旅游学刊
旅遊學刊
여유학간
Tourism Tribune
2015年
6期
80~90
,共null页
沈体雁 黄宁 彭长江 徐海涛
瀋體雁 黃寧 彭長江 徐海濤
침체안 황저 팽장강 서해도
旅游目的地 5A级景区 网络形象 认知形象 情感形象
旅遊目的地 5A級景區 網絡形象 認知形象 情感形象
여유목적지 5A급경구 망락형상 인지형상 정감형상
tourist destination; national 5A scenic spots; network image; cognitive image; affectiveimage
文章以国家5A级景区为研究对象,构建了中国景区网络形象指数,通过大数据方法对旅游局官方网站、景区官方网站和门户网站旅游频道等205个互联网站点进行内容分析,计算得出153家5A级景区的网络形象分值,并分别讨论了其总分排名、空间分布及类型特征。分析结果显示,中国旅游景区网络形象呈现4大分异:(1)整体形象分异:我国5A级景区网络形象总分值差别悬殊,景区网络形象与其旅游接待人数存在错位现象。(2)空间分异:高分景区呈现空间集聚特征,并已经形成了“钻石地带”和“高分走廊”两大高分集聚区域。(3)知名度与美誉度分异:景区普遍存在认知形象与情感形象不匹配问题。(4)类型分异:景区网络形象类型多样,总体上以均衡型为主。
文章以國傢5A級景區為研究對象,構建瞭中國景區網絡形象指數,通過大數據方法對旅遊跼官方網站、景區官方網站和門戶網站旅遊頻道等205箇互聯網站點進行內容分析,計算得齣153傢5A級景區的網絡形象分值,併分彆討論瞭其總分排名、空間分佈及類型特徵。分析結果顯示,中國旅遊景區網絡形象呈現4大分異:(1)整體形象分異:我國5A級景區網絡形象總分值差彆懸殊,景區網絡形象與其旅遊接待人數存在錯位現象。(2)空間分異:高分景區呈現空間集聚特徵,併已經形成瞭“鑽石地帶”和“高分走廊”兩大高分集聚區域。(3)知名度與美譽度分異:景區普遍存在認知形象與情感形象不匹配問題。(4)類型分異:景區網絡形象類型多樣,總體上以均衡型為主。
문장이국가5A급경구위연구대상,구건료중국경구망락형상지수,통과대수거방법대여유국관방망참、경구관방망참화문호망참여유빈도등205개호련망참점진행내용분석,계산득출153가5A급경구적망락형상분치,병분별토론료기총분배명、공간분포급류형특정。분석결과현시,중국여유경구망락형상정현4대분이:(1)정체형상분이:아국5A급경구망락형상총분치차별현수,경구망락형상여기여유접대인수존재착위현상。(2)공간분이:고분경구정현공간집취특정,병이경형성료“찬석지대”화“고분주랑”량대고분집취구역。(3)지명도여미예도분이:경구보편존재인지형상여정감형상불필배문제。(4)류형분이:경구망락형상류형다양,총체상이균형형위주。
Tourism is a strategic industry in China' s economy, and the vigorous development of that industry has led to competition among tourist destinations. Researchers have increasingly found that a destination' s image is a key factor in attracting tourists. The rapid development of the Internet has meant that it has become an important tool for obtaining tourist information and making travel decisions. Scenic spots constitute one of the most important types of travel destination. Thus, a study of the network image of scenic spots offers a novel means of assessing research on scenic spots and destination image. Recently, destination image on the Interact has drawn academic attention. Previous studies have adopted three main research directions. First, some researchers have studied a destination' s overall image and its outstanding feature. Second, researchers have compared several images of different destinations. Third, some studies have evaluated different methods of content analysis. Hitherto, most studies have been limited to qualitative descriptions. No systematic conceptual framework or quantifiable, operable index evaluation system has been formulated. Studies have always examined several destinations as the object of their research, and we have not found any single study that has investigated a large number of destinations in one country. We established the System of Scenic Spots Network Image Index that consists of four levels. The first level comprises the network image of scenic spots; the second level consists of cognitive and affective images; the third level is made up of tourism resources, infrastructure, services, and general management; and the fourth level consists of 13 indicators. We used 205 Web sites to examine the image of 153 national 5A scenic spots in China. These consisted of 35 official Web sites of tourism bureaus (including those of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan), 156 official Web sites of scenic spots, and 14 travel channel Web sites. We collected the data from the Internet using Locoy Spider software. With Locoy Spider, we were able to set different rules according to the different structures of the Web sites. We used a MySQL relational database to store the data from the Internet. We undertook text analysis to establish index files and word segments using Solr. We employed Excel for a numerical analysis of the information. Finally, according to the System of Scenic Spots Network Image Index, we calculated the ranking of 153 national 5A scenic spots. Our results showed that the ranking of the network image of the scenic spots differed from the ranking using the number of tourist reception. The scenic spots that occupied the top 20 in terms of ranking by the number of tourist reception did not have a good network image. We also found four areas of differences among the 153 scenic spots: (1) different scores in terms of network image; (2) the locations of the scenic spots with good network image; (3) the cognitive and affective images of the scenic spots; and (4) the types of network image score structure of the 153 scenic spots.