雾霾影响下旅京游客风险感知与不完全规避行为分析

doi:10.18402/resci.2017.06.14

Abstract

Abstract:

Haze pollution has worsened in China. This type of environmental pollution may have a great effect on tourism images and the entire tourism industry. This study aims to reveal the impacts of haze pollution on the mental activity and behavior of on-site tourists. Based on the theoretical guidance of ‘Perceived Risk Theory’,risk perception and specific risk reduction affected by risk perception were examined. Theoretical assumptions and a model were established and Structural Equation Model （SEM）techniques were used to verify the model. The relationship between risk perception and specific risk reduction of tourists was revealed. We found that haze pollution has obvious impacts on the risk perception of on-site tourists,and risk involves health risk,functional risk,psychological risk and cost risk. On-site tourists for Beijing have obvious perceptions of these four aspects of travel risk. As to the perception level of travel risk,health risk is the highest aspect,followed by functional risk,psychological risk and cost risk. After we established the initial model of the four aspects of travel risk and risk reduction activities,SEM techniques were used to reveal the relationship between risk perception and risk reduction. The results show that risk perception has a significant influence on risk reduction activities;the influence level of health risk is the highest,followed by functional risk and psychological risk. The effect of cost risk,which is important in tourism decision-making,is not significant. Group features of on-site tourists also have important effects on risk perception and risk reduction and tourism market segmentation divided by travel purpose has the most important effect.

Key words: risk perception, risk reduction, incomplete risk avoidance, domestic tourist group, haze pollution, Beijing

Aiping ZHANG, Hu YU. Risk perception and risk reduction of domestic tourists impacted by haze pollution in Beijing[J].Resources Science, 2017, 39(6): 1148-1159.

Figures/Tables 10

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Figure 3

Table 6

Table 7

References 26

[1]	WHO. Public Health, Social and Environmental Determinants of Health Department[R]. Geneva:World Health Organization,2014.
[2]	潘竟虎,张文,李俊峰,等. 中国大范围雾霾期间主要城市空气污染物分布特征[J]. 生态学杂志,2014,33(12):3423-3431.
	[Pan J H,Zhang W,Li J F,et al.Spatial distribution charac-teristics of air pollutants in major cities in China during the period of wide range haze pollution[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology,2014,33(12):3423-3431.]
[3]	李令军,王占山,张大伟,等. 2013-2014 年北京大气重污染特征研究[J]. 中国环境科学,2016,36(1):27-35.
	[Li L J,Wang Z S,Zhang D W,et al.Analysis of heavy air pollution episodes in Beijing during 2013-2014[J]. China Environmental Science,2016,36(1):27-35.]
[4]	Mihalic T.Environmental management of a tourist destination:A factor of tourism competitiveness[J]. Tourism Management,2000,21(1):65-78.
[5]	白凯,马耀峰,李天顺. 环境感知因素对旅华背包游客旅游决策行为影响研究[J]. 旅游学刊,2006,21(5):48-53.
	[Bai K,Ma Y F,Li T S.A study on the impact of environmental perception on the decision making behavior of foreign inbound backpackers:Taking xi'an as a case[J]. Tourism Tribune,2006,21(5):48-53.]
[6]	Hsu H C,Cai L A,Li M.Expectation,motivation,and attitude:A tourist behavioral model[J]. Journal of Travel Research,2010,49(3):282-296.
[7]	Bauer R A.Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking[C]. Chicago:43rd Conference of the American Marketing Association,1960.
[8]	Roehl W S,Fesenmaier D R.Risk perceptions and pleasure travel:An exploratory analysis[J]. Journal of Travel Research,1992,30(4):17-26.
[9]	Sönmez S F,Graefe A R.Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety[J]. Journal of Travel Research,1998,37(2):171-177.
[10]	Maser B,Weiermair K.Travel decision- making:From the vantage point of perceived risk and information preferences[J]. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,1998,7(4):107-121.
[11]	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.
[12]	邱扶东,汪静. 旅游决策过程调查研究[J]. 旅游科学,2005,19(2):1-5.
	[Qiu F D,Wang J.A survey on tourism decision-making process[J]. Tourism Science,2005,19(2):1-5.]
[13]	Zhang A,Zhong L,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]. Sustain-ability,2015,7(3):2397-2414.
[14]	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,2016,26(10):169-176.
	[Peng J,Guo S Y,Pei Y N,et al.Mainland Chinese residents' perception of tourism impacted by haze in Beijing and their attitudes[J]. China Population,Resources and Environ-ment,2016,26(10):169-176.]
[15]	程励,张同颢,付阳. 城市居民雾霾天气认知及其对城市旅游目的地选择倾向的影响[J]. 旅游学刊,2015,30(10):37-47.
	[Cheng L,Zhang T H,Fu Y.Urban residents’cognition of haze-fog weather and its impact on their urban tourism destination choice[J]. Tourism Tribune,2015,30(10):37-47.]
[16]	李静,Pearcep 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,2015,28(10):48-59.
	[Li J,Pearcep L,Wu B H,et al.The impact of smog on risk perception and satisfaction of international and domestic tourists in Beijing[J]. Tourism Tribune,2015,28(10):48-59. ]
[17]	张太海,程媛婧. 消费者感知风险理论研究综述[J]. 市场营销导刊,2008,(4):38-42.
	[Zhang T M,Cheng Y J.Review of studies on consumers' perceived risk[J]. Marketing Herald,2008,(4):38-42.]
[18]	Mitchell V W.Perceived risk and risk reduction in holiday purchase:A cross-cultural and gender analysis[J]. European Journal of Marketing,1997,6(3):47-49.
[19]	Pennings J,Wangsink B,Meulenberg M.A note on modeling consumer reactions to a crisis:The case of the mad cow disease[J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing,2002,19(1):91-100.
[20]	全世文,曾寅初,刘媛媛. 中国农村观消费者对国内外品牌奶制品的感知风险与风险态度-基于三聚氰胺事件后的消费者调查[J]. 中国农村观察,2011,(2):1-15.
	[Quan S W,Zeng Y C,Liu Y Y.Perceived risk and the attitude of rural consumers towards dairy products in China:Based on the survey after the melamine scandal[J]. China Rural Survey ,2011,(2):1-15.]
[21]	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[J]. 旅游学刊,2013,28(12):71-80.
	[Xu H,Xu S R,Wang R Z.Study on dimension identification and variance analysis of consumers’ perceived risk in travel[J]. Tourism Tribune,2013,28(12):71-80. ]
[22]	湛东升,孟斌,张文忠. 北京市居民居住满意度感知与行为意向研究[J]. 地理研究,2014,33(2):336-348.
	[Zhan D S,Meng B,Zhang W Z.A study on residential satisfaction and its behavioral intention in Beijing[J]. Geographical Research,2014,33(2):336-348.]
[23]	谢朝武,申世飞. 旅游地环境风险对中国旅游突发事件的影响及区域分布研究[J]. 地理科学进展,2013,32(3):455-464.
	[Xie C W,Shen S F.Influences of environmental risks of tourist destinations on tourism emergency events in China and their regional distributions[J]. Progress in Geography,2013,32(3):455-464.]
[24]	孙志豪,崔燕平. PM 2.5对人体健康影响研究概述[J]. 环境科技,2013,26(4):75-78.
	[Sun Z H,Cui Y P.An overview of PM2.5 impacts on human health[J]. Environmental Science and Technology,2013,26(4):75-78.]
[25]	程德年,周永博,魏向东,等. 基于负面IPA的入境游客对华环境风险感知研究[J]. 旅游学刊,2015,30(1):54-62.
	[Cheng D N,Zhou Y B,Wei X D,et al.A study on the environmental risk perceptions of inbound tourists for China using negative IPA assessment[J]. Tourism Tribune,2015,30(1):54-62.]
[26]	George R.Tourist’s perceptions of safety and security while visiting Cape Town[J]. Tourism Management,2003,24(5):575-585.

统计变量/%	分类属性/样本比重
性别	男/54.6;女/45.4
年龄	30岁以下/37.7;31~40岁/39.3;41~50 岁/17.6;50岁及以上/5.4
受教育程度	高中及以下/13.8;大专/24.3;本科/43.6;研究生及以上/18.3
出游目的	休闲度假/19.0;观光旅游/54.5;事务出行/26.5
拟停留天数	1~2天/15.7;3~4天/42.8;5~6天/28.6;一周及以上/12.9
旅游结伴方式	独自出行/40.1;与同事结伴出行/18.7;与家人/朋友结伴出行/41.2
客源地分布	山东/10.1;河北/9.6;广东/8.3;河南/7.6;辽宁/7.5;江苏/7.1;上海/6.8;天津/6.7;浙江/5.8;其他/30.5

潜变量	测量题项	因子载荷	贡献率/%	均值	标准差
出游风险感知
身体风险感知	X1对人体具有伤害	0.647	22.133	4.46	0.820
	X2威胁旅游者健康	0.701		4.48	0.757
	X3有交通安全隐患	0.693		4.29	0.722
功能风险感知	X4不利于景观欣赏	0.640	18.216	3.99	0.805
	X5不利于旅游摄影	0.655		3.70	0.936
	X6阻碍户外休闲娱乐	0.771		3.74	0.811
	X7降低旅游体验质量	0.720		3.96	0.790
心理风险感知	X8破坏旅游心情	0.744	14.015	3.34	0.969
	X9难以放松身心	0.813		3.85	0.846
	X10难以获得享受和满足	0.599		3.51	0.937
成本风险感知	X11浪费金钱成本	0.676	10.762	3.68	0.955
	X12浪费时间成本	0.675		3.31	0.924
	X13浪费旅游机会	0.602		3.60	0.918
风险应对态度	Y1不愿承受出游风险			3.92	0.780
	Y2重视雾霾出游风险			3.84	0.862
	Y3有意降低出游风险			3.79	0.834
不完全规避行为	Z1查询空气质量信息			3.97	0.801
	Z2结合空气信息选择时间			3.55	0.943
	Z3已备有应对方案及设备			3.32	0.819
	Z4计划灵活以便调整			3.66	0.847

	CMIN/DF（卡方自由度比）	RMSEA（近似误差均方根）	RMR （残差均方根）	GFI（拟合优度指数）	CFI（比较拟合优度指数）	NFI（规范拟合指数）	AGFI（调整拟合优度指数）	TLI（非规范拟合指数）
理想值	2.000~5.000	<0.080	<0.050	>0.900	>0.900	>0.900	>0.900	>0.900
初始模型	4.190	0.077	0.044	0.904	0.895	0.878	0.893	0.893
修正模型	3.368	0.065	0.040	0.922	0.916	0.901	0.904	0.913

潜变量	观察变量	标准化因子载荷	信度	CR	AVE
出游风险感知
身体风险感知	X1对人体具有伤害	0.76	0.807	0.810	0.514
	X2威胁旅游者健康	0.70
	X3有交通安全隐患	0.79
功能风险感知	X4不利于景观欣赏	0.66	0.790	0.793	0.535
	X5不利于旅游摄影	0.80
	X6阻碍户外休闲娱乐	0.75
	X7降低旅游体验质量	0.77
心理风险感知	X8破坏旅游心情	0.65	0.752	0.776	0.492
	X9难以放松身心	0.79
	X10难以获得享受和满足	0.90
成本风险感知	X11浪费金钱成本	0.81	0.709	0.738	0.536
	X12浪费时间成本	0.92
风险应对态度	Y1不愿承受出游风险	0.88	0.806	0.820	0.608
	Y2重视雾霾出游风险	0.54
	Y3有意降低出游风险	0.73
不完全规避行为	Z1查询空气质量信息	0.70	0.801	0.812	0.584
	Z2结合空气信息选择时间	0.74
	Z3已备有应对方案及设备	0.68
	Z4计划灵活以便调整	0.81

影响路径	标准化系数	非标准化系数	P	结果
身体风险感知→风险规避态度	0.38	0.41	***	支持H1
功能风险感知→风险规避态度	0.27	0.31	***	支持H2
心理风险感知→风险规避态度	0.17	0.14	***	支持H3
成本风险感知→风险规避态度	0.07	0.04	0.24	不支持H4
风险规避态度→不完全规避行为	0.45	0.50	***	支持H5

Risk perception and risk reduction of domestic tourists impacted by haze pollution in Beijing

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Cited

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 26

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

属性	赋值
年龄	1=30岁及以下;2=31~40岁;3=41~50岁;4=50岁以上
受教育程度	1=高中及以下;2=大专;3=本科;4=研究生及以上
出游目的	1=休闲度假;2=观光出行;3=事务出行
拟停留天数	1=1~2天;2=3~4天;3=5~6天;4=一周及以上
结伴方式	1=独自一人;2=与同事结伴;3=与家人/朋友结伴

	年龄	受教育程度	出游目的	拟停留天数	结伴方式
身体风险感知	0.13*	-0.12*	0.02	0.05	-0.16**
功能风险感知	0.02	0.05	-0.20**	0.12*	-0.06
心理风险感知	0.04	0.05	-0.14*	-0.04	-0.02
成本风险感知	-0.02	-0.03	-0.04	0.04	-0.03
风险应对态度	0.07	-0.10*	-0.29**	0.10*	-0.08
不完全规避行为	0.06	-0.07	-0.12*	0.17**	-0.05

[1]	CHEN Lin, XIAO Qianbing, LAN Shujing. Pollution control effects of environmental policies based on threshold effect model of industrial structure: Taking the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan as an example [J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(2): 341-356.
[2]	ZHANG Biao, WANG Shuang, LI Qingxu, XIE Gaodi. Regional correlation degree derived from the sand-fixing service spatial flow: A case study of the Beijing-Tianjin sandstorm control engineering area [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(5): 969-979.
[3]	LIU Li, CHU Liqi, JIANG Zhide. Influence of technology cognition and risk perception on the willingness to adopt soil and water conservation tillage technologies and its intergenerational differences [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(4): 763-775.
[4]	ZHAO Minyan, DONG Suocheng, WU Homer C, LI Yu, MA Hong, SHAO Dan, GAO Ning, XIA Bing. Influence of forest experience education on urban public’s environmentally responsible behavior [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(3): 583-592.
[5]	YU Haozhe, LI Lijuan, LI Jiuyi. Evaluation of water resources carrying capacity in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region based on quantity-quality-water bodies-flow [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(2): 358-371.
[6]	FENG Fei, FENG Xuegang, HOU Jingchuan, HUO Dianming, TANG Rui. Effectiveness of regional environmental regulation, economic growth and environmental pollution: An emprical study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12): 2341-2353.
[7]	WU Rongrong, XIE Miaomiao, LIU Qi, LI Hanting, GUO Qiang, LI Xinyu. Spatial variability of causative factors of heat islands from the perspective of metropolitan functional blocks [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12): 2463-2474.
[8]	ZHANG Xin, LIU Jiaming, ZHU He, LI Tao. Spatiotemporal change and influencing factors of participatory sport tourism resources in Beijing suburbs [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(11): 2196-2209.
[9]	LI Yanmei,NIU Miaomiao,ZHANG Hongli. Comparison of economic benefits and embodied carbon emissions of intraregional value-added trade in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(9): 1619-1629.
[10]	Yunting SHI,Biao ZHANG,Jixi GAO,Yue TONG,Shanshan SHAO. Demand of urban green space cool islands based on heat island pattern: A case study of Chaoyang District of Beijing [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(8): 1541-1550.
[11]	Xu ZHANG, Juan QIAO, Xinqi SHEN. Economic performance of livestock and poultry breeding waste treatment and influencing factors: Based on data of farms in Beijing [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(7): 1250-1261.
[12]	Ning LYU, Xinfang WU, Xiao HAN, Yaru ZHAO. Evaluation and comparison of tourists and residents’ urban leisure satisfaction:Taking Beijing as an example [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(5): 967-979.
[13]	GE Chang, LIU Huilin, NIE ChaoJia, SHEN Qiang, ZHANG Shiwen. Scale effect of soil fertility spatial variability and its influencing factors [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(4): 753-765.
[14]	PANG Xuan, ZHANG Yongyong, PAN Xingyao, YANG Moyuan. Urban stormwater simulation and assessment of the control rate of total annual runoff: A case of the Future Science and Technology Park in Beijing [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(4): 803-813.
[15]	LIU Huaxian, CHEN Yuansheng, ZHU He, LV Wenfei, LUO Wenzhe, YAO Weiwei. Changes and causes of water use of star hotels in Beijing [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(4): 814-823.