CAJ | 학술논문

在厘清突发事件和危机概念基础上,文章通过构建入境旅游人数BP神经网络模型,利用西藏2005!2009年月入境旅游人数统计数据,分析了西藏2008年＂3.14＂突发事件对入境旅游市场规模影响和政策响应作用机制。结果发现：①突发事件对西藏入境旅游影响周期为18个月,入境游客损失量为47.14万人次,旅游经济损失量为2.15亿美元。②入境旅游政策与入境旅游人数之间存在宏观响应关系,入境旅游人数呈现出周期性波动现象。③突发事件影响的入境旅游政策响应演变特征表现为维稳限旅、救市兴旅、强基保旅和品牌强旅,政策响应作用机制核心要素是旅游目的地安全、市场和经济。
재전청돌발사건화위궤개념기출상,문장통과구건입경여유인수BP신경망락모형,이용서장2005!2009년월입경여유인수통계수거,분석료서장2008년＂3.14＂돌발사건대입경여유시장규모영향화정책향응작용궤제。결과발현：①돌발사건대서장입경여유영향주기위18개월,입경유객손실량위47.14만인차,여유경제손실량위2.15억미원。②입경여유정책여입경여유인수지간존재굉관향응관계,입경여유인수정현출주기성파동현상。③돌발사건영향적입경여유정책향응연변특정표현위유은한려、구시흥려、강기보려화품패강려,정책향응작용궤제핵심요소시여유목적지안전、시장화경제。
On the basis of clarification of unexpected event and crisis concept, this paper builds a back propagation BP Neural Network model, using inbound tourist trips to Tibet from 2005 to 2009 （by person） and analyzes the impact and policy responses to the Lhasa ＂3.14＂ unexpected event. The results show that：Tibet＇ s inbound tourism was affected for 18 months（from March 2008 to August 2009） The impacts on inbound tourism in Tibet are divided into several phases; the outbreak period which continued for two months （from March to May 2008） , the first-phase duration which lasted for four months （from June to September 2008） and the second-phase duration which continued for five months （from April to August 2009）. The extended period lasted only one month （ March 2008） while the first-phase degradation was experienced from October 2008 to February 2009. From September 2009 to December 2009 the second-phase degradation operated. Lhasa ＂3 . 14＂ unexpected event caused Tibet＇s inbound tourism losses of 0.47 million person-trips and 215 million US dollars in lost receipts. The losses were experienced from the following countries： Hong Kong （0.42 million person-trips and 193 million US dollars） , Macao （0. 015 million person-trips and 6.83 million US dollars） , Taiwan （0.01 million person-trips and 4.93 million US dollars） and foreign countries （0.02 million person-trips and 9.65 million US dollars）. There is a macroscopic response relationship between inbound tourism policies and the number of tourists. During the outbreak period, tourism destination took social stability and tourist safety into utmost consideration and restricted inbound tourism. During this period tourist arrivals dropped from 127 person-trips down to no trips at all. The loss experienced is calculated to be 203.21%. In the first-phase duration, tourism destination implemented bailout policies to develop inbound tourism. Tourist arrivals then increased from 65 person-trips to 16,300 person-trips, reducing the loss by 15.5%. in the second duration, tourist arrivals increased from 9050 person-trips to 29,949 person-trips, reducing the loss by 21%. During the extended period, suspend policies were introduced to develop inbound tourism. Tourist arrivals fell from 3510 person-trips down to 0 person-trips, increasing the loss by 353.41%. In the degradation period, innovation policies were carried out. Tourist losses were reduced by 75.60% during the first-phase and 62.45% in the second-phase. The evolutionary cycle of unexpected events indicates that four stages assist tourism destinations. These stages include maintaining social stability while limiting inbound tourism. Financial rescue measures which help develop inbound tourism. Strengthening social security assists developing inbound tourism sustainability and the formation of a tourism brand to promote inbound tourism. Key policy mechanism responses to unexpected events may include security, the economy and the marketing of the tourism destination. The above conclusions reveal, firstly, an empirical case occurred in Tibet but the impact of an unexpected event on a tourist destination is common. When an unexpected event is experienced the vulnerability of the tourism industry inevitably makes the tourism destination subject to certain losses. Secondly, Tibet＇s inbound tourism suffered an unexpected event and the government made great efforts from the perspectives of social security, the economy and marketing. This governmental support provides a reference for future policy responses to similar unexpected events. Finally, when tourism destination management is handling an unexpected event the interrupted rhythm of social stability limits inbound tourism. Financial rescue, strengthening social security, developing inbound tourism sustainability and the formation of a tourist brand all assist promoting inbound tourism in four key stages. The timing of policy responses is critical for the rapid recovery of the tourism destination.