
Traffic accessibility was an indicator of the extent to which one element was
connected to other elements. To better measure the accessibility between the tourist
attractions and traveler origin, the travel intentions of tourists were not only considered
in terms of spatial location and transport networks but also in terms of population,
attractions level and accessibility time [31]. Using the weighted average access time
of existing scholars' model to measure the road traffic accessibility between the tourist
attractions and traveler origin by weighting total resident population, GDP and national
attractions assessment indicators [8, 32]. Due to the reversible road network
movements, using the tourist attraction site as the origin point and defined it as , and
the traveler origin site as the destination point and defined it as . The math
expression of the existing model was as follows.
(3)
(4)
The above expression (3) was explored the weight of tourist attractions and traveler
origin. was the total resident population of the traveler origin site ( ). was the
total GDP of the traveler origin site ( ). was the national assessment level of the
tourist attraction site ( ). The above expression (4) was used to calculate the average
accessibility time between the tourist attraction site ( ) and the traveler origin site ( )
after weighting. was the average weighted access time between the tourist
attraction site ( ) and the traveler origin site ( ). was the total number of the traveler
origin site ( ) (the geographical location of the traveler origin site was represented by
the administrative location of the local government). was the minimum access
time cost between the tourist attraction site ( ) and the traveler origin site ( ).
was the weighted result in the expression (3).
How to effectively organize a reasonable intra-city tourism spatial structure and
routes according to the characteristics of tourist flow combined with the distribution of
tourism resources was the key challenge to be solved in urban tourism development
and planning [33]. Tourists sometimes would not return directly to their homes or
hotels after arriving at one tourist attraction but continue traveling to another. Hence,
this paper continued to measure the accessibility between different tourist attractions
based on the movement trajectories of tourists. The road traffic accessibility of
different tourist attractions was determined by measuring the average access time
from one tourist attraction to another in the region [34]. The results of less average
access time indicated the tourist attraction in the area with advantageous locations
and more convenient accessibility for tourists [35]. Due to the reversible road network
movements, defining two different tourist attraction sites as and . The math
expression of the existing model was as follows.
(5)
A x y =
n
∑
y=1
(Tx y ×Mx y)/
n
∑
y=1
Mx y
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n3e45.388-409
In the above expression (5), it explored the average accessibility time between
tourist attractions.
was the minimum access time cost between one tourist
attraction ( ) and another tourist attraction ( ) through the road networks.
total number of tourist attractions in the region.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1. SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF A-LEVEL TOURIST
ATTRACTIONS
3.1.1. AVERAGE NEAREST NEIGHBOUR ANALYSIS OF
TOURIST ATTRACTIONS
Based on the mathematical expression (1), the Average Nearest Neighbour (ANN)
analysis measured the observed average distance and expected average distance for
the A-level tourist attractions of WUA. The Average Nearest Neighbour Ratio (ANN-R)
was obtained as 0.892 for natural attractions, 0.764 for human attractions and 0.766
for all attractions (Table 2). The results showed that the spatial distribution of different
tourist attractions showed clustering under the condition of passing the significance
test. The human attractions had the highest degree of clustering, while the natural
attractions had the lowest.
Table 2. Average Nearest Neighbor (ANN) Results of Tourist Attractions in WUA
3.1.2. KERNEL DENSITY ESTIMATION ANALYSIS OF
TOURIST ATTRACTIONS
Based on the mathematical expression (2), the Kernel Density Estimation (KDE)
analysis was used to generate a kernel density distribution map and identify spatial
distribution hotspots of the tourist attractions (Figure 3). The overall trend of the A-
Classification
(A-level)
(A-level)
(A-level)
Number of
Attractions/individual 94 120 214
Observed Average
Distance/m 12250.5340 9367.0158 7419.9275
Expected Average
Distance/m 13726.5459 12252.6485 9682.9361
Average Nearest
Neighbour Ratio 0.892470 0.764489 0.766289
Z-Score -1.994451 -4.935516 -6.540590
Distribution Trend Cluster Distribution Cluster Distribution Cluster Distribution
https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2023.v12n3e45.388-409
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254-4143
Ed.44 | Iss.12 | N.2 April - June 2023
397