Combining big data technology to study the geographical distribution characteristics of tourism consumption behavior
17 mars 2025
À propos de cet article
Publié en ligne: 17 mars 2025
Reçu: 11 oct. 2024
Accepté: 26 janv. 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0189
Mots clés
© 2025 Zhen Xu, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Survey of local correlation of travel consumption level
| Region | Moran’s I | Geary’s C | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ii | E(Ii) | sd(Ii) | z | p-value* | ci | E(ci) | sd(ci) | z | p-value* | |
| Beijing | 1.253 | -0.043 | 0.725 | 1.078 | 0.018 | 0.652 | 2.352 | 1.872 | -0.789 | 0.179 |
| Tianjin | 0.893 | -0.043 | 0.380 | 0.783 | 0.167 | 0.666 | 2.352 | 2.376 | -0.133 | 0.234 |
| Hebei | -0.425 | -0.043 | 0.378 | -0.606 | 0.516 | 4.463 | 2.352 | 1.887 | 0.848 | 0.476 |
| Shanxi | 0.025 | -0.043 | 0.093 | 0.741 | 0.839 | 1.324 | 2.352 | 1.409 | -0.789 | 0.092 |
| Neimenggu | -0.072 | -0.043 | 0.740 | -0.674 | 0.239 | 4.884 | 2.352 | 1.307 | 0.275 | 0.399 |
| Liaoning | 0.024 | -0.043 | 0.573 | 0.456 | 0.853 | 0.630 | 2.352 | 1.135 | -0.509 | 0.174 |
| Jilin | -0.142 | -0.043 | 0.931 | 1.182 | 0.223 | 0.723 | 2.352 | 1.330 | -0.058 | 0.383 |
| Heilongjiang | 1.352 | -0.043 | 0.310 | -0.431 | 0.283 | 1.835 | 2.352 | 1.037 | -0.146 | 0.187 |
| Shanghai | -0.012 | -0.043 | 0.145 | 0.508 | 0.371 | 1.639 | 2.352 | 1.404 | -0.393 | 0.120 |
| Jiangsu | -0.157 | -0.043 | 0.095 | 0.437 | 0.151 | 1.320 | 2.352 | 1.520 | -0.710 | 0.831 |
| Zhejiang | -0.214 | -0.043 | 0.685 | -0.609 | 0.396 | 1.493 | 2.352 | 1.047 | -0.183 | 0.179 |
| Anhui | 0.135 | -0.043 | 0.603 | 0.428 | 0.443 | 0.562 | 2.352 | 1.316 | -0.422 | 0.334 |
| Fujian | -0.024 | -0.043 | 0.041 | 0.446 | 0.625 | 1.403 | 2.352 | 1.966 | -0.798 | 0.409 |
| Jiangxi | 0.328 | -0.043 | 0.546 | 0.772 | 0.036 | 0.527 | 2.352 | 1.306 | -0.990 | 0.805 |
| Shandong | 0.258 | -0.043 | 0.239 | 0.404 | 0.391 | 1.754 | 2.352 | 1.264 | -0.245 | 0.759 |
| Henan | 0.321 | -0.043 | 0.202 | 0.491 | 0.340 | 1.700 | 2.352 | 1.253 | -0.682 | 0.097 |
| Hubei | 0.205 | -0.043 | 0.079 | 0.334 | 0.756 | 0.620 | 2.352 | 1.351 | -0.050 | 0.428 |
| Hunan | 0.172 | -0.043 | 0.422 | 0.779 | 0.832 | 1.545 | 2.352 | 1.378 | -0.052 | 0.526 |
| Guangdong | -0.724 | -0.043 | 0.353 | -0.276 | 0.407 | 5.592 | 2.352 | 1.250 | 0.960 | 0.630 |
| Guangxi | 0.024 | -0.043 | 0.180 | 0.756 | 0.144 | 0.603 | 2.352 | 1.364 | -0.660 | 0.083 |
| Hainan | -0.825 | -0.043 | 0.537 | -0.664 | 0.068 | 4.566 | 2.352 | 1.177 | 0.135 | 0.608 |
| Chongqing | 0.152 | -0.043 | 0.244 | 0.728 | 0.540 | 1.793 | 2.352 | 1.265 | -0.562 | 0.173 |
| Sichuan | 0.283 | -0.043 | 0.395 | 0.710 | 0.617 | 0.656 | 2.352 | 1.022 | -0.072 | 0.235 |
| Guizhou | -0.983 | -0.043 | 0.517 | -0.340 | 0.230 | 5.449 | 2.352 | 1.261 | -0.088 | 0.709 |
| Yunnan | 0.058 | -0.043 | 0.406 | 0.635 | 0.802 | 1.519 | 2.352 | 1.113 | 0.422 | 0.429 |
| Xizang | 0.089 | -0.043 | 0.244 | 0.759 | 0.262 | 1.538 | 2.352 | 1.210 | -0.215 | 0.312 |
| Shanxi | 0.087 | -0.043 | 0.369 | 0.696 | 0.677 | 1.707 | 2.352 | 1.434 | -0.602 | 0.533 |
| Gansu | -0.135 | -0.043 | 0.364 | -0.363 | 0.590 | 6.610 | 2.352 | 1.177 | 0.494 | 0.309 |
| Qinghai | 0.198 | -0.043 | 0.610 | 0.195 | 0.505 | 3.765 | 2.352 | 1.923 | -0.028 | 0.013 |
| Ningxi | -0.675 | -0.043 | 0.205 | -0.525 | 0.359 | 4.656 | 2.352 | 1.375 | 0.952 | 0.128 |
| Xinjiang | -0.178 | -0.043 | 0.380 | 1.078 | 0.862 | 2.597 | 2.352 | 1.526 | 0.416 | 0.021 |
The results of the whole domain tourism development index were returned
| Variable | OLS(Individual fixation) | SLM | SEM | SDM(Time fixed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| hcl | -0.4254*** | 0.2986*** | -0.1527** | 0.2975*** |
| (-4.2151) | (8.5407) | (-2.0124) | (7.8697) | |
| asa | 0.3048*** | 0.1243*** | 0.2235*** | 0.1543*** |
| (8.0053) | (3.6381) | (5.7680) | (4.0517) | |
| pcgdp | 0.2176*** | 0.2688*** | 0.2104*** | 0.2493** |
| (4.5206) | (7.9618) | (3.6524) | (6.3124) | |
| nta | -0.5248 | 0.1275*** | -0.827** | 0.1993*** |
| (-1.2701) | (3.3562) | (9.8571) | (6.4215) | |
| nsh | 0.4867*** | 0.2534*** | -0.875** | 0.1942*** |
| (10.4813) | (4.8965) | (-2.5354) | (4.2513) | |
| W* hcl | - | - | - | -0.1896* |
| - | - | - | (-0.1935) | |
| W*asa | - | - | - | 0.0027 |
| - | - | - | (0.0528) | |
| W*pcgdp | - | - | - | 0.0924 |
| - | - | - | (1.657) | |
| W*nta | - | - | - | -0.5246*** |
| - | - | - | (-8.2012) | |
| W*nsh | - | - | - | 0.1530 |
| - | - | - | (1.7852) | |
| - | 0.1893*** | 0.5243*** | 0.3562*** | |
| (3.6538) | (11.2042) | (7.4251) | ||
| 0.9147 | 0.7896 | 0.4869 | 0.7892 | |
| 653.2568 | 541.2305 | 598.6258 | 463.5284 |
Global correlation test for consumption levels
| YEAR | Moran’s I | Geary’s C | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | E(I) | sd(I) | z | p-value* | C | E(C) | sd(C) | z | p-value* | |
| 2010 | -0.025 | -0.027 | 0.124 | 0.042 | 0.925 | 1.524 | 1.000 | 0.142 | 0.254 | 0.724 |
| 2011 | -0.018 | -0.027 | 0.124 | 0.214 | 0.798 | 0.839 | 1.000 | 0.143 | -0.078 | 0.951 |
| 2012 | 0.105 | -0.027 | 0.125 | 1.53 | 0.335 | 0.827 | 1.000 | 0.146 | -1.241 | 0.352 |
| 2013 | 0.042 | -0.027 | 0.124 | 0.721 | 0.652 | 0.931 | 1.000 | 0.142 | -0.158 | 0.816 |
| 2014 | 0.045 | -0.027 | 0.128 | 0.715 | 0.652 | 0.993 | 1.000 | 0.145 | -0.129 | 0.948 |
| 2015 | 0.142 | -0.027 | 0.127 | 1.568 | 0.241 | 0.824 | 1.000 | 0.145 | -1.505 | 0.247 |
| 2016 | -0.064 | -0.027 | 0.124 | -0.415 | 0.825 | 1.124 | 1.000 | 0.142 | -1.557 | 0.124 |
| 2017 | -0.089 | -0.027 | 0.124 | -0.524 | 0.662 | 1.181 | 1.000 | 0.143 | 0.682 | 0.542 |
| 2018 | -0.036 | -0.027 | 0.124 | 0.069 | 0.963 | 1.012 | 1.000 | 0.143 | 0.725 | 0.415 |
| 2019 | -0.021 | -0.027 | 0.125 | 0.051 | 0.942 | 1.068 | 1.000 | 0.142 | 0.241 | 0.856 |
| 2020 | -0.055 | -0.027 | 0.127 | -0.182 | 0.785 | 1.043 | 1.000 | 0.143 | 0.359 | 0.521 |
| 2021 | -0.075 | -0.027 | 0.124 | -0.358 | 0.852 | 1.029 | 1.000 | 0.142 | 0.522 | 0.856 |
| 2022 | -0.061 | -0.027 | 0.126 | -0.182 | 0.896 | 1.014 | 1.000 | 0.145 | 0.384 | 0.722 |
Direct effect, indirect effect and total effect of tourism development index
| Variable | hcl | asa | pcgdp | nta | nsh |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct effect | 0.3512*** | 0.1375*** | 0.2635*** | 0.2286** | 0.2425*** |
| (7.8695) | (4.5264) | (6.9865) | (5.6838) | (4.4151) | |
| Indirect effect | -0.0921 | 0.0785 | 0.2513*** | -0.6879*** | 0.2441* |
| (-0.8879) | (0.7196) | (3.5628) | (-6.0591) | (2.3561) | |
| Total effect | 0.2041 | 0.2215 | 0.5237*** | -0.3604*** | 0.5124*** |
| (1.7245) | (1.8206) | (7.2653) | (-4.0111) | (2.9815) |
Average consumption of scenic spots in different scenic spots
| Scenic spot name | Average consumption number (time) |
|---|---|
| Changbaishan | 5 |
| Changbaishanxiagufushilinjingqu | 2 |
| Longshunxueshanfeihujingqu | 8 |
| Daxitaihejingqu | 3 |
| Chuangxingchangbaishanyuanshisamanbuluofengjingqu | 2 |
| Daguandongwenhuayuan | 7 |
| Mojiefengjingqu | 3 |
| Shangbaishanlishiwenhuayuan | 5 |
| Shangbaishanhepinghuaxuechang | 5 |
| Hongqichaoxianminsucun | 12 |
| Changbaishanbaoshixiaozhenlvyoudujiaqu | 15 |
| Xidongyouleyuan | 4 |
| Songhuacun | 8 |
| Baihuagujingqu | 6 |
| Changbaishandiyicunfengjingqu | 4 |
| Changbaishanwenhuaboliancheng | 5 |
| Haigouhuangjincheng | 3 |
| Huiyiyizhi | 4 |
| Genjudizhanshijinianguan | 2 |
