| Literature DB >> 36034621 |
Lin Yu1,2, Li Hua1, Jiaran Ding1,2,3.
Abstract
The construction of a big data platform is the basis for improving the service level of scenic spots, and it is also a new media way to increase the number of tourists. At present, the scenic spot platform lacks effective evaluation methods and cannot analyze massive data, resulting in an insufficient increase in the number of tourists. Therefore, this paper analyzes the construction of the big data platform from the perspective of sports group performance, aiming at promoting the increase in the number of tourists in scenic spots. Firstly, the continuous clustering sampling method is used to make statistics on the massive tourist data in the platform. Secondly, the equidistant sampling coefficient is added to the sample data to ensure the validity of tourist data.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36034621 PMCID: PMC9410818 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3562778
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
General information of tourists.
| Variable | Number of people | Number of people converted online | Conversion rate (%) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.272 | 0.021 | |||
| 20–30 | 341 | 242 | 70.97 | ||
| 30–40 | 241 | 280 | 116.18 | ||
| 40–60 | 249 | 361 | 144.98 | ||
| Gender | 0.713 | 0.238 | |||
| Male | 184 | 58 | 31.52 | ||
| Female | 247 | 725 | 293.52 | ||
| Wushu content | 0.728 | 0.018 | |||
| Martial arts area | 156 | 334 | 214.10 | ||
| Sword area | 282 | 176 | 62.41 | ||
| Boxing area | 178 | 65 | 36.52 | ||
| Wrestling area | 212 | 97 | 45.75 | ||
| A juggling area | 227 | 153 | 67.40 | ||
| Sectarian district | 294 | 176 | 59.526 | ||
| Other areas | 325 | 198 | 60.92 | ||
| Income | 0.822 | 0.101 | |||
| 2000∼4000 | 353 | 142 | 40.23 | ||
| 1000∼2000 | 376 | 262 | 69.68 | ||
| Under 1000 | 335 | 132 | 39.40 | ||
| Tourism experience | 0.702 | 0.201 | |||
| 1∼2 years | 389 | 172 | 44.22 | ||
| 3∼4 years | 398 | 182 | 45.73 | ||
| 4∼5 years | 282 | 172 | 60.99 | ||
| 5∼6 years | 395 | 183 | 46.33 | ||
| Ticket purchase method | 0.958 | 0.272 | |||
| Under online | 277 | 167 | 60.29 | ||
| Online | 222 | 98 | 44.14 |
Figure 1Difference degree of tourist data.
Measurement results of group tourists and individual tourists at all levels of the survey team tourists.
| Team rank | Individual passenger volume (thousands) | Number of tourists (10,000) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 8.75 ± 1.13 | 11.25 ± 1.36 |
| Observation group | 10.03 ± 1.25b | 15.02 ± 1.02b |
| Control group | 6.25 ± 1.25a | 10.05 ± 0.68a |
|
| 10.02 ± 1.14 | 13.75 ± 0.68 |
| Observation group | 13.75 ± 1.25b | 10.02 ± 1.36b |
| Control group | 6.25 ± 0.919a | 6.25 ± 0.90a |
|
| 12.52 ± 0.56 | 8.75 ± 1.13 |
| Observation group | 10.01 ± 0.93b | 6.25 ± 1.36b |
| Control group | 11.25 ± 1.02a | 8.75 ± 1.25a |
|
| 10.00 ± 0.68 | 12.53 ± 1.36 |
| Observation group | 7.53 ± 1.02b | 6.25 ± 0.68b |
| Control group | 7.54 ± 0.56a | 8.75 ± 0.91a |
Compared with the observation group, aP > 0.05; compared with the control group, bP < 0.05.
Figure 2Measurement of tourist quantity in different groups.
Comparison of satisfaction among teams at all levels.
| Team rank | Basic satisfaction | Satisfied | Very satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 61.25 ± 1.36 | 77.53 ± 0.56 | 71.25 ± 1.25 |
| Observation group | 56.25 ± 1.02b | 66.25 ± 1.25b | 67.5 ± 1.02b |
| Control group | 63.75 ± 0.91a | 60.24 ± 1.13a | 56.25 ± 0.56a |
|
| 57.5 ± 0.79 | 63.75 ± 0.68 | 61.25 ± 0.56 |
| Observation group | 58.75 ± 1.36b | 62.5 ± 1.25b | 66.25 ± 1.36b |
| Control group | 66.25 ± 1.02a | 56.25 ± 0.90a | 76.25 ± 0.56a |
|
| 77.51 ± 0.68 | 72.53 ± 0.92 | 81.25 ± 0.92 |
| Observation group | 68.75 ± 0.92b | 77.59 ± 1.13b | 71.25 ± 0.56b |
| Control group | 71.25 ± 0.79a | 76.25 ± 0.68a | 71.25 ± 1.13a |
|
| 60.23 ± 1.13 | 63.75 ± 0.56 | 77.58 ± 0.93 |
| Observation group | 57.53 ± 1.25b | 65.65 ± 0.94b | 62.53 ± 0.94b |
| Control group | 61.25 ± 1.36a | 81.25 ± 0.68a | 71.25 ± 1.23a |
Compared with the observation group, aP > 0.05; compared with the control group, bP < 0.05.
Figure 3Satisfaction changes of different groups.
Comparison of feedback rates between teams at all levels.
| Variable | Class 1 group | Grade 2 group | Grade 3 group |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 25.71 | 30.36 | 27.14 |
| Observation group | 28.93b | 28.93b | 17.86b |
| Control group | 16.43a | 21.43a | 24.29a |
|
| 43.75 | 28.75 | 25.00 |
| Observation group | 28.75b | 30.80b | 18.75b |
| Control group | 30.00ac | 27.50ac | 30.00a |
|
| 2.03 | 2.50 | 2.50 |
| Observation group | 6.25b | 2.00b | 3.75b |
| Control group | 1.25a | 5.00a | 3.02a |
|
| 18.75 | 31.25 | 18.75 |
| Observation group | 28.75bc | 25.00b | 26.25b |
| Control group | 31.25a | 22.50ac | 27.50ac |
|
| 7.50 | 1.25 | 1.00 |
| Observation group | 7.50b | 6.25b | 2.75b |
| Control group | 3.75a | 8.75a | 3.10ac |
Compared with the observation group, aP > 0.05; compared with the control group, bP < 0.05; compared with the observation group, cP < 0.05.
Online contribution rate of teams at all levels.
| Variable | Class 1 group | Grade 2 group | Grade 3 group |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 76.53 | 84.69 | 81.63 |
| Observation group | 66.33b | 78.57b | 74.49b |
| Control group | 86.73a | 83.67a | 64.29a |
|
| 82.65 | 81.63 | 78.57 |
| Observation group | 61.22b | 74.49b | 61.22b |
| Control group | 68.37a | 85.71a | 78.57a |
|
| 71.43 | 66.33 | 81.63 |
| Observation group | 62.24b | 78.57b | 77.55b |
| Control group | 79.59a | 69.39a | 81.63a |
Compared with the observation group, aP > 0.05; compared with the control group, bP < 0.05.