非资源消费型野生动物旅游风险感知研究: 澳大利亚班布里海豚探索中心实证

doi:10.13209/j.0479-8023.2016.040

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

通过对前往澳大利亚班布里海豚探索中心的访客进行调研, 运用因子分析、K-means 聚类分析、方差分析等定量方法, 分析游客对在野外生境中接触海豚的风险感知程度及差异性。通过探索性因子分析, 共识别和提取野生动物旅游风险感知量表的 3 个维度: 体验质量风险、舒适性风险和身体安全风险。受访者感知程度最强为体验质量因子, 其次为舒适性, 最后为身体安全。运用 K-means 聚类分析方法, 依据量表均值得分, 将受访者分为 3 类: 弱风险感知、强风险感知和中等风险感知, 而样本总体对接触海豚风险感知程度归属为弱风险感知, 认为接触海豚是相对安全的活动。通过独立样本t检验和方差分析, 对比不同游客特征对野生动物旅游风险感知的差异性。结果发现, 人口社会学特征中, 除性别外, 不同年龄、收入和家庭状况在风险感知程度上均存在显著性差异; 旅游行为中, 旅游经历、旅行同伴、消费额和停留时间对风险感知具有显著性差异, 信息来源途径无显著性差异; 满意度和重游意愿对风险感知都具有显著性差异。

关键词: 野生动物旅游, 非资源消费型, 风险感知, 澳大利亚, 海豚

Abstract:

This research aims to analyze the risk perception of tourists in Dolphin Discovery Center (DDC) Bunbury, West Australia and serves for the destination a management and marketing. Factor analysis, K-Means cluster analysis and variance analysis were combined to examine the extent of risk perception for DDC and demographic differences. The main conclusions were as following: three factors that tourism experience quality, physical safety, and amenity were extracted based on the exploring factor analysis; according to the extent of risk perception, wildlife tourists had been divided into three categories: weak risk awareness, medium risk perception, and strong risk perception. Wildlife tourists perceived experience quality risk as the strongest factor and physical safety as the weakest factor, and amenity risk was in an intermediate position. Independent-sample t test and variance analysis were used to examine the demographic difference in risk perception and the results showed that different age, income and family status all had significant difference in risk perception except gender; tourism experience, travelling companion, expenditure and staying time and other tourism behavior all had significant difference in risk perception as well as satisfaction and willingness to revisit, except for information source.

Key words: wildlife tourism, non-consumptive, risk perception, Australia, dolphin

中图分类号:

F590

丛丽, 吴必虎, 张玉钧, David Newsome. 非资源消费型野生动物旅游风险感知研究: 澳大利亚班布里海豚探索中心实证[J]. 北京大学学报自然科学版, 2017, 53(1): 179-188.

Li CONG, Bihu WU, Yujun ZHANG, Newsome David. Risk Perception of Interaction with Dolphin in Bunbury, West Australia[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2017, 53(1): 179-188.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://xbna.pku.edu.cn/CN/10.13209/j.0479-8023.2016.040

https://xbna.pku.edu.cn/CN/Y2017/V53/I1/179

图/表 5

参考文献 47

[1]	Curtin S C.Managing the wildlife tourism experience: the importance of tour leaders. Interna-tional Journal of Tourism Research, 2010, 12(3): 219-236
[2]	Newsome D, Dowling R, Moore S. Wildlife tourism. Britain: Channel View Publications, 2005: 16-22, 209-212
[3]	Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd. The conservation and development benefits of the wildlife trade report to the wildlife and countryside directorate. London: Department of Environment, 1996
[4]	Fredline E. Faulkner B.Wildlife tourism research report No. 22. International market analysis of wildlife tourism. Gold Coast, Queensland: CRC for Sustainable Tourism, 2001
[5]	丛丽, 吴必虎, 李炯华. 国外野生动物旅游研究综述. 旅游学刊, 2012, 5(23): 57-65
[6]	Cong L, Newsome D, Wu B, et al.Wildlife tourism in China: a review ofthe Chinese research literature. Current Issues in Tourism, 2014, 8: 1-23
[7]	Ajzen I.The theory of planned behavior. Organi-zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, 50: 179-211
[8]	武麟, 张璇. 风险感知研究中的心理测量范式. 南京师大学报: 社会科学版, 2012, 35(2): 95-102
[9]	Tsaur S H, Tzeng G H, Wang K C.Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 1997, 24(4): 796-812
[10]	Lepp A, Gibson H.Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 2003, 30(3): 606-24
[11]	丛丽. 野生动物旅游场所涉入研究[D]. 北京: 北京大学, 2014
[12]	徐红罡. 中国非消费型野生动物旅游若干问题研究. 地理与地理信息科学, 2004, 20(2): 83-86
[13]	Shackley M L.Wildlife tourism. London: Cengage Learning Business Press, 1996
[14]	Duffus D A, Dearden P.Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual framework. Biolo-gical Conservation, 1990, 53(3): 213-231
[15]	Cong L, Wu B, Morrison A M, et al.Analysis of wildlife tourism experiences with endangered species: an exploratory study of encounters with giant pandas in Chengdu, China. Tourism Management, 2014, 40: 300-310
[16]	Siemer W F, Hart P S, Decker D J, et al.Factors that influence concern about human-black bear interac-tions in residential settings. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2009, 14(3): 185-197
[17]	Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K.Tourists’ support for conservation messages and sustainable mana-gement practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 2009, 30(5): 658-664
[18]	崔庆明, 徐红罡. 野象的迷思: 野象谷人-象冲突的社会建构分析. 旅游学刊, 2012, 27(5): 49-56
[19]	Garrod B, Fennell D A.An analysis of whalewatching codes ofconduct. Annals of Tourism Research, 2004, 31(2): 334-352
[20]	Burns G L, Howard P.When wildlife tourism goes wrong: a case study of stakeholder and management issues regardingdingoes on Fraser Island, Australia. Tourism Management, 2003, 24(6): 699-712
[21]	Stankowich T, Blumstein D T.Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Pro-ceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2005, 272: 2627-2634
[22]	Gore M L, Knuth B A, Curtis P D, et al.Factors influencing risk perception associated with Uuman-black bear conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2007, 12(2): 133-136
[23]	Gore M L, Kahler J S.Gendered risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict: implications for participatory conservation. Plos One, 2012, 7(3): 32901
[24]	Amo L, López P, Martı´n J.Nature-based tourism as a form of predation risk affects body condition and health state of Podarcis muralis lizards. Biological Conservation, 2006, 131(3): 402-409
[25]	Samuels A, Bejder L.Chronic interaction between humansand free-ranging bottlenose dolphins near Panama City Beach, Florida. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 2004, 6: 69-77
[26]	Catlin J, Jones R.Whale shark tourism at Ningaloo Marine Park: a longitudinal study of wildlife tourism. Tourism Management, 2010, 31(3): 386-394
[27]	Smith H, Samuels A, Bradley S.Reducing risky interactions between tourists and free-ranging dol-phins(Tursiops sp.) in an artificial feeding program at Monkey Mia, Western Australia. Tourism Mana-gement, 2008, 29(5): 994-1001
[28]	Priest S.The adventure experience paradigm // Miles A, Priest S. Adventure recreation. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, 1990: 157-162
[29]	Haddock C.Managing risks in outdoor activities. Wellington: New Zealand Mountain Safety Council, 1993
[30]	Bauer R.Consumer behavior as risk taking // Cox D. Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967: 23-33
[31]	Roehl W S, Fesenmaier D R.Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 1992, 30(4): 17-26
[32]	Slovic P.Perception of risk. Science, 1987, 236: 280-285
[33]	Gore M L, Knuth B A, Curtis P D, et al.Stakeholder perceptions of riskassociated with human-black bear conflicts in New York’s Adirondack Park camp-grounds: implications for theory and practice. Wild-life Society Bulletin, 2006, 34: 36-43
[34]	Kleiven J, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn B P.Factors influencing the social acceptability oflarge carnivore behaviors. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2004, 13: 1647-1658
[35]	Chauvin B, Hermand D, Mullet E.Risk perception and personality facets. Risk Analysis, 2007, 27: 171-185
[36]	许晖, 许守任, 王睿智. 消费者旅游感知风险维度识别及差异分析. 旅游学刊, 2013, 28(12): 71-80
[37]	Qi C X, Gibson H J, Zhang J J.Perceptions of risk and travel intentions: the case of China and the Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport & Tour-ism, 2009, 14(1): 43-67
[38]	焦彦. 基于旅游者偏好和知觉风险的旅游者决策模型分析. 旅游学刊, 2006, 21(4): 42-47
[39]	叶欣梁, 温家洪, 邓贵平. 基于多情景的景区自然灾害风险评价方法研究: 以九寨沟树正寨为例. 旅游学刊, 2014, 29(7): 47-57
[40]	陈永昶, 徐虹, 郭净. 导游与游客交互质量对游客感知的影响: 以游客感知风险作为中介变量的模型. 旅游学刊, 2011, 26(8): 37-44
[41]	谢朝武. 基于聚类和最优尺度分析的户外拓展运动的安全风险研究. 旅游学刊, 2011, 26(5): 47-52
[42]	Park K, Reisinger Y.Differences in the perceived influence of natural disasters and travel risk on international travel. Tourism Geographies, 2010, 12(1): 1-24
[43]	Reichel A, Fuchs G, Uriely N.Perceived risk and the non-institutionalized tourist role: the case of Israeli student ex-backpackers. Journal of Travel Research, 2007, 46(2): 217-226
[44]	吕兴洋, 徐虹, 邱玮. 中国旅游消费者权力量表构建与有效性检验. 经济管理, 2014, 36(7): 111-119
[45]	吴明隆. 结构方程模型x: AMOS 的操作与应用. 2 版. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010: 213-215
[46]	Fornell C, Larcker D F.Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18(1): 39-50
[47]	Morakabati Y, Fletcher J, Prideaux B.Tourism development in a difficult environment: a study of consumer attitudes, travel risk perceptions and the termination of demand. Tourism Economics, 2012, 18(5): 953-969

题项	问项变量	组成成分			因子	均值	标准差	Cranach’s α
题项	问项变量	1	2	3	因子	均值	标准差	Cranach’s α
Q17-1	可能旅游实际开销超出旅游预期花费	-0.089	0.326	0.743	体验质量	2.551	0.811	0.657
Q17-2	可能目的地体验没有预期(或宣传)的好	0.209	0.103	0.789
Q17-3	可能目的地可遇见野生动物机会少	0.325	-0.075	0.705
Q17-4	可能在旅途中发生各种意外事件对身体造成伤害	0.162	0.777	0.211	身体安全	2.324	0.901	0.743
Q17-5	可能出现水土不服、身体不适	0.258	0.796	0.025
Q17-6	可能目的地气候条件或旅游项目危及身体健康	0.434	0.646	0.093
Q17-7	可能付出时间, 旅行结果不让人满意	0.717	0.246	0.281	舒适性	2.582	0.966	0.792
Q17-8	可能基础配套设施差	0.788	0.24	0.126
Q17-9	可能目的地交通不便, 给出行造成麻烦	0.805	0.24	0.083

题项	问项变量	组成成分			因子	均值	标准差	Cranach’s α
题项	问项变量	1	2	3	因子	均值	标准差	Cranach’s α
Q17-1	可能旅游实际开销超出旅游预期花费	-0.089	0.326	0.743	体验质量	2.551	0.811	0.657
Q17-2	可能目的地体验没有预期(或宣传)的好	0.209	0.103	0.789
Q17-3	可能目的地可遇见野生动物机会少	0.325	-0.075	0.705
Q17-4	可能在旅途中发生各种意外事件对身体造成伤害	0.162	0.777	0.211	身体安全	2.324	0.901	0.743
Q17-5	可能出现水土不服、身体不适	0.258	0.796	0.025
Q17-6	可能目的地气候条件或旅游项目危及身体健康	0.434	0.646	0.093
Q17-7	可能付出时间, 旅行结果不让人满意	0.717	0.246	0.281	舒适性	2.582	0.966	0.792
Q17-8	可能基础配套设施差	0.788	0.24	0.126
Q17-9	可能目的地交通不便, 给出行造成麻烦	0.805	0.24	0.083

研究群组	因素量表属性	观察变量问项题号	标准化因素负荷量	SMC	CR	AVE
一阶	体验质量风险	Q17-1	0.79	0.551	0.789	0.561
		Q17-2	0.85	0.602
		Q17-3	0.58	0.506
	身体安全风险	Q17-4	0.71	0.599	0.789	0.556
		Q17-5	0.83	0.682
		Q17-6	0.69	0.573
	舒适性风险	Q17-7	0.70	0.563	0.748	0.500
		Q17-8	0.61	0.615
		Q17-9	0.80	0.604
二阶	风险感知	体验质量	0.75	0.518	0.860	0.676
		身体安全	0.71	0.565
		舒适性	0.98	0.988

研究群组	因素量表属性	观察变量问项题号	标准化因素负荷量	SMC	CR	AVE
一阶	体验质量风险	Q17-1	0.79	0.551	0.789	0.561
		Q17-2	0.85	0.602
		Q17-3	0.58	0.506
	身体安全风险	Q17-4	0.71	0.599	0.789	0.556
		Q17-5	0.83	0.682
		Q17-6	0.69	0.573
	舒适性风险	Q17-7	0.70	0.563	0.748	0.500
		Q17-8	0.61	0.615
		Q17-9	0.80	0.604
二阶	风险感知	体验质量	0.75	0.518	0.860	0.676
		身体安全	0.71	0.565
		舒适性	0.98	0.988

衡量维度	问项	弱风险感知(N=184)		强风险感知(N=26)		中等感知(N=94)
衡量维度	变量	频次	百分比	频次	百分比	频次	百分比
性别	A1: 男	73	39.7	10	38.5	28	29.8
性别	A2: 女	111	60.3	16	61.5	66	70.2
年龄	B1: 小于16	9	4.9	1	3.8	8	8.5
	B2: 16~19	9	4.9	1	3.8	7	7.4
	B3: 20~29	29	15.8	15	57.7	26	27.7
	B4: 30~39	42	22.8	6	23.1	22	23.4
	B5: 40~49	42	22.8	0	0.0	17	18.1
	B6: 50~59	31	16.8	2	7.7	10	10.6
	B7: 大于60	22	12.0	1	3.8	4	4.3
教育背景	C1: 初中及以下	1	0.5	1	3.8	0	0.0
	C2: 高中	62	33.7	9	34.6	39	41.5
	C3: 职业中专	33	17.9	3	11.5	12	12.8
	C4: 本科	59	32.1	10	38.5	26	27.7
	C5: 硕士	14	7.6	2	7.7	14	14.9
	C6: 博士	10	5.4	1	3.8	3	3.2
年收入(澳元)	D1: 少于10000	17	9.2	9	34.6	17	18.1
	D2: 10000~19000	12	6.5	5	19.2	4	4.3
	D3: 20000~49999	18	9.8	4	15.4	15	16.0
	D4: 50000~99000	48	26.1	6	23.1	26	27.7
	D5: 100000~199999	57	31.0	1	3.8	25	26.6
	D6: 200000以上	8	4.3	0	0.0	0	0.0
	D7: 空白	24	13.0	1	3.8	7	7.4
家庭背景	E1: 单身	32	17.4	10	38.5	27	28.7
	E2: 已婚无子女	40	21.7	10	38.5	20	21.3
	E3: 已婚有一子女	19	10.3	2	7.7	8	8.5
	E4: 已婚两子女及以上	89	48.4	4	15.4	39	41.5