Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis ›› 2017, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (1): 179-188.DOI: 10.13209/j.0479-8023.2016.040
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
Li CONG1,†(), Bihu WU2, Yujun ZHANG1, Newsome David3
Received:
2015-08-25
Revised:
2015-11-17
Online:
2017-01-20
Published:
2017-01-20
Contact:
Li CONG
丛丽1,†(), 吴必虎2, 张玉钧1, David Newsome3
通讯作者:
丛丽
基金资助:
CLC Number:
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.
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.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://xbna.pku.edu.cn/EN/10.13209/j.0479-8023.2016.040
题项 | 问项变量 | 组成成分 | 因子 | 均值 | 标准差 | Cranach’s α | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||
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 |
Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis results of perceptive risks of wildlife tourists
题项 | 问项变量 | 组成成分 | 因子 | 均值 | 标准差 | Cranach’s α | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||
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 |
Table 2 Convergent validity of wildlife tourism risk perception scale
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) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
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 |
Table 3 Analysis of demographic characteristics of three types of risk perception
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) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
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 |
变量 | 表现程度最高群体 | 表现程度最低群体 | Scheffe事后检定 显著性差异因子 | 主要表现程度趋势 | 是否存在 显著性差异 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
性别 | 女性 | 男性 | 无 | — | 否 |
年龄 | 20~29岁 | 60岁以上 | B3>B4,B5,B6,B7 | 年龄长者风险感知较低 | 存在 |
学历 | 初中 | 博士 | C1>C6 | 学历高者风险感知较低 | 存在 |
婚姻 | 单身 | 配偶有两子女及以上 | D1,D2>D5,D6 | 单身者风险感知较高 | 存在 |
年收入 | 少于1万元 | 10~20万 | E1>E3,E4 | 收入高者风险感知较低 | 存在 |
Table 4 Variance analysis on varied demographic characteristics had significant difference in wildlife tourism risk perception
变量 | 表现程度最高群体 | 表现程度最低群体 | Scheffe事后检定 显著性差异因子 | 主要表现程度趋势 | 是否存在 显著性差异 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
性别 | 女性 | 男性 | 无 | — | 否 |
年龄 | 20~29岁 | 60岁以上 | B3>B4,B5,B6,B7 | 年龄长者风险感知较低 | 存在 |
学历 | 初中 | 博士 | C1>C6 | 学历高者风险感知较低 | 存在 |
婚姻 | 单身 | 配偶有两子女及以上 | D1,D2>D5,D6 | 单身者风险感知较高 | 存在 |
年收入 | 少于1万元 | 10~20万 | E1>E3,E4 | 收入高者风险感知较低 | 存在 |
不同群组变量 | 体验质量风险 | 身体安全风险 | 舒适性风险 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | 显著性 | F | 显著性 | F | 显著性 | |
旅游经历 | 0.461 | 0.498 | 10.945 | 0.001** | 0.027 | 0.869 |
旅行同伴 | 8.422 | 0.004** | 6.443 | 0.012** | 8.509 | 0.004** |
满意度 | 1.009 | 0.316 | 7.574 | 0.006** | 9.852 | 0.002* |
重游意愿 | 0.861 | 0.354 | 9.886 | 0.002** | 11.65 | 0.001** |
信息来源 | 0.088 | 0.766 | 0.006 | 0.937 | 0.924 | 0.337 |
消费额 | 1.165 | 0.082* | 0.127 | 0.712 | 0.046 | 0.830 |
停留时间 | 1.325 | 0.251 | 1.158 | 0.283 | 3.062 | 0.081* |
Table 5 Variance analysis on tourist behavior, satisfaction and willingness to revisit having significant difference in wildlife tourism risk perception
不同群组变量 | 体验质量风险 | 身体安全风险 | 舒适性风险 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | 显著性 | F | 显著性 | F | 显著性 | |
旅游经历 | 0.461 | 0.498 | 10.945 | 0.001** | 0.027 | 0.869 |
旅行同伴 | 8.422 | 0.004** | 6.443 | 0.012** | 8.509 | 0.004** |
满意度 | 1.009 | 0.316 | 7.574 | 0.006** | 9.852 | 0.002* |
重游意愿 | 0.861 | 0.354 | 9.886 | 0.002** | 11.65 | 0.001** |
信息来源 | 0.088 | 0.766 | 0.006 | 0.937 | 0.924 | 0.337 |
消费额 | 1.165 | 0.082* | 0.127 | 0.712 | 0.046 | 0.830 |
停留时间 | 1.325 | 0.251 | 1.158 | 0.283 | 3.062 | 0.081* |
[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 |
[1] | CONG Li. Semi-Captive Habitat of Wildlife Tourists with Different Demographic Characteristics: Deep Ecology Perspective [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2019, 55(2): 351-359. |
[2] | Mei CHEN, Yuqin SONG, Dakong QIN, Qian ZHU, Chongxiao WEI. Study of Marine Pollution Impact on the Habitat Selection of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2017, 53(6): 1068-1080. |
[3] | Li CONG, Bihu WU, Yujun ZHANG, Newsome Daivd. Research on Place Involvement in Wildlife Tourism: A Case Study of Dolphin Discovery Center in Bunbury, Australia [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2017, 53(4): 715-721. |
[4] | CONG Li, WU Bihu, ZHANG Yujun, David Newsome. Empirical Research on Environmental Attitude of Non-consumptive Wildlife Tourism: A Case Study of Dolphin Discovery Center (DDC) in Bunbury, Australia [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2016, 52(2): 295-302. |
[5] | CONG Li,WU Bihu. Wildlife Tourism Experience Based on Internet Text Content Analysis: A Case Study of Chengdu Research Base for Giant Panda Breeding [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2014, 50(6): 1087-1094. |
[6] | ZHU Kejun,XU Jianhua. Review of Risk Perception on Urban Air Pollution [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2014, 50(5): 969-978. |
[7] | XIONG Ji,LIU Yibo,XIE Xiaofei. Mental Representation of Food Safety Incidents: An Exploration [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2011, 47(1): 175-184. |
[8] | WANG Long,YU Junzhi,HU Yonghui,FAN Ruifeng,HUO Jiyan,XIE Guangming. Mechanism Design and Motion Control of Robotic Dolphin [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2006, 42(3): 294-301. |
[9] | XIE Xiaofei,ZHENG Rui,XIE Dongmei,WANG Hui. Analysis on Psychological Panic Phenomenon of SARS [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 2005, 41(4): 628-639. |
[10] | WANG Changming,ZHANG Xinying,JIANG Tianyun,ZHOU Chaoding. The Comparative Wood Anatomy of Eucalyptus Globulus Introduced into China and Native of Australia [J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 1995, 31(4): 479-489. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||