Landscape Preference of Rural Cultural Tourism Tourists Based on GIS Spatial Statistical Technology and Emotion Analysis

Abstract

How to combine GIS spatial statistics technology to realize the intelligent and efficient classification of tourists’ landscape preferences is a hot spot in the direction of rural cultural tourism. Based on this, this paper studies the emotion analysis strategy based on GIS spatial statistical method in the field of landscape preference of rural cultural tourism tourists. Firstly, an intelligent and efficient classification model based on remote sensing discrete expansion algorithm is proposed. Combined with the observation strategy of common emotional rules in the landscape preference analysis of rural cultural tourism tourists, the landscape preference of rural cultural tourism tourists is processed with high quantitative emotional information, so as to realize the intelligent separation of preference, and then the error of discrete remote sensing data expansion model is corrected. Secondly, the judgment function of emotional rules is constructed, and the commonly used data layer-driven decentralized method is used in preference classification to eliminate the secondary factors in the landscape preference analysis of rural cultural tourism tourists. At the same time, the remote sensing discrete expansion algorithm is used to optimize and improve the emotional rules of high-volume emotional information based on GIS spatial statistical method. Finally, through the design of confirmatory experiments, the results show that the landscape preference analysis model based on GIS spatial statistics method and remote sensing discrete expansion algorithm is more efficient than the conventional preference classification method.

Retracted: Landscape Preference of Rural Cultural Tourism Tourists Based on GIS Spatial Statistical Technology and Emotion Analysis

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”