This study aims at development of planning indicators that can be used when establishing tourist attraction regeneration plan in the future, through case analysis of indicator development in establishing concept and planning for developing indicators of tourism destination regeneration. To attain re...
This study aims at development of planning indicators that can be used when establishing tourist attraction regeneration plan in the future, through case analysis of indicator development in establishing concept and planning for developing indicators of tourism destination regeneration. To attain research purpose effectively, I set up detailed goals as follows: first, I define concept of tourism destination regeneration through theoretical investigation by literature search; second, I draw up properties of tourism destination regeneration through precedent research and analysis of domestic and foreign case research; third, I find out the importance of preliminary properties of tourism destination regeneration drawn up, through delphi survey targeting experts; fourth, I compute weightings and order of priority through AHP analysis of tourism destination regeneration indicators drawn up through delphi survey and use them for the efficient decision-making when regenerating tourism destination.
At first, as for the range of time, I determined the year 2013 as the research target year and conducted research for a year, and during this period I gathered opinions and carried out survey through literature research and selection of experts, and then I did an empirical analysis of the results statistically. Next, as for the range of space, considering classification of tourist attraction is very various, I restricted it to the urban tourism destination.
As for the research methods, I conducted an empirical analysis of computing the importance(weighting) of properties selected through AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) and expert survey using delphi technique as the research method for development of indicators and theoretical research through precedent research and domestic and foreign case research.
As for research process, I utilized evaluation indicator of urban regeneration targeting tourism destination declined by many factors, development of indicators targeting historical and cultural tourism destination, and leading indicators of tourism destination remodeling, and drew up tourism destination regeneration indicators.
In the first stage, to draw up superordinate concept, I reviewed evaluation elements of the urban regeneration through research of domestic and foreign relevant literature and carried out a comparative analysis between concepts related to tourism destination regeneration and conceptualization of indicators. In the second stage, for drawing up properties by sector, I classified into and investigated the physical/environmental aspect, economic aspect, social/cultural aspect, and policy/institutional aspect, considered similar concepts to remodeling elements relevant to tourism together, and integrated the overlapped evaluation elements. In the third stage, I conducted a survey targeting experts of drawn properties, and collected opinions on preliminary properties. In the fourth stage, I drew up the importance and the order of priority of tourism destination regeneration indicators drawn up through the prior process through AHP analysis.
As for the object of data collection for research, I conducted delphi and AHP analyses over 3 rounds targeting 20 persons, including experts (academic circle, public and private enterprises) and researchers belonging to the relevant research institutes by sector, such as tourism/culture, urban development, ecological/environmental landscaping, and community development.
After delphi analysis, I eliminated 26 of 73 properties, and the eliminated properties were those judged to be relatively very low compared with family variables on the basis of average value and CVR value. As the result, a total of 47 properties were drawn up and I applied them to the third AHP research.
As the result of AHP, in the relative weighting and the order of priority on the superordinate concept of the tourist attraction regeneration properties, economic property accounted for 30.33% of the whole, which showed to be considered most importantly.
It was found in order that physical/environmental property was 27.28%, social/cultural property was 25.65%, and institutional/policy property was 16.74%, which indicated to have relatively high importance. The consistency ratio(CR) was found to be 0.026, which expressed to have high consistency.
As for the relative weighting and the order of priority of subordinate concepts by category of tourism destination regeneration properties, the most important one among subordinate concepts of physical/environmental properties was tourism resource management, which was found to account for 27.31% of the whole.
The most important item of subordinate concepts of social/cultural properties was vitalization of cultural industry, which was found to occupy 49.5% of the whole.
The most important property among subordinate concepts of economic properties was creation of tourism revenue, which was found to comprise 45.14% of the whole.
Lastly, the most important item among subordinate concepts of institutional/policy properties was participation in social development, which was found to take up 25.51% of the whole.
As for the whole superordinate concepts of tourist attraction regeneration properties and the order of priority for the importance by expert group, if the whole average of the relative weighting by group of superordinate concepts became standard, the economic property was found to be the most important factor to be considered, followed by physical/environmental, social/cultural, and institutional/policy properties.
In the comparison by group, it showed that professor and development business groups considered economic property most importantly; researcher considered physical/environmental property most importantly; and civil servant considered social/cultural property most importantly.
The academic suggestion of this study is to propose necessity of tourism destination regeneration due to decay of tourist attraction through theoretical background through precedent research and to select indicators for regenerating tourism destination. Although the basic plan for tourism destination regeneration is not established, indicators of this study seem to be of help to the more systematic selection in the policy decision-making. Discussion about various problems and outcomes will be possible by directly applying these selected indicators to the target area decayed as the tourism destination.
Lastly, the limitation of this study is that sample of research subjects is very restricted, as the analysis methods are delphi research and AHP analysis, so the future research direction should be development of decline indicator and development of regeneration indicator for the individual tourism destination considering type of tourism destination. Also, it will be necessary to directly apply developed indicators to the field and grasp its problems and results.
This study aims at development of planning indicators that can be used when establishing tourist attraction regeneration plan in the future, through case analysis of indicator development in establishing concept and planning for developing indicators of tourism destination regeneration. To attain research purpose effectively, I set up detailed goals as follows: first, I define concept of tourism destination regeneration through theoretical investigation by literature search; second, I draw up properties of tourism destination regeneration through precedent research and analysis of domestic and foreign case research; third, I find out the importance of preliminary properties of tourism destination regeneration drawn up, through delphi survey targeting experts; fourth, I compute weightings and order of priority through AHP analysis of tourism destination regeneration indicators drawn up through delphi survey and use them for the efficient decision-making when regenerating tourism destination.
At first, as for the range of time, I determined the year 2013 as the research target year and conducted research for a year, and during this period I gathered opinions and carried out survey through literature research and selection of experts, and then I did an empirical analysis of the results statistically. Next, as for the range of space, considering classification of tourist attraction is very various, I restricted it to the urban tourism destination.
As for the research methods, I conducted an empirical analysis of computing the importance(weighting) of properties selected through AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) and expert survey using delphi technique as the research method for development of indicators and theoretical research through precedent research and domestic and foreign case research.
As for research process, I utilized evaluation indicator of urban regeneration targeting tourism destination declined by many factors, development of indicators targeting historical and cultural tourism destination, and leading indicators of tourism destination remodeling, and drew up tourism destination regeneration indicators.
In the first stage, to draw up superordinate concept, I reviewed evaluation elements of the urban regeneration through research of domestic and foreign relevant literature and carried out a comparative analysis between concepts related to tourism destination regeneration and conceptualization of indicators. In the second stage, for drawing up properties by sector, I classified into and investigated the physical/environmental aspect, economic aspect, social/cultural aspect, and policy/institutional aspect, considered similar concepts to remodeling elements relevant to tourism together, and integrated the overlapped evaluation elements. In the third stage, I conducted a survey targeting experts of drawn properties, and collected opinions on preliminary properties. In the fourth stage, I drew up the importance and the order of priority of tourism destination regeneration indicators drawn up through the prior process through AHP analysis.
As for the object of data collection for research, I conducted delphi and AHP analyses over 3 rounds targeting 20 persons, including experts (academic circle, public and private enterprises) and researchers belonging to the relevant research institutes by sector, such as tourism/culture, urban development, ecological/environmental landscaping, and community development.
After delphi analysis, I eliminated 26 of 73 properties, and the eliminated properties were those judged to be relatively very low compared with family variables on the basis of average value and CVR value. As the result, a total of 47 properties were drawn up and I applied them to the third AHP research.
As the result of AHP, in the relative weighting and the order of priority on the superordinate concept of the tourist attraction regeneration properties, economic property accounted for 30.33% of the whole, which showed to be considered most importantly.
It was found in order that physical/environmental property was 27.28%, social/cultural property was 25.65%, and institutional/policy property was 16.74%, which indicated to have relatively high importance. The consistency ratio(CR) was found to be 0.026, which expressed to have high consistency.
As for the relative weighting and the order of priority of subordinate concepts by category of tourism destination regeneration properties, the most important one among subordinate concepts of physical/environmental properties was tourism resource management, which was found to account for 27.31% of the whole.
The most important item of subordinate concepts of social/cultural properties was vitalization of cultural industry, which was found to occupy 49.5% of the whole.
The most important property among subordinate concepts of economic properties was creation of tourism revenue, which was found to comprise 45.14% of the whole.
Lastly, the most important item among subordinate concepts of institutional/policy properties was participation in social development, which was found to take up 25.51% of the whole.
As for the whole superordinate concepts of tourist attraction regeneration properties and the order of priority for the importance by expert group, if the whole average of the relative weighting by group of superordinate concepts became standard, the economic property was found to be the most important factor to be considered, followed by physical/environmental, social/cultural, and institutional/policy properties.
In the comparison by group, it showed that professor and development business groups considered economic property most importantly; researcher considered physical/environmental property most importantly; and civil servant considered social/cultural property most importantly.
The academic suggestion of this study is to propose necessity of tourism destination regeneration due to decay of tourist attraction through theoretical background through precedent research and to select indicators for regenerating tourism destination. Although the basic plan for tourism destination regeneration is not established, indicators of this study seem to be of help to the more systematic selection in the policy decision-making. Discussion about various problems and outcomes will be possible by directly applying these selected indicators to the target area decayed as the tourism destination.
Lastly, the limitation of this study is that sample of research subjects is very restricted, as the analysis methods are delphi research and AHP analysis, so the future research direction should be development of decline indicator and development of regeneration indicator for the individual tourism destination considering type of tourism destination. Also, it will be necessary to directly apply developed indicators to the field and grasp its problems and results.
주제어
#Tourism Destination Regeneration Decline of Tourism Destination Indicators of Tourism Destination Regeneration Order of Priority and the Importance
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.