3.8 Article

Good vs. Fair and Clean: An Analysis of Slow Food Principles Toward Gastronomy Tourism in Northern Iran

期刊

JOURNAL OF CULINARY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 51-70

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15428052.2020.1808136

关键词

Local food; slow food; slow tourism; tourism; ecotourism

资金

  1. Islamic Azad University, Rasht Branch [4.5830]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food plays a significant role in the tourism sector, and there is a growing demand among tourists and travelers for local cuisine. This study investigates the factors influencing the desire for local food and finds that food quality is the primary motivator for their choice. The research suggests that the communication approach regarding local cuisine needs to be further explored.
In the tourism sector, food is of great importance, and one of the main concerns of tourists for short- and long-term trips is the choice available. In particular, in the past few years, rising demand for local gastronomy has emerged, which is still to be fully understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors affecting the desire for local food among tourists and travelers in the northern region of Guilan (Iran). The paper presents the results of quantitative research conducted among tourists and travelers. Data were collected through a questionnaire, whose reliability, as measured by Cronbach's alpha method, was higher than the acceptable value of 0.7. Motivations were clustered around the three categories ofGood, Fair, andClean, which are inspired by the motto of the slow food movement. The findings of this research shed light on the hierarchy of values of tourists, suggesting that theGoodfactor was the key issue motivating their choice, whileFairandCleanhad secondary roles. This research suggests that motivation does not preclude the implementation of positive initiatives relating to sustainability, but rather raises questions about the right form of communication concerning local cuisine to be employed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据