Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38314267›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Visitor preferences in rural gastronomic tourism environment and the related design implications.

Mian Yang, Jian Qiu, Keying Ding, Sining Zhang, Wenjie Fan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mian YangSouthwest Jiaotong University, 610000, Chengdu, China.
Jian QiuSouthwest Jiaotong University, 610000, Chengdu, China.
Keying DingSichuan Agricultural University, 610000, Chengdu, China.
Sining ZhangSouthwest Jiaotong University, 610000, Chengdu, China.
Wenjie FanSichuan Tourism University, 610000, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since COVID-19, people have suffered tremendous impacts in all aspects of their lives and work, with subtle changes in their environment preferences. The rural areas, with their natural green space, low density, and leisurely habitat, have played an important role after the pandemic and are widely favored by people. Research on rural environments after COVID-19 has received much attention. In the wake of the pandemic, people's needs for the environment have changed not only in terms of physical space, but also in terms of psychological needs. To address the issue of adaptability and resiliency of the future tourism development of the rural areas, this study takes the real subjective feelings of rural visitors as the evaluation standard, and takes the rural gastronomic tourism environment as the research object. We analyzed a sample of 14,373 images and 324,676 comments in Chinese posted by 3484 visitors on social media to explore whether and how people's preferences for rural environments have changed since the pandemic. Findings revealed significant differences in preference for the rural gastronomic tourism environment factors before and after the pandemic. There is variability in environment preferences depending on different gender, environment flexibility and the region. From the perspective of the rural gastronomic tourism environment, the research results provide suggestions for rural planning and rural tourism sustainability, and provide feasible paths for sustainable development and conservation of rural landscapes oriented to human needs, to enhance the resilience and sustainability of rural environments in the future.

Indexed as

COVID-19Landscape evaluationRural environmentRural gastronomic tourismSocial media data

Identifiers

PMID38314267
PMCPMC10837623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.