Evaluating amount of satisfaction for visit capabilities and infrastructures of Gorgan city in separation of touristic entrance regions

Authors

  • Ahmad Pour Ahmad DQ-CCNE/UFSM
  • Bahram Imani
  • Zeinab Valizadeh
  • Zabihollah Torabi
  • Mansour Rezaali
  • Majid Rahmani Seryasat
  • Mohammad Molaei Qelichi
  • Neda Shabani
  • Sarah Azimzadeh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20867

Abstract

The general aim of this research is evaluating amount of satisfaction for visit capabilities and infrastructures of Gorgan city in separation of touristic entrance regions. This study is applicable and explanatory-analytical method is used for study. Used statistical community is consisting entered tourists from seven touristic regions to Gorgan. In this study, probabilistic multistage cluster sampling method was used. So after calculation of sample numbers by using Kokeran’s formula, some regions were selected as research sample from all of touristic absorptions and questionnaires randomly were distributed among them and then were gathered. Anova test, Danken test and the mean of visitor’s opinions were employed for analysis of data. Also the graphical output of data was depicted through Arc Map software. The findings of research showed that Gorgan tourists have announced unsatisfaction of themselves about capabilities and touristic infrastructures of this city. Nevertheless among different regions there is a meaningful disagreeability. Finally with consideration to operated evaluations about satisfactory condition of tourists related to capabilities and infrastructures of the city for improving situation, suitable solutions have been offered.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2015-12-21

How to Cite

Ahmad, A. P., Imani, B., Valizadeh, Z., Torabi, Z., Rezaali, M., Seryasat, M. R., Qelichi, M. M., Shabani, N., & Azimzadeh, S. (2015). Evaluating amount of satisfaction for visit capabilities and infrastructures of Gorgan city in separation of touristic entrance regions. Ciência E Natura, 37, 370–378. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20867

Issue

Vol. 37 (2015): SPECIAL EDITION - PART 1

Section

Special Edition

License

To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.