APPENDIX 12
Overall mean test results (One-Sample T-test) on tourists' evaluation of activities they participated in at the heritage
Research criteria
Average value | Check value determine | Conclude | |||||
Hoi An | My Son | Hue | Hoi An | My Son | Hue | ||
Listen to song dance music | 3,9624 | 4.0522 | 4,1064 | 4 | Good | Good | Good |
Festival | 3,000 | 2,9627 | 3,2606 | 4 | Jar often | Jar often | Jar often |
Visit traditional craft villages system | 3,1080 | 3,1716 | 3,2340 | 4 | Normal | Normal | Normal |
Cuisine | 3,1221 | 3,1940 | 3,8191 | 4 | Jar often | Jar often | Good |
Maybe you are interested!
-
Reasonable exploitation of world cultural heritages to develop tourism in Central Vietnam - 31 -
Reasonable exploitation of world cultural heritages to develop tourism in Central Vietnam - 29 -
Reasonable exploitation of world cultural heritages to develop tourism in Central Vietnam - 27 -
The Significance of Rational Exploitation of World Cultural Heritages for Tourism Development -
Identify Rating Levels and Rating Scales
zt2i3t4l5ee
zt2a3gstourism,quan lan,quang ninh,ecology,ecotourism,minh chau,van don,geography,geographical basis,tourism development,science
zt2a3ge
zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts
of the islanders. Therefore, this indicator will be divided into two sub-indicators:
a1. Natural tourism attractiveness a2. Cultural tourism attractiveness
b. Tourist capacity
The two island communes in Quan Lan have different capacities to receive tourists. Minh Chau Commune is home to many standard hotels and resorts, attracting high-income domestic and international tourists. Meanwhile, Quan Lan Commune has many motels mainly built and operated by local people, so the scale and quality are not high, and will be suitable for ordinary tourists such as students.
c. Time of exploitation of Quan Lan Island Commune:
Quan Lan tourism is seasonal due to weather and climate conditions and festivals only take place on certain days of the year, specifically in spring. In Quan Lan commune, the period from April to June and from September to November is considered the best time to visit Quan Lan because the cultural tourism activities are mainly associated with festivals taking place during this time.
Minh Chau island commune:
Tourism exploitation time is all year round, because this is a place with a number of tourist attractions with diverse ecosystems such as Bai Tu Long National Park Research Center, Tram forest, Turtle Laying Beach, so besides coming to the beach for tourism and vacation in the summer, Minh Chau will attract research groups to come for tourism combined with research at other times of the year.
d. Sustainability
The sustainability of ecotourism sites in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes depends on the sensitivity of the ecosystems to climate changes.
landscape. In general, these tourist destinations have a fairly high level of sustainability, because they are natural ecosystems, planned and protected. However, if a large number of tourists gather at certain times, it can exceed the carrying capacity and affect the sustainability of the environment (polluted beaches, damaged trees, animals moving away from their habitats, etc.), then the sustainability of the above ecosystems (natural ecosystems, human ecosystems) will also be affected and become less sustainable.
e. Location and accessibility
Both island communes have ports to take tourists to visit from Van Don wharf:
- Quan Lan – Van Don traffic route:
Phuc Thinh – Viet Anh high-speed boat and Quang Minh high-speed boat, depart at 8am and 2pm from Van Don to Quan Lan, and at 7am and 1pm from Quan Lan to Van Don. There are also wooden boats departing at 7am and 1pm.
- Van Don - Minh Chau traffic route:
Chung Huong high-speed train, Minh Chau train, morning 7:30 and afternoon 13:30 from Van Don to Minh Chau, morning 6:30 and afternoon 13:00 from Minh Chau to Van Don.
f. Infrastructure
Despite receiving investment attention, the issue of infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism on Quan Lan Island is still an issue that needs to be resolved because it has a direct impact on the implementation of ecotourism activities. The minimum conditions for serving tourists such as accommodation, electricity, water, communication, especially medical services, and security work need to be given top priority. Ecotourism spots in Minh Chau commune are assessed to have better infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism because there are quite complete and synchronous conditions for serving tourists, meeting many needs of domestic and foreign tourists.
3.2.1.4. Determine assessment levels and assessment scales
Corresponding to the levels of each criterion, the index is the score of those levels in the order of 4, 3, 2, 1 decreasing according to the standard of each level: very attractive (4), attractive (3), average (2), less attractive (1).
3.2.1.5. Determining the coefficients of the criteria
For the assessment of DLST in the two communes of Quan Lan and Minh Chau islands, the students added evaluation coefficients to show the importance of the criteria and indicators as follows:
Coefficient 3 with criteria: Attractiveness, Exploitation time. These are the 2 most important criteria for attracting tourists to tourism in general and eco-tourism in particular, so they have the highest coefficient.
Coefficient 2 with criteria: Capacity, Infrastructure, Location and accessibility . Because the assessment area is an island commune of Van Don district, the above criteria are selected by the author with appropriate coefficients at the average level.
Coefficient 1 with criteria: Sustainability. Quan Lan has natural and human-made ecotourism sites, with high biodiversity and little impact from local human factors. Most of the ecotourism sites are still wild, so they are highly sustainable.
3.2.1.6. Results of DLST assessment on Quan Lan island
a. Assessment of the potential for natural tourism development
For Minh Chau commune:
+ Natural tourism attractiveness is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined as average (2 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of Capacity criterion is 2 x 2 = 4.
+ Exploitation time is long (4 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Exploitation time criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is assessed as good (3 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 3 x 2 = 6 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Minh Chau commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 4 + 12 + 4 + 4 + 6 = 42 points
Similar assessment for Quan Lan commune, we have the following table:
Table 3.3: Assessment of the potential for natural ecotourism development in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of self-tourismof course
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
CommuneMinh Chau
12
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
42/52
Quan CommuneLan
6
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
33/52
b. Assessment of the potential for humanistic tourism development
For Quan Lan commune:
+ The attractiveness of human tourism is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined to be large (3 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Capacity criterion is 3 x 2 = 6.
+ Mining time is average (3 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Mining time criterion is 3 x 3 = 9.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points.
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is rated as average (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Quan Lan commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 36 points.
Similar assessment with Minh Chau commune we have the following table:
Table 3.4: Assessment of the potential for developing humanistic eco-tourism in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of human tourismliterature
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Quan CommuneLan
12
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
39/52
Minh CommuneChau
6
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
36/52
Basically, both Minh Chau and Quan Lan localities have quite favorable conditions for developing ecotourism. However, Quan Lan commune has more advantages to develop ecotourism in a humanistic direction, because this is an area with many famous historical relics such as Quan Lan Communal House, Quan Lan Pagoda, Temple worshiping the hero Tran Khanh Du, ... along with local festivals held annually such as the wind praying ceremony (March 15), Quan Lan festival (June 10-19); due to its location near the port and long exploitation time, the beaches in Quan Lan commune (especially Quan Lan beach) are no longer hygienic and clean to ensure the needs of tourists coming to relax and swim; this is also an area with many beautiful landscapes such as Got Beo wind pass, Ong Phong head, Voi Voi cave, but the ability to access these places is still very limited (dirt hill road, lots of gravel and rocks), especially during rainy and windy times; In addition, other natural resources such as mangrove forests and sea worms have not been really exploited for tourism purposes and ecotourism development. On the contrary, Minh Chau commune has more advantages in developing ecotourism in the direction of natural tourism, this is an area with diverse ecosystems such as at Rua De Beach, Bai Tu Long National Park Conservation Center...; Minh Chau beach is highly appreciated for its natural beauty and cleanliness, ranked in the top ten most beautiful beaches in Vietnam; Minh Chau commune is also home to Tram forest with a large area and a purity of up to 90%, suitable for building bridges through the forest (a very effective type of natural ecotourism currently applied by many countries) for tourists to sightsee, as well as for the purpose of studying and researching.
Figure 3.1: Thenmala Forest Bridge (India) Source: https://www.thenmalaecotourism.com/(August 21, 2019)
3.2.2. Using SWOT matrix to evaluate Quan Lan island tourism
General assessment of current tourism activities of Quan Lan island is shown through the following SWOT matrix:
Table 3.5: SWOT matrix evaluating tourism activities on Quan Lan island
Internal agent
Strengths- There is a lot of potential for tourism development, especially natural ecotourism and humanistic ecotourism.- The unskilled labor force is relatively abundant.- resource environmentunpolluted, still
Weaknesses- Poorly developed infrastructure, especially traffic routes to tourist destinations on the island.- The team of professional staff is still weak.- Tourism products in general
quite wild, originalintact
general and DLST in particularalone is monotonous.
External agents
Opportunity- Tourism is a key industry in the socio-economic development strategy of the province and Van Don economic zone.- Quan Lan was selected as a pilot area for eco-tourism development within the framework of the green growth project between Quang Ninh province and the Japanese organization JICA.- The flow of tourists and especially ecotourism in the world tends toincreasing
Challenge- Weather and climate change abnormally.- Competition in tourism products is increasingly fierce, especially with other localities in the province such as Ha Long, Mong Cai...- Awareness of tourists, especially domestic tourists, about ecotourism and nature conservation is not high.
Through summary analysis using SWOT matrix we see that:
To exploit strengths and take advantage of opportunities, it is necessary to:
- Diversify products and service types (build more tourism routes aimed at specific needs of tourists: experiential tourism immersed in nature, spiritual cultural tourism...)
- Effective exploitation of resources and differentiated products (natural resources and human resources)
div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s3 { color: #0D0D0D; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -3pt; } div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -2pt; } div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -1pt; } div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s10 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s12 { color: black; font-family:Symbol, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s13 { color: black; font-family:Wingdings; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s14 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s15 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s16 { color: black; font-family:Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s17 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s18 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s19 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s20 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; } div.maincontent .s21 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s22 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s23 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s24 { color: #212121; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; tex
Source: Author's processing
Note: Likert scale: from 1 – 5 from very bad to very good Hypothesis Ho: Tourists think that the music and dance activities are good Hypothesis Ho: Tourists think that the festival is good
Hypothesis Ho: Tourists think that visiting traditional craft villages is good Hypothesis Ho: Tourists think that the cuisine is good
APPENDIX 13
Overall mean test results (One-Sample T-test) on tourists' assessment of visitor concentration at heritage sites
Research criteria
Average value | Check value determine | Conclude | |||||
Hoi An | My Son | Hue | Hoi An | My Son | Hue | ||
Tourists are too crowded on the beach. way | 3,6948 | 3,1866 | 3,1596 | 4 | No comments | No comments | No comments |
Tourists are too crowded at the relics | 4,2723 | 3,2687 | 3,6968 | 4 | Totally agree | No comments | No comments |
Tourists are too crowded at shopping points. shop | 3,2113 | 3,1418 | 3,2926 | 4 | No comments | No comments | No comments |
Crowded tourists affect participation mandarin | 4,2488 | 3,2910 | 3,9468 | 4 | Totally agree | No comments | Agree |
Source: Author's processing
Note: Likert scale: from 1 - 5 from strongly disagree to strongly agree Hypothesis Ho: KDL agrees that tourists gather too much on the way Hypothesis Ho: KDL agrees that tourists gather too much at the relics
Hypothesis Ho: KDL agrees that tourists gather too much at shopping areas. Hypothesis Ho: KDL agrees that tourists gathering too much affects sightseeing.
environmental tourists at heritage
Research criteria
Average value | Check value determine | Conclude | |||||
Hoi An | My Son | Hue | Hoi An | My Son | Hue | ||
Waste water is not available. smell | 3,0188 | 3,1194 | 3.0213 | 4 | Are not Agree | Are not Agree | Are not Agree |
Waste water is not stagnant. condensation | 3,1080 | 3,1791 | 3,0064 | 4 | Are not Agree | Are not Agree | Are not Agree |
No litter on way | 3,1127 | 3,2537 | 3,1223 | 4 | Are not Agree | Are not Agree | Are not Agree |
There is a trash can. placed in a visible place | 3,3005 | 3,4254 | 3.3245 | 4 | Are not Agree | Are not Agree | Are not Agree |
No noise in the areas public | 3,7042 | 3,6194 | 3.5755 | 4 | Are not Agree | Are not Agree | Are not Agree |
Has toilet public birth | 3,2911 | 3,1210 | 3,4149 | 4 | Are not Agree | Are not Agree | Are not Agree |
Clean toilet, no smell | 3,4977 | 3,5970 | 2,9149 | 4 | Are not Agree | Are not Agree | Are not Agree |
Source: Author's processing
Note: Likert scale: from 1 – 5 from strongly disagree to strongly agree Hypothesis Ho: KDL agrees that wastewater has no odor
Assumption Ho: KDL agrees that wastewater will not stagnate.
Assumption Ho: KDL agrees to have no litter on the road
Assumption Ho: KDL agrees to have trash cans placed in visible places.
Hypothesis Ho: KDL agrees to no noise in public areas Hypothesis Ho: KDL agrees to have public toilets
Hypothesis Ho: KDL agrees that the toilets are clean and odorless.
the hearts of tourists visiting heritage sites
Research criteria
Number of visitors for comment ants | Average value | Test value | PP check determine | Significance level | Test results | Conclude | |
Satisfaction level | One | Have enough | Very | ||||
about the tour | 213 | 4,1221 | 4 | sample | .005 | statistical evidence | comedy |
Quan (tourist unit) | T-test | to refute | heart | ||||
to Hoi An) | design | ||||||
Satisfaction level | One | Not enough | Comedy | ||||
about the tour | 134 | 4,0149 | 4 | sample | .830 | statistical evidence | heart |
Quan (tourist unit) | T-test | to refute | |||||
to My Son) | design | ||||||
Satisfaction level | One | Not enough | Comedy | ||||
about the tour | 188 | 3,9681 | 4 | sample | .524 | statistical evidence | heart |
Quan (tourist unit) | T-test | to refute | |||||
to Hue) | design |
Source: Author's processing
Note: Likert scale: from 1 – 5 from very dissatisfied to very satisfied Hypothesis Ho: Tourists are satisfied with the heritage tour
Unit: number of visitors
Year and SLK
Conscious
Year 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | Compare | Compare | |
Number of guests | Number of guests | Number of guests | 2011/2010 (%) | 2012/2011 (%) | |
Thanh Hoa | 78,537 | 91,764 | 102,041 | 116.84 | 111.20 |
Nghe An | 79,154 | 88,727 | 96,880 | 112.09 | 109.19 |
Ha Tinh | 9,750 | 11,850 | 15,388 | 121.54 | 129.86 |
Quang Binh | 10,335 | 11,560 | 12,000 | 111.85 | 103.81 |
Quang Tri | 143,322 | 108,000 | 129,600 | 75.35 | 120.00 |
Thua Thien Hue | 662,463 | 783,753 | 1,043,303 | 118.3 | 133.15 |
Danang | 370,000 | 536,257 | 675,684 | 144.93 | 126.00 |
Quang Nam | 1,168,000 | 1,286,455 | 1,384,342 | 110.14 | 107.61 |
Quang Ngai | 24,909 | 27,400 | 29,745 | 110.00 | 108.56 |
Pacify | 79,108 | 94,138 | 130,500 | 119.00 | 138.63 |
Phu Yen | 23,553 | 34,388 | 45,839 | 146.00 | 133.30 |
Khanh Hoa | 392,752 | 440,000 | 530,000 | 112.03 | 120.45 |
Ninh Thuan | 62,305 | 69,565 | 80,000 | 111.65 | 115.00 |
Binh Thuan | 250,422 | 300,581 | 341,160 | 120.03 | 113.50 |
Total | 3,354,610 | 3,884,438 | 4,616,482 | 115.79 | 118.84 |
Source: Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism of Central provinces
Unit: Number of visitors
Year and SLK
Conscious
Year 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | Compare | Compare | |
Number of guests | Number of guests | Number of guests | 2011/2010 (%) | 2012/2011 (%) | |
Thanh Hoa | 2,921,349 | 3,274,108 | 3,611,859 | 112.08 | 110.32 |
Nghe An | 3,720,846 | 4,488,751 | 4,984,120 | 120.64 | 111.04 |
Ha Tinh | 561,546 | 709,530 | 907.616 | 126.35 | 127.92 |
Quang Binh | 847,665 | 957,051 | 1,034,100 | 112.90 | 108.05 |
Quang Tri | 771,678 | 958,494 | 1,105,400 | 124.21 | 115.33 |
Thua Thien Hue | 923,970 | 1,139,323 | 1,456,697 | 123.31 | 127.86 |
Danang | 1,400,000 | 2,033,727 | 2,155,316 | 145.27 | 105.98 |
Quang Nam | 1,132,000 | 1,259,366 | 1,433,971 | 111.25 | 113.86 |
Quang Ngai | 307,420 | 338,252 | 390,766 | 110.03 | 115.53 |
Pacify | 893,206 | 1,082,362 | 1,291,500 | 121.18 | 119.32 |
Phu Yen | 357,654 | 491,677 | 611,742 | 137.47 | 124.42 |
Khanh Hoa | 1,414,281 | 1,710,189 | 1,770,000 | 120.92 | 103.50 |
Ninh Thuan | 613.302 | 751,297 | 870,000 | 122.50 | 115.80 |
Binh Thuan | 2,254,770 | 2,505,234 | 2,799,840 | 111.11 | 111.76 |
Total | 18,119,687 | 21,699,361 | 24,422,927 | 119.75 | 112.55 |
Source: Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism of Central provinces
Tourism revenue in the Central provinces over the years 2010 - 2012
Unit: billion VND
Year
Conscious
Year 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | Compare | Compare | |
2011/2010 (%) | 2012/2011 (%) | ||||
Thanh Hoa | 1,185 | 1,531 | 1,718 | 129.17 | 112.19 |
Nghe An | 1,003 | 1,333 | 1,572 | 132.85 | 118.00 |
Ha Tinh | 204 | 256 | 403 | 125.40 | 157.28 |
Quang Binh | 403 | 425 | 502 | 105.35 | 118.28 |
Quang Tri | 438 | 473 | 525 | 108.11 | 111.00 |
Thua Thien Hue | 1,339 | 1,657 | 2,071 | 123.74 | 125.22 |
Danang | 1,275 | 1,512 | 1,860 | 118.59 | 123.02 |
Quang Nam | 882 | 1,070 | 1.425 | 121.30 | 133.18 |
Quang Ngai | 215 | 252 | 315 | 117.31 | 125.00 |
Pacify | 276 | 380 | 465 | 137.69 | 122.37 |
Phu Yen | 250 | 280 | 450 | 112.22 | 160.71 |
Khanh Hoa | 1,880 | 2,257 | 2,570 | 120.03 | 113.89 |
Ninh Thuan | 310 | 331 | 440 | 106.77 | 132.93 |
Binh Thuan | 2,578 | 3.351 | 4,358 | 129.98 | 130.05 |
Total | 12,238 | 15,107 | 18,675 | 123.44 | 123.62 |
Source: Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism of Central provinces
APPENDIX 18
Tourist spending in Vietnam
Unit | Total | In there | ||||||||
Room for rent | Eat and drink | Travel in Vietnam | Sightseeing | Purchase goods | Fun and entertainment mind | Y economy | Activities other | |||
Average spending per international tourist trip in Vietnam (for self-arranged guests) Go) | USD | 1144.4 | 321.94 | 240.71 | 186.28 | 95.27 | 176.73 | 50.5 | 12.6 | 60.3 |
Average daily spending at international tourist sites in Vietnam (for self-arranged guests) Go) | USD | 91.24 | 25.67 | 19.19 | 14.85 | 7.6 | 14.09 | 4.03 | 1.01 | 4.81 |
Average expenditure (outside the tour) per international tourist visit to Vietnam (for tour guests) | USD | 600.4 | 34.7 | 80.2 | 31.9 | 2.8 | 328.4 | 41.7 | 6.5 | 51.4 |
Average daily expenditure (outside the tour) at international tourist sites in Vietnam (for guests traveling with tour) | USD | 59.7 | 3.5 | 8.0 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 32.7 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 5.1 |
Average spending per visit to domestic tourist area (for guests) arrange it yourself) | 1000 copper | 2639.28 | 641.7 | 623.1 | 645.01 | 145.06 | 365.67 | 72.44 | 22.6 | 123.76 |
Average Spending one day KDL | 1000 copper | 703.47 | 171.04 | 166.1 | 171.92 | 38.66 | 97.47 | 19.31 | 6.02 | 32.99 |