| Literature DB >> 35965758 |
Xiaoyi Wang1, Linna Wang2, Tianjiao Niu3, Mei Song1.
Abstract
In recent years, under the background of the national development strategy of rural revitalization, rural tourism has become a new way of tourism. With the upsurge of rural tourism, there has also been a wave of "homestay fever" across the country. Country house tourism is a personalized rural tourism method that has emerged with the development of our country's tourism industry in recent years. However, in the context of the surge in the number of homestays in rural tourism destinations, homogeneous competition, simple replication, low-price competition, and other quality development problems have become increasingly prominent. In order to realize the high-quality development of country houses and meet the differentiated needs of customers, it is necessary to explore the dimensions of tourists' perceived value of country houses from the perspective of tourists, to study the gap between tourists' expectations and actual perceptions, and from the perspective of tourists' value perception to make suggestions for improvement. This paper takes the theory of customer perceived value as the theoretical basis, and on the basis of referring to the relevant literature, combined with the actual situation of the homestay in Luci Village, to construct an index system of the perceived value of tourists in the country house. Use IPA (Importance-Performance Analysis) to identify the difference between the actual performance and expected importance of tourists' perceived value, use questionnaires and statistical software to analyze the difference in guest satisfaction and importance, and put forward key improvement goals to improve the quality of homestay development in the future. The effectiveness of the method proposed in this paper is verified through the case of a country house in Luci Village, Tonglu County.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35965758 PMCID: PMC9365543 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7113456
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The process of the homestay operation quality improvement plan.
Figure 2IPA plot.
Figure 3Porter's five-force model.
Figure 4STP target market strategy implementation steps.
Figure 54P combined marketing theory.
Figure 6SVM optimal classification surface.
Demographic analysis of samples.
| Individual characteristics | Options | Frequency | Effective percentage (%) | Cumulative percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Man | 104 | 32.704 | 32.704 |
| Woman | 214 | 67.296 | 100.00 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Under 18 years of age | 3 | 0.943 | 0.943 |
| 18–25 years old | 176 | 55.346 | 56.289 | |
| 26–30 years old | 38 | 11.950 | 68.239 | |
| 31–40 years old | 38 | 11.950 | 80.189 | |
| 41–50 years old | 24 | 7.547 | 87.736 | |
| 51–60 years old | 32 | 10.063 | 97.799 | |
| 60 years old and above | 7 | 2.201 | 100.00 | |
| High school and below | 45 | 14.151 | 14.151 | |
|
| ||||
|
| College or undergraduate | 245 | 77.044 | 91.195 |
| Graduate and above | 28 | 8.805 | 100.0 | |
| Student | 145 | 45.597 | 45.597 | |
|
| ||||
|
| Corporate employees | 42 | 13.208 | 58.805 |
Descriptive statistical analysis of perceived value satisfaction data.
| Dimension | Question | Number of cases statistics | Minimum statistics | Maximum statistics | Average value total measurement | Standard value statistics | Skewness total measurement | Kurtosis is measured | Kurtosis is measured | Standard error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| A1 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.664 | 1.105 | −0.010 | 0.137 | −0.996 | 0.273 |
| A2 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.620 | 1.096 | 0.119 | 0.137 | −0.766 | 0.273 | |
| A3 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.695 | 1.103 | −0.027 | 0.137 | −0.855 | 0.273 | |
| A4 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.774 | 1.134 | −0.147 | 0.137 | −0.936 | 0.273 | |
| A5 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.865 | 1.169 | −1.070 | 0.137 | 0.499 | 0.273 | |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| A6 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.811 | 1.144 | −1.000 | 0.137 | 0.408 | 0.273 |
| A7 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.881 | 1.153 | −1.107 | 0.137 | 0.577 | 0.273 | |
| A8 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.874 | 1.158 | −1.066 | 0.137 | 0.484 | 0.273 | |
| A9 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.877 | 1.030 | −0.798 | 0.137 | 0.149 | 0.273 | |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| A10 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.884 | 1.018 | −0.865 | 0.137 | 0.393 | 0.273 |
| A11 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.076 | 0.999 | −1.165 | 0.137 | 1.151 | 0.273 | |
| A12 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.016 | 1.019 | −1.023 | 0.137 | 0.704 | 0.273 | |
| A13 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.833 | 1.168 | −0.330 | 0.137 | −1.149 | 0.273 | |
| A14 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.862 | 1.162 | −0.347 | 0.137 | −1.099 | 0.273 | |
| A15 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.877 | 1.176 | −0.370 | 0.137 | −1.133 | 0.273 | |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| A16 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.846 | 1.153 | −0.342 | 0.137 | −1.102 | 0.273 |
| A17 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.884 | 1.176 | −0.381 | 0.137 | −1.128 | 0.273 | |
| A18 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.881 | 1.169 | −0.397 | 0.137 | −1.121 | 0.273 | |
| A19 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.110 | 1.144 | −0.675 | 0.137 | −0.732 | 0.273 | |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| A20 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.104 | 1.148 | −0.633 | 0.137 | −0.733 | 0.273 |
| A21 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.201 | 1.094 | 0.526 | 0.137 | −0.428 | 0.273 | |
| A22 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.984 | 1.006 | −0.997 | 0.137 | 0.662 | 0.273 | |
|
| ||||||||||
|
| A23 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.076 | 0.899 | −0.831 | 0.137 | 0.489 | 0.273 |
| A24 | 318 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.000 | 0.995 | −1.063 | 0.137 | 0.949 | ||
Variable reliability analysis.
| Variable | Cronbach's | The number of items |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction | 0.925 | 24 |
| Importance | 0.925 | 24 |
Satisfaction questionnaires for KMO and Bartlett's tests.
| KMO value | 0.930 | |
|---|---|---|
| Bartlett spherical degree test | Approximate chi-square | 4003.686 |
| df | 276 | |
|
| psD | |
Reliability test of the perceptual value important measure.
| Variable | Question | CITC | After deleting the indicator Cronbach's | Overall Cronbach's |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| B1 | 0.693 | 0.805 | 0.848 |
| B2 | 0.737 | 0.785 | ||
| B3 | 0.654 | 0.821 | ||
| B4 | 0.663 | 0.818 | ||
| B5 | 0.645 | 0.813 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| B6 | 0.661 | 0.807 | 0.842 |
| B7 | 0.631 | 0.820 | ||
| B8 | 0.773 | 0.755 | ||
| B9 | 0.690 | 0.815 | ||
| B10 | 0.720 | 0.803 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| B11 | 0.699 | 0.811 | 0.853 |
| B12 | 0.668 | 0.824 | ||
| B13 | 0.352 | 0.862 | ||
| B14 | 0.380 | 0.864 | ||
| B15 | 0.706 | 0.858 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| B16 | 0.668 | 0.866 | 0.881 |
| B17 | 0.715 | 0.856 | ||
| B18 | 0.714 | 0.857 | ||
Reliability test of perceived value satisfaction scale.
| Variable | Question | CITC | After deleting the indicator Cronbach's | Overall Cronbach's |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| A1 | 0.727 | 0.805 | 0.879 |
| A2 | 0.771 | 0.833 | ||
| A3 | 0.737 | 0.846 | ||
| A4 | 0.0.722 | 0.852 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| A5 | 0.623 | 0.785 | 0.821 |
| A6 | 0.657 | 0.769 | ||
| A7 | 0.642 | 0.775 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| A8 | 0.653 | 0.771 | 0.817 |
| A9 | 0.678 | 0.752 | ||
| A10 | 0.626 | 0.8776 | ||
| A11 | 0.616 | 0.781 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| A12 | 0.633 | 0.773 | 0.908 |
| A13 | 0.748 | 0.891 | ||
| A14 | 0.732 | 0.893 | ||
| A15 | 0.752 | 0.889 | ||