | 88 (48.09%) | 183 (100%) |
Table 4 Kano quality classification of factors and quality scores of each factor |
Factor | A Attractive | O One-dimensional | M Must-have | I Indifferent | R Reverse | Q Questionable | Main quality | Vice quality | SI | DSI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 Transportation | 44 | 80 | 17 | 40 | 0 | 2 | O | A | 0.69 | −0.54 |
A2 Lighting brightness | 30 | 37 | 13 | 92 | 7 | 4 | I | O | 0.39 | −0.29 |
A3 Lighting aesthetics | 52 | 48 | 12 | 69 | 0 | 2 | I | A | 0.55 | −0.33 |
A4 Security | 13 | 70 | 47 | 51 | 0 | 2 | O | I | 0.46 | −0.65 |
A5 Price level | 4 | 1 | 3 | 34 | 140 | 1 | R | I | 0.12 | −0.10 |
A6 Guided tour | 47 | 35 | 16 | 78 | 4 | 3 | I | A | 0.47 | −0.29 |
A7 Hygiene | 17 | 88 | 24 | 51 | 1 | 2 | O | I | 0.58 | −0.62 |
A8 Rest | 44 | 69 | 19 | 49 | 0 | 2 | O | I | 0.62 | −0.49 |
A9 Background music | 33 | 16 | 6 | 98 | 28 | 2 | I | A | 0.32 | −0.14 |
A10 Noise | 5 | 2 | 0 | 38 | 136 | 2 | R | I | 0.16 | −0.04 |
Average value | 0.51 | −0.42 | ||||||||
B1 Service attitude | 19 | 90 | 23 | 50 | 0 | 1 | O | I | 0.60 | −0.62 |
B2 Service skills | 29 | 84 | 16 | 51 | 2 | 1 | O | I | 0.63 | −0.56 |
B3 Complaint handling | 21 | 65 | 35 | 58 | 3 | 1 | O | I | 0.48 | −0.56 |
Average value | 0.57 | −0.58 | ||||||||
C1 Local features | 61 | 55 | 16 | 49 | 1 | 1 | A | O | 0.64 | −0.39 |
C2 Crowding degree | 4 | 6 | 2 | 42 | 127 | 2 | R | I | 0.19 | −0.15 |
C3 Cultural connotation | 41 | 58 | 20 | 60 | 2 | 2 | I | O | 0.55 | −0.44 |
C4 Sense of participation | 39 | 39 | 14 | 89 | 1 | 1 | I | A/O | 0.43 | −0.29 |
Average value | 0.63 | −0.54 | ||||||||
D1 Sightseeing Projects | 49 | 47 | 9 | 74 | 3 | 1 | I | A | 0.54 | −0.31 |
D2 Deductive Projects | 56 | 27 | 7 | 89 | 3 | 1 | I | A | 0.46 | −0.19 |
D3 Festival Projects | 44 | 32 | 8 | 94 | 4 | 1 | I | A | 0.43 | −0.22 |
D4 Experience Projects | 59 | 34 | 11 | 76 | 2 | 1 | I | A | 0.52 | −0.25 |
Average value | 0.49 | −0.24 |
Note: The quality scores of each main quality are marked with bold and underlining, while the vice qualities are marked with just underlining. |
Table 5 Proportion of each level and improvement efficiency value |
Layer | A (k=1.5) | O (k=1) | M (k=0.5) | I (k=0) | R (k=1) | Improved efficiency value | Improvement sorting |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Facility layer | - | 40% | - | 40% | 20% | 0.6 | 2 |
Service layer | - | 100% | - | - | - | 1 | 1 |
Experience layer | 25% | - | - | 50% | 25% | 0.125 | 3 |
Project layer | - | - | - | 100% | - | 0 | 4 |
Table 6 Variance values of factor attribute scores |
Factor | Variance value | Factor | Variance value |
---|---|---|---|
C3 Cultural connotation | 499.36 | C4 Sense of participation | 907.04 |
B3 Complaint handling | 527.84 | A2 Lighting brightness | 908.56 |
C1 Local features | 555.84 | A7 Hygiene | 931.76 |
A8 Rest | 581.36 | B1 Service attitude | 973.04 |
A6 Guided tour | 662 | A9 Background music | 1043.36 |
A4 Security | 665.36 | D2 Deductive projects | 1043.84 |
A3 Lighting aesthetics | 672.16 | D3 Festival projects | 1050.24 |
D1 Sightseeing projects | 710.24 | C2 Crowding degree | 2279.36 |
A1 Transportation | 734.56 | A10 Noise | 2683.36 |
D4 Experience projects | 782.64 | A5 Price level | 2831.44 |
B2 Service skills | 826.64 |
[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] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
[40] |
|
[41] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |