The Impact of Smog on Inbound Tourism in China from the Perspective of Heterogeneity of Tourists'Risk Perception
-
摘要: 基于2011—2017年我国省级面板数据, 以二氧化硫、氮氧化物和烟粉尘三种大气污染物的排放强度作为雾霾污染的测度指标, 在风险感知理论视角下构建雾霾影响入境旅游规模的回归模型, 运用双向固定效应模型进行实证分析, 发现雾霾已对我国入境旅游规模产生了较为明显的负向影响, 但对港澳台游客规模的负向影响不明显, 表明外国游客市场对雾霾污染更敏感, 即雾霾影响入境旅游的游客风险感知具有异质性特征。进一步从不同污染程度区域考察风险感知的异质性, 发现污染更为严重的北方地区其雾霾的负向影响较南方地区显著, 各地区雾霾对外国游客规模的负向效应均显著高于对港澳台游客规模的负向效应, 再次证明外国游客对雾霾风险的感知更为强烈。因而, 加大雾霾污染治理尤其是对严重污染地区的治理, 根据游客风险感知的异质性特征积极打造“中国蓝”形象, 加强国际合作并优化旅游综合体系等, 可降低入境游客的雾霾风险感知, 提升我国入境旅游的吸引力。Abstract: Based on China's provincial panel data from 2011 to 2017, the paper employs the emission intensity of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and smoke dust as the measurement index of smog pollution constructs regression model of impact of smog on inbound tourism scale from the perspective of risk perception theory, and makes empirical analysis using Two-way Fixed Effect Model. The results show that smog has significantly negative impact on the scale of inbound tourism in China. Judging from the categories of tourists, the negative impact of smog on the scale of foreign tourists is significant, while the negative impact on the scale of tourists from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan is not obvious, indicating that the foreign tourist market is more sensitive to smog pollution, and there is heterogeneity in tourists' perception for smog affecting inbound tourism. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of risk perception is examined from different regions with different pollution levels. The negative impact of smog in the more polluted northern regions on inbound tourism is significantly greater than that in the southern regions. On this basis, the negative impact of smog in the southern and northern regions on the scale of foreign tourists is significantly greater than that of tourists from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. This further proves that foreign tourists have stronger perception of smog risk than tourists from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Therefore, effective ways such as strengthening the control of smog pollution, especially in heavily polluted areas, and taking measures to create the image of "China Blue", strengthening international regional cooperation, and optimizing the comprehensive tourism system according to the heterogeneity of tourists' preferences can be taken to reduce tourists ' perception of smog risk and enhance the attractiveness of China's inbound tourism.
-
Key words:
- smog environmental pollution /
- inbound tourism /
- risk perception /
- tourist /
- air quality /
- Hong Kong
-
图 2 对空气污染敏感和不敏感的旅游者的旅游需求—空气污染无差异曲线对比
Ⅱ′——对空气污染不敏感的旅游者的旅游需求—空气污染无差异曲线
SS′——对空气污染敏感的旅游者的旅游需求—空气污染无差异曲线表 1 变量的描述性统计
变量名称 变量内涵及单位 观测值 均值 标准误 最小值 最大值 tourist 入境旅游规模(万人次) 217 334.447 601.357 2 365 5 wtourist 外国游客规模(万人次) 217 180.456 180.050 1 909 gtourist 港澳台游客规模(万人次) 217 153.991 462.621 1 279 0 ihaze 二氧化硫、氮氧化物、烟粉尘排放总量强度(吨/亿元) 217 105.047 88.227 6.384 515.658 PM2.5 细颗粒物(微克/立方米) 186 32.443 17.147 3.051 81.790 open 对外开放水平(进出口总额/GDP) 217 0.275 0.316 0.017 1.548 resource 旅游资源条件(家) 217 252.871 173.551 29 116 2 hotel 住宿条件(家) 217 595.111 429.693 42 225 9 catering 餐饮条件(家) 217 817.756 734.738 7 314 3 transport 交通条件(公里/百平方公里) 217 92.152 52.515 5.179 219.048 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 基于游客类别的雾霾对入境旅游影响的回归结果
变量 入境旅游规模 外国游客规模 港澳台游客规模 模型1 模型2 模型3 模型4 模型5 模型6 Lnihaze -0.145*
(0.077)-0.366**
(0.149)-0.212***
(0.079)-0.445***
(0.157)0.059
(0.092)-0.049
(0.183)open 0.587**
(0.253)0.059
(0.233)0.606**
(0.259)0.120
(0.247)0.328
(0.303)-0.294
(0.287)lnta -0.068
(0.103)0.201*
(0.107)-0.164
(0.105)0.086
(0.113)0.133
(0.123)0.432***
(0.132)lnhotel -0.506
(0.311)-0.367
(0.272)-0.556*
(0.318)-0.435
(0.287)-0.439
(0.373)-0.231
(0.334)lncatering 0.207
(0.149)0.219*
(0.129)0.295*
(0.153)0.308**
(0.136)0.071
(0.179)0.074
(0.158)lntransport 0.886*
(0.463)2.949***
(0.502)0.671
(0.474)2.632***
(0.531)1.915***
(0.555)4.050***
(0.618)常数项 3.868*
(2.083)-5.651**
(2.212)4.904**
(2.133)-3.950*
(2.338)-3.274
(2.496)-14.13***
(2.722)地区固定效应 是 是 是 是 是 是 时间固定效应 是 是 是 观测值 217 217 217 217 217 217 拟合优度 0.098 0.368 0.105 0.332 0.134 0.361 注：***、**、*分别表示在1%、5%和10%的置信水平上显著，括号中为标准误差。下表同。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 雾霾对入境旅游影响的分区域异质性回归结果
变量 入境旅游规模 外国游客规模 港澳台游客规模 模型1
(北方)模型2
(南方)模型3
(北方)模型4
(南方)模型5
(北方)模型6
(南方)Lnihaze -0.442**
(0.198)-0.007
(0.247)-0.464**
(0.206)-0.147
(0.266)-0.413
(0.249)0.578*
(0.301)open -0.326
(0.313)0.477
(0.420)-0.283
(0.326)0.430
(0.453)-0.271
(0.394)0.135
(0.512)lnta 0.340**
(0.148)0.027
(0.170)0.222
(0.154)-0.073
(0.183)0.504***
(0.187)0.205
(0.207)lnhotel -0.181
(0.330)-0.469
(0.534)-0.078
(0.344)-0.835
(0.576)-0.600
(0.416)0.397
(0.651)lncatering 0.307*
(0.179)0.093
(0.250)0.271
(0.187)0.344
(0.270)0.371
(0.226)-0.343
(0.305)lntransport 4.163***
(0.738)1.780**
(0.754)3.850***
(0.767)1.670**
(0.813)4.816***
(0.929)2.623***
(0.919)常数项 -12.11***
(3.347)-0.183
(3.114)-10.84***
(3.481)1.607
(3.358)-15.38***
(4.216)-11.02***
(3.793)地区固定效应 是 是 是 是 是 是 时间固定效应 是 是 是 是 是 是 观测值 105 112 105 112 105 112 省区数量 15 16 15 16 15 16 拟合优度 0.493 0.366 0.449 0.342 0.425 0.410
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 稳健性检验回归结果
变量 入境旅游规模 外国游客规模 港澳台游客规模 模型1 模型2 模型3 模型4 模型5 模型6 Lnpm2.5 -0.669***
(0.163)-0.254
(0.168)-0.654***
(0.168)-0.239
(0.180)-0.679***
(0.205)-0.249
(0.206)open 0.322
(0.250)-0.185
(0.254)0.249
(0.259)-0.123
(0.273)0.368
(0.315)-0.507
(0.313)lnta -0.022
(0.099)0.202*
(0.114)-0.086
(0.103)0.066
(0.122)0.076
(0.125)0.503***
(0.140)lnhotel -0.520
(0.351)-0.240
(0.313)-0.531
(0.362)-0.262
(0.335)-0.445
(0.440)-0.128
(0.385)lncatering 0.169
(0.171)0.250
(0.152)0.280
(0.176)0.357**
(0.163)-0.053
(0.214)0.035
(0.188)lntransport 0.987**
(0.495)3.049***
(0.597)0.833
(0.511)2.484***
(0.641)1.779***
(0.622)4.919***
(0.735)常数项 5.155***
(1.700)-5.211*
(2.667)5.061***
(1.755)-5.829**
(2.799)0.878
(2.135)-17.84***
(3.212)地区固定效应 是 是 是 是 是 是 时间固定效应 是 是 是 观测值 186 186 186 186 186 186 拟合优度 0.137 0.361 0.134 0.308 0.149 0.394
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 梁留科, 李锋. 基于网络舆情的雾霾对旅游者偏好影响路径分析[J]. 洛阳师范学院学报, 2015(10): 18-24. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-4970.2015.10.004 [2] MICHELLE R, DANIEL S. Comparison of climate preferences for domestic and international beach holidays: a case study of Canadian travelers[J]. Atmosphere, 2016, 7(2): 1-12. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20163101266.html [3] CHEUNG C, LAW R. The impact of air quality on tourism: the case of Hong Kong[J]. Pacific Tourism Review, 2001, 5(1): 69-74. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/cog/ptr/2001/00000005/f0020001/art00010 [4] ZHANG A P, ZHONG L S, XU Y, et al. Tourists'perception of haze pollution and the potential impacts on travel: reshaping the features of tourism seasonality in Beijing, China[J]. Sustainability, 2015, 7(3): 2397-2414. doi: 10.3390/su7032397 [5] 李静, PEARCE P L, 吴必虎, 等. 雾霾对来京旅游者风险感知及旅游体验的影响——基于结构方程模型的中外旅游者对比研究[J]. 旅游学刊, 2015(10): 48-59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5006.2015.10.005 [6] 张晨, 高峻, 丁培毅. 雾霾天气对潜在海外游客来华意愿的影响——基于目的地形象和风险感知理论[J]. 旅游学刊, 2017(12): 58-67. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5006.2017.12.013 [7] 彭建, 郭思远, 裴亚楠, 等. 大陆居民对北京雾霾的旅游影响感知和态度研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2016(10): 168-176. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2016.10.022 [8] 保继刚, 楚义芳. 旅游地理学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 1999. [9] 孙根年, 张毓, 薛佳. 资源—区位—贸易三大因素对日本游客入境旅游目的地选择的影响[J]. 地理研究, 2011(6): 1032-1043. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DLYJ201106007.htm [10] 赵东喜. 中国省际入境旅游发展影响因素研究——基于分省面板数据分析[J]. 旅游学刊, 2008(1): 41-45. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5006.2008.01.012 [11] 冯娜, 李君轶. 外向在线旅游信息流与入境旅游流的耦合分析——以美加入境旅游流为例[J]. 旅游学刊, 2014(4): 79-86. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-5006.2014.04.009 [12] 周梦杰, 王艳平, 宦震丹. 霾污染改变基础的旅游理论[J]. 旅游论坛, 2014(4): 12-16. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GLGZ201404003.htm [13] 唐承财, 刘霄泉, 宋昌耀. 雾霾对区域旅游业的影响及应对策略探讨[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2016(5): 121-126. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0504.2016.05.019 [14] 孟博, 刘茂, 李清水, 等. 风险感知理论模型及影响因子分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010(10): 61-68. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZAQK201010012.htm [15] 周忻, 徐伟, 袁艺, 等. 灾害风险感知研究方法与应用综述[J]. 灾害学, 2012(2): 116-120. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHXU201202025.htm [16] TSAUR S H, TZENG G H, WANG K C. Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives[J]. Annals of Tourism Research, 1997, 24(4): 796-812. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00059-5 [17] SONMEZ S F, GRAEFE A R. Determining future travel behavior from past trave lexperience and perceptions of risk and safety[J]. Journal of Travel Research, 1998, 37(2): 171-177. doi: 10.1177/004728759803700209 [18] KOZAK M, CROTTS J C, LAW R. The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers[J]. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2007, 9(4): 233-242. doi: 10.1002/jtr.607 [19] 张爱平, 虞虎. 雾霾影响下旅京游客风险感知与不完全规避行为分析[J]. 资源科学, 2017(6): 1148-1159. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZRZY201706014.htm [20] 刘华军. 生态文明视阈下中国环境污染排放绩效的演变与驱动[J]. 广东财经大学学报, 2017(1): 13-23. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SONG201701002.htm [21] SINCLAIR M T, STABLER M. The economics of tourism[M]. London: Routedge, 1997. [22] 邵帅, 李欣, 曹建华, 等. 中国雾霾污染治理的经济政策选择——基于空间溢出效应的视角[J]. 经济研究, 2016(9): 73-88. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JJYJ201609007.htm [23] 马丽梅, 刘生龙, 张晓. 能源结构、交通模式与雾霾污染——基于空间计量模型的研究[J]. 财贸经济, 2016(1): 147-160. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-913X.2016.01.069 [24] 李伟山. 中国入境旅游客源的文化分析[J]. 广西民族大学学报: 哲学社会科学版, 2007(1): 140-144. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GXZS200701025.htm [25] 林玉虾, 林璧属, 孙小龙. 世界遗产对入境旅游的影响差异——基于中国境外游客的群组分析[J]. 经济管理, 2016(12): 132-148. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JJGU201612013.htm [26] 高广阔, 马利霞. 雾霾污染对入境客流量影响的统计研究[J]. 旅游研究, 2016(4): 77-82. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-KMDX201604011.htm [27] 包群, 邵敏, 杨大利. 环境管制抑制了污染排放吗?[J]. 经济研究, 2013(12): 42-54. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JJYJ201312004.htm [28] 谢佳慧, 李隆伟, 王艳平. 排斥物: 雾霾降低入境旅游规模[J]. 当代经济科学, 2017(1): 113-123. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DJKX201701013.htm -
点击查看大图
图(2) / 表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 269
- HTML全文浏览量: 131
- PDF下载量: 13
- 被引次数: 0