| Literature DB >> 29271947 |
Xuedong Liang1, Canmian Liu2, Zhi Li3.
Abstract
In connection with the sustainable development of scenic spots, this paper, with consideration of resource conditions, economic benefits, auxiliary industry scale and ecological environment, establishes a comprehensive measurement model of the sustainable capacity of scenic spots; optimizes the index system by principal components analysis to extract principal components; assigns the weight of principal components by entropy method; analyzes the sustainable capacity of scenic spots in each province of China comprehensively in combination with TOPSIS method and finally puts forward suggestions aid decision-making. According to the study, this method provides an effective reference for the study of the sustainable development of scenic spots and is very significant for considering the sustainable development of scenic spots and auxiliary industries to establish specific and scientific countermeasures for improvement.Entities:
Keywords: TOPSIS; entropy; principal components analysis; sustainability; sustainable development of scenic spots
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29271947 PMCID: PMC5800110 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15010010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Measurement Model.
Sustainable Development Measurement Index System of Scenic Spots.
| Category | Primary Index | Secondary Index | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-sustainable capacity | Resource condition of scenic spot B1 | Number of scenic spots (units) B11 | [ |
| Area of nature reserves(10,000 hectares) B12 | [ | ||
| Employees of scenic spots (persons) B13 | [ | ||
| Number of domestic tourists (100 million person-times) B14 | [ | ||
| Number of international tourists (10,000 person-times) B15 | [ | ||
| Economic benefits of scenic spot B2 | Earnings from domestic tourism (100 million yuan) B21 | [ | |
| Foreign exchange earnings form international tourism (million dollars) B22 | [ | ||
| Revenue of scenic spots (100 million yuan) B23 | [ | ||
| Contribution of tourism to the tertiary industry (%) B24 | [ | ||
| Average stay of tourists (days) B25 | [ | ||
| Ecological environment of scenic spot B3 | Total emission volume of SO2 (ton) B31 | [ | |
| Forest coverage rate (%) B32 | [ | ||
| Green covered rate of completed area (%) B33 | [ | ||
| Centralized pollution control facilities for SO2 (unit) B34 | [ | ||
| Treatment rate of consumption wastes (%) B35 | [ | ||
| Waste water treatment rate (%) B36 | [ | ||
| Sustainable capacity of auxiliary industry | Auxiliary industry scale B4 | Total travel agencies (unit) B41 | [ |
| Employees of travel agencies (persons) B42 | [ | ||
| Total number of star hotel beds (unit) B43 | [ | ||
| Employees of star hotel (persons) B44 | [ | ||
| Number of tourism schools and colleges (schools) B45 | [ | ||
| Number of students at tourism schools and colleges (persons) B46 | [ | ||
| Number of public vehicles under operation (unit) B47 | [ | ||
| Length under operation (km) B48 | [ | ||
| Auxiliary industrial benefit B5 | Revenue of travel agencies (100 million yuan) B51 | [ | |
| Revenue of star hotel (100 million yuan) B52 | [ | ||
| Average room occupancy rate (%) B53 | [ | ||
| Passenger turnover (100 million passenger-km) B54 | [ | ||
| Fixed assets revenue per 100 yuan (yuan) B55 | [ | ||
| Total labor productivity (1000 yuan/person) B56 | [ |
* represents a similar indicator.
Figure 2Indicator Logic Diagram.
Total variance explained of self-sustainable capacity.
| Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
| 1 | 5.769 | 36.053 | 36.053 | 3.513 | 21.954 | 21.954 |
| 2 | 2.321 | 14.505 | 50.558 | 3.274 | 20.463 | 42.417 |
| 3 | 1.95 | 12.186 | 62.744 | 2.491 | 15.568 | 57.985 |
| 4 | 1.727 | 10.795 | 73.539 | 2.016 | 12.601 | 70.586 |
| 5 | 1.071 | 6.692 | 80.231 | 1.543 | 9.646 | 80.231 |
| 6 | 0.99 | 6.185 | 86.416 | |||
| L | L | L | L | |||
| 15 | 0.035 | 0.22 | 99.809 | |||
| 16 | 0.031 | 0.191 | 100 | |||
L: Due to the length limitation of the article, L denotes unimportant information and is not displayed here.
Total variance explained of sustainable capacity of auxiliary industry.
| Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
| 1 | 8.607 | 61.478 | 61.478 | 5.287 | 37.761 | 37.761 |
| 2 | 2.522 | 18.011 | 79.489 | 5.078 | 36.271 | 74.033 |
| 3 | 1.208 | 8.629 | 88.118 | 1.972 | 14.085 | 88.118 |
| 4 | 0.501 | 3.581 | 91.699 | |||
| L | L | L | L | |||
| 13 | 0.015 | 0.108 | 99.956 | |||
| 14 | 0.006 | 0.044 | 100 | |||
L: Due to the length limitation of the article, L denotes unimportant information and is not displayed here.
Component Score Coefficient Matrix.
| Index | Self-Sustainable Capacity | Sustainable Capacity of Auxiliary Industry | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| B11 | −0.079 | 0.324 | −0.018 | 0.035 | −0.184 | |||
| B12 | 0.062 | 0.09 | −0.352 | −0.144 | 0.023 | |||
| B13 | 0.053 | 0.196 | −0.063 | 0.097 | −0.088 | |||
| B14 | 0.078 | 0.14 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.111 | |||
| B15 | 0.347 | −0.11 | −0.119 | −0.033 | 0.053 | |||
| B21 | 0.155 | 0.099 | 0.01 | −0.017 | 0.046 | |||
| B22 | 0.315 | −0.126 | −0.005 | 0.025 | −0.072 | |||
| B23 | −0.014 | 0.108 | −0.038 | −0.025 | 0.346 | |||
| B24 | −0.016 | −0.088 | −0.001 | −0.151 | 0.7 | |||
| B25 | 0.018 | −0.088 | 0.311 | −0.392 | −0.025 | |||
| B31 | 0.106 | −0.327 | 0.051 | 0.15 | −0.051 | |||
| B32 | 0.069 | −0.186 | 0.014 | 0.361 | 0.133 | |||
| B33 | −0.027 | −0.057 | 0.399 | −0.073 | −0.026 | |||
| B34 | 0.246 | 0.056 | −0.03 | −0.115 | −0.03 | |||
| B35 | −0.113 | 0.038 | 0.119 | 0.463 | −0.282 | |||
| B36 | −0.087 | 0.092 | 0.277 | −0.076 | 0.038 | |||
| B41 | 0.879 | −0.151 | −0.155 | |||||
| B42 | 0.933 | 0.19 | −0.198 | |||||
| B43 | 0.902 | −0.091 | −0.136 | |||||
| B44 | 0.95 | −0.042 | −0.068 | |||||
| B45 | 0.758 | −0.456 | 0.286 | |||||
| B46 | 0.788 | −0.423 | 0.273 | |||||
| B47 | 0.933 | −0.188 | −0.12 | |||||
| B48 | 0.885 | −0.251 | −0.155 | |||||
| B51 | 0.786 | 0.518 | −0.202 | |||||
| B52 | 0.891 | 0.383 | −0.174 | |||||
| B53 | 0.587 | 0.463 | 0.531 | |||||
| B54 | 0.617 | −0.599 | 0.336 | |||||
| B55 | 0.238 | 0.565 | 0.673 | |||||
| B56 | 0.453 | 0.812 | −0.086 | |||||
Decision Matrix and Entropy Weight of Principal Components.
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.102 | 0.107 | 0.062 | 0.079 | 0.167 | 0.153 | 0.167 | 0.163 | |
| Beijing | 0.307 | −0.921 | 0.535 | 0.325 | −0.775 | 3.059 | −1.230 | 0.345 |
| Tianjin | 0.387 | −1.527 | 2.748 | −3.427 | −0.250 | −0.352 | −0.995 | 0.498 |
| Hebei | −0.567 | 0.865 | 0.070 | −0.299 | −0.375 | −0.123 | 0.404 | −1.414 |
| Shanxi | −0.663 | 0.111 | 0.352 | −0.510 | 0.945 | −0.182 | −0.578 | −1.248 |
| Inner Mongolia | −0.817 | 0.531 | −0.318 | −0.514 | −0.602 | −0.021 | −0.763 | −1.381 |
| Liaoning | −0.027 | 0.625 | 0.053 | 0.240 | −0.406 | 0.296 | 0.150 | −1.134 |
| Jilin | −0.534 | −0.817 | 0.324 | 0.450 | 0.082 | −0.268 | −0.673 | −0.984 |
| Heilongjiang | −0.523 | −0.101 | −0.762 | 0.876 | −1.212 | −0.256 | −0.535 | −0.751 |
| Shanghai | 0.120 | −0.860 | 0.470 | 0.340 | −1.311 | 2.139 | −1.573 | 2.239 |
| Jiangsu | 0.285 | 1.644 | 0.789 | −0.099 | −0.671 | 0.725 | 1.530 | 0.903 |
| Zhejiang | 0.899 | 0.246 | 0.407 | 0.939 | −0.039 | 1.394 | 0.979 | 0.095 |
| Anhui | −0.389 | 0.544 | 0.661 | 0.253 | 0.646 | −0.591 | 0.652 | −0.164 |
| Fujian | 0.169 | −1.149 | 0.725 | 1.299 | −0.458 | −0.126 | −0.068 | 1.848 |
| Jiangxi | −0.334 | −0.045 | 0.394 | 0.526 | 2.565 | −0.746 | −0.044 | 0.678 |
| Shandong | 0.164 | 3.273 | 0.422 | −0.174 | −1.190 | 0.869 | 1.358 | −0.662 |
| Henan | −0.443 | 0.930 | 0.088 | −0.138 | −0.070 | −1.235 | 1.360 | 0.577 |
| Hubei | −0.165 | 0.231 | 0.027 | 0.263 | 0.264 | −0.524 | 0.786 | 0.150 |
| Hunan | −0.139 | 0.675 | 0.099 | 1.277 | −0.256 | −0.808 | 0.885 | 1.341 |
| Guangdong | 4.862 | −0.117 | −0.420 | −0.057 | 0.170 | 2.168 | 2.330 | −1.183 |
| Guangxi | −0.038 | −0.575 | 0.008 | 0.861 | 0.639 | −0.831 | 0.338 | 0.303 |
| Hainan | −0.328 | −1.742 | −0.534 | 1.470 | −0.710 | −0.254 | −1.166 | 0.949 |
| Chongqing | −0.434 | −0.419 | 0.768 | 0.372 | −0.304 | −0.642 | 0.008 | 0.945 |
| Sichuan | 0.384 | 0.991 | −0.637 | −0.023 | 1.460 | −0.654 | 0.891 | 0.519 |
| Guizhou | −0.572 | −0.264 | −0.105 | −0.191 | 2.564 | −0.988 | −0.220 | 0.753 |
| Yunnan | 0.129 | −0.430 | −0.333 | 0.209 | 1.222 | −0.365 | 0.584 | −0.672 |
| Shaanxi | −0.403 | −0.033 | 0.454 | 0.419 | 0.191 | −0.374 | −0.026 | 0.307 |
| Gansu | −0.242 | −0.084 | −1.911 | −1.823 | 0.554 | −0.521 | −0.725 | −0.262 |
| Qinghai | 0.019 | −0.952 | −3.237 | −0.693 | −0.728 | −0.422 | −1.389 | −0.675 |
| Ningxia | −0.703 | −0.861 | 0.255 | −0.290 | −1.402 | −0.131 | −1.483 | −1.663 |
| Xinjiang | −0.402 | 0.234 | −1.394 | −1.881 | −0.543 | −0.236 | −0.786 | −0.258 |
Ideal solution.
| 0.496 | 0.350 | 0.170 | 0.116 | 0.429 | 0.467 | 0.390 | 0.365 | |
| −0.083 | −0.186 | −0.200 | −0.270 | −0.235 | −0.189 | −0.263 | −0.271 |
Sustainable capacity value of scenic spots of 30 Chinese provinces and cities.
| Region | Self-Sustainable Capacity of Scenic Spot | Sustainable Capacity of Auxiliary Industry | Sustainable Capacity of Scenic Spot | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | Rank | Value | Rank | Value | Rank | |
| Beijing | 0.324 | 22 | 0.523 | 5 | 0.435 | 10 |
| Tianjin | 0.322 | 23 | 0.324 | 21 | 0.323 | 23 |
| Hebei | 0.360 | 18 | 0.310 | 22 | 0.337 | 21 |
| Shanxi | 0.423 | 9 | 0.212 | 26 | 0.338 | 20 |
| Inner Mongolia | 0.315 | 24 | 0.204 | 28 | 0.269 | 27 |
| Liaoning | 0.376 | 16 | 0.327 | 20 | 0.354 | 19 |
| Jilin | 0.357 | 19 | 0.212 | 27 | 0.299 | 24 |
| Heilongjiang | 0.306 | 26 | 0.243 | 25 | 0.281 | 26 |
| Shanghai | 0.298 | 27 | 0.550 | 4 | 0.442 | 9 |
| Jiangsu | 0.416 | 11 | 0.625 | 1 | 0.509 | 2 |
| Zhejiang | 0.440 | 8 | 0.572 | 3 | 0.501 | 3 |
| Anhui | 0.444 | 6 | 0.382 | 14 | 0.416 | 13 |
| Fujian | 0.364 | 17 | 0.505 | 6 | 0.433 | 11 |
| Jiangxi | 0.545 | 2 | 0.383 | 13 | 0.479 | 5 |
| Shandong | 0.442 | 7 | 0.503 | 7 | 0.467 | 6 |
| Henan | 0.390 | 15 | 0.457 | 9 | 0.426 | 12 |
| Hubei | 0.402 | 13 | 0.421 | 11 | 0.411 | 14 |
| Hunan | 0.412 | 12 | 0.495 | 8 | 0.454 | 8 |
| Guangdong | 0.555 | 1 | 0.594 | 2 | 0.576 | 1 |
| Guangxi | 0.421 | 10 | 0.378 | 15 | 0.401 | 16 |
| Hainan | 0.315 | 25 | 0.363 | 18 | 0.337 | 22 |
| Chongqing | 0.352 | 20 | 0.415 | 12 | 0.382 | 18 |
| Sichuan | 0.521 | 3 | 0.449 | 10 | 0.486 | 4 |
| Guizhou | 0.516 | 4 | 0.366 | 17 | 0.454 | 7 |
| Yunnan | 0.454 | 5 | 0.353 | 19 | 0.408 | 15 |
| Shaanxi | 0.393 | 14 | 0.373 | 16 | 0.384 | 17 |
| Gansu | 0.333 | 21 | 0.254 | 24 | 0.297 | 25 |
| Qinghai | 0.220 | 30 | 0.178 | 29 | 0.202 | 30 |
| Ningxia | 0.254 | 29 | 0.142 | 30 | 0.210 | 29 |
| Xinjiang | 0.256 | 28 | 0.268 | 23 | 0.262 | 28 |
The division basis and explanation of the sustainable development of scenic spots.
| Rank | Range | Classification | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | >0.4537 | High sustainability | Scenic resources development scientific planning, high degree of governance for ecological environment, scenic auxiliary industry development is highly mature |
| Level 2 | 0.3926–0.4536 | Intermediate sustainability | Scenic resources development is reasonable, the effective management of ecological environment, scenic auxiliary industry reached a certain scale but the benefits are not outstanding |
| Level 3 | 0.3239–0.3925 | Low sustainability | The pattern of scenic resources development needs to be improved, the attention of ecological management is not enough, the scale and benefit of scenic auxiliary industry are not significant |
| Level 4 | 0–0.3238 | Non-sustainability (unacceptable) | The exploitation of scenic resources is extremely unreasonable, the pollution of ecological environment is serious, the auxiliary industry is not large and the benefit is low |
Figure 3Comparison chart of self-sustainable capacity of scenic spots in China.
Figure 4Comparison chart of sustainable capacity of auxiliary industry in China.
Figure 5Comparison chart of sustainable capacity of scenic spots in China.
Comparison of sustainable development ability of four regional scenic spots.
| Region | Self-Sustainable Capacity of Scenic Spot | Sustainable Capacity of Auxiliary Industry | Sustainable Capacity of Scenic Spot | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | Rank | Value | Rank | Value | Rank | |
| East | 0.608 | 1 | 0.933 | 1 | 0.712 | 1 |
| Central | 0.558 | 2 | 0.331 | 2 | 0.446 | 2 |
| West | 0.344 | 4 | 0.044 | 4 | 0.253 | 4 |
| Northeast | 0.422 | 3 | 0.307 | 3 | 0.366 | 3 |
| National average | 0.483 | - | 0.404 | - | 0.444 | - |