To meet with the ever increasing needs for betterr facilities and more areas at the tourist or recreational resorts, the private sectors and also the government are investing compara- tively huge amount of capitals and energy in this field.
To effect most desirable development of tourist resorts and its facilities, however, it has become more important to study the method to evaluate the values of tourist resources. Development of a new tourist resort will have to be planned on the basis of preserving precious resources, formation of attractive sightseeing routes, estimation of future tourists traffic. All these researches and planning works require more adequate and scientific evaluation of tourist resources. We consider, however, that the systematic evaluation technique required for above purpose are not yet sufficiently studied in our country.
In our study, we aimed at evaluating the proper value of the tourist resources. Whether the resources are located within easy access for a large city or not, did not give influence in our evaluation. Our evaluation has been made mainly from a touristic, not recreational, point of view. These resources are normally grouped into two categories, i.e., natural resources and cultural resources. They are objects created during enormous span of time or through successive generations.
Our study on the captioned subject started from selecting 392 tourist resources out of various data. The 392 resources are well balanced in the way of areal distribution, class and variety.
For instance, included in a variety of resources are, 27 mountains, 23 plateaus, 25 rocks, 25 rivers and valleys, 16 waterfalls, 25 lakes, 27 islands, 24 plants, 27 mountain passes and observation spots, 27 coasts and promontories, 27 shrines and temples, 25 castles, 23 gardens and parks, 21 historical spots, 23 local scenery, 27 festivals. Animal resources are excluded from the list, because of uncertainty in seeing them.
Then we have selected 14 scales to evaluate tourist, resources as follows: size, texture, history, color, light and darkness, variety, density, odor, sound, composition, shape, superiority, ranking, locality. The scale of evaluation must be applicable to all resources. For instance, the color can be one of the scales to evaluate such varied resources as mountains, plants, shrines, etc.
Next, we have rated 392 resources against above 14 scales (Table 2), and have computed the correlation between scales. Further, we have facorized its matrix. As the result, five scales have been extracted as most appropriate factors. They are ranking, composition, size, color and locality. These five factors accounted for 50.32% of the total variance (Table 3). On the other hand, we have asked five specialists to grade 392 tourist resources into four classes, i.e., SA (special A), A, P and C, according to the following criteria:
SA Class………International level resources
A Class……… Country-wide level resources
B Class………Regional level resources
C Class……… Prefectural level resources
This grading can be called “general evaluation”. Five specialists include researchers in tourism study and travel writers.
Finally, using “general evaluation” as criterion valuable, and also the numeral value of 392 resources rated on five scales as predictor valuables, we applied the discriminant method of Quantification Theory II introduced by Dr. C. Hayashi. The amount of discription of these five evaluational scales has proved to be placed in the following order: 1) size 2) composition 3) locality 4) ranking 5) color. The first three factors are especially persuasive (Table 4). It has been found that the efficiency of discriminant between 4 classes under these five scales is very high within the limit of 79_??_81% each class (Fig. 3).
View full abstract