Comparative study of “resource value” and “visitor perception” at national parks: a case study from Sichuan area of Giant Panda National Park

REN Qingliu; YANG Zhaoping; HAN Fang; PU Yulin

doi:10.7523/j.ucas.2021.0075

Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences >

2023 , Vol. 40 >Issue 3: 333 - 342

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7523/j.ucas.2021.0075

Research Articles

Comparative study of “resource value” and “visitor perception” at national parks: a case study from Sichuan area of Giant Panda National Park

REN Qingliu ,
YANG Zhaoping ,
HAN Fang ,
PU Yulin

Expand

1. State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China;
2. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;
3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 1000;
4. The Faculty Geography Resource Sciences, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China

Received date: 2021-09-14

Revised date: 2021-11-17

Online published: 2021-11-17

Fold

Abstract

National parks are the best case for the innovative development and practical application of Tourism human-land relationship theory. Nature education and ecological recreation is the important window to show the resources value of national park and the important way to build the harmonious human-land relationship. Displaying the value of resources through recreational activities and being perceived, inherited and transmitted by tourists is the process of realizing the value of resources in national parks. This paper analyzes the resource value characteristics and carrier elements of Sichuan Giant Panda National Park from four dimensions:geological value, ecological value, aesthetic value, and human value. The content analysis method is used to evaluate the tourists' perceived benefits and attention to the value of different types of resources. The IPA model is used to analyze the synergy state of "resources value-visitor perception". The results show that:1) There are great differences in tourists' perception of the value of different resource values. The order of tourists' perceived benefits is as follows:geographic value (55.42%) > ecological value (24.45%) > aesthetic value (17.62%) > human value (2.51%). The high frequency words show a significant "long tail" distribution feature, and the semantic network graph shows the pattern of "dual-core, multi-node"; 2) The tourists' perceived benefits of geographic value and ecological value have a relatively high degree of coordination with resource value, while tourists' awareness of human value is low, and their perception of aesthetic value is more superficial. It is necessary to further improve tourists' overall cognition of the scientific connotation of resource value. The results of this study can promote the formation of a virtuous cycle of "value perception-environmental awareness-ecological behavior", and provide an important decision basis for optimizing the nature education system in national parks.

Key words： national parks; resources value; visitor perception; content analysis

Cite this article

REN Qingliu , YANG Zhaoping , HAN Fang , PU Yulin . Comparative study of “resource value” and “visitor perception” at national parks: a case study from Sichuan area of Giant Panda National Park[J]. Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2023 , 40(3) : 333 -342 . DOI: 10.7523/j.ucas.2021.0075

References

[1] 黄超, 王亮, 李西灿, 等. 三江源国家公园自然生态系统服务功能价值空间格局分析[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 50(2):202-205. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2324.2019.02.005.
[2] 孙孝平, 李双, 余建平, 等. 基于土地利用变化情景的生态系统服务价值评估:以钱江源国家公园体制试点区为例[J]. 生物多样性, 2019, 27(1):51-63. DOI:10.17520/biods. 2018182.
[3] 刘运伟, 何仁伟, 赵亚玲. 欠发达民族山区生态足迹与生态承载力动态变化及预测分析:以四川凉山彝族自治州为例[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2014, 31(5):647-653. DOI:10.7523/j.issn.2095-6134.2014.05.010.
[4] 蔺琛, 龚明昊, 刘洋, 等. 基于优势种的生物多样性保护价值空间异质性研究:以长白山生态功能区为例[J]. 生态学报, 2018, 38(13):4677-4683. DOI:10.5846/stxb201707051214.
[5] 陈飞虎, 罗辑, 赵永涛, 等. 夹金山脉珙桐谷遗产资源价值及其保护与利用[J]. 山地学报, 2014, 32(3):350-356. DOI:10.16089/j.cnki.1008-2786.2014.03.001.
[6] 孙琨, 唐承财, 侯兵. 国家公园显性价值及其公众响应分析:以钱江源国家公园为例[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2021, 35(8):175-183. DOI:10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2021.230.
[7] Xu X L, Yang Z P, Saiken A, et al. Natural Heritage value of Xinjiang Tianshan and global comparative analysis[J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2012, 9(2):262-273. DOI:10.1007/s11629-012-2214-z.
[8] 胡欢, 章锦河, 刘泽华, 等. 国家公园游客旅游生态补偿支付意愿及影响因素研究:以黄山风景区为例[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2017, 26(12):2012-2022. DOI:10.11870/cjlyzyyhj201712009.
[9] 田野, 李江风, 汤晓吉. 中国国际保护地资源代表性与国家公园建设[J]. 资源科学, 2019, 41(3):484-493. DOI:10.18402/resci.2019.03.07.
[10] 周堃, 许涛, 薛花. 中国房山世界地质公园主要地质遗迹资源价值评价[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2016, 26(S1):312-315.
[11] 冯兆忠, 刘硕, 李品. 永定河流域生态环境研究进展及修复对策[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2019, 36(4):510-520. DOI:10.7523/j.issn.2095-6134.2019.04.010.
[12] 张小晶, 陈娟, 李巧玉, 等. 基于视觉特性的川西亚高山秋季景观林色彩量化及景观美学质量评价[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(1):45-54. DOI:10.13287/j.1001-9332.202001.016.
[13] 苗海强, 刘丰华. 自然文化遗产视角下中国保护地规划:评《中国国家公园生态系统和自然文化遗产保护措施研究》[J]. 世界林业研究, 2020, 33(5):128.
[14] 李霞, 余荣卓, 罗春玉, 等. 游客感知视角下的国家公园自然教育体系构建研究:以武夷山国家公园为例[J]. 林业经济, 2020, 42(1):36-43. DOI:10.13843/j.cnki.lyjj.2020.01.016.
[15] 陈东军, 钟林生, 肖练练. 国家公园研学旅行适宜性评价指标体系构建与实证研究[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(20):7222-7230. DOI:10.5846/stxb201904300887.
[16] 肖练练, 钟林生, 虞虎, 等. 功能约束条件下的钱江源国家公园体制试点区游憩利用适宜性评价研究[J]. 生态学报, 2019, 39(4):1375-1384. DOI:10.5846/stxb201808241811.
[17] 刘娟, 方世敏, 宁志丹. 遗产旅游价值游客感知及其提升策略:基于网络信息的内容分析[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2017, 33(6):112-117. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-0504.2017.06. 018.
[18] Zeng Y X, Zhong L S. Impact of tourist environmental awareness on environmental friendly behaviors:a case study from Qinghai Lake, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(5):502-513. DOI:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2017.05.008.
[19] Alazaizeh M M, Ababneh A, Jamaliah M M. Preservation vs. use:understanding tourism stakeholders' value perceptions toward Petra Archaeological Park[J]. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2020, 18(3):252-266. DOI:10.1080/14766825.2019.1628243.
[20] Raviv O, Zemah Shamir S, Izhaki I, et al. The socioe-conomic value of multiple ecosystem types at a biosphere reserve as a baseline for one holistic conservation plan[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2020, 41:101043. DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101043.
[21] Vo Trung H, Viet Nguyen T, Simioni M. Willingness to pay for mangrove preservation in Xuan Thuy National Park, Vietnam:do household knowledge and interest play a role?[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2020, 9(4):402-420. DOI:10.1080/21606544.2020.1716854.
[22] 陆利军, 廖小平. 基于UGC数据的南岳衡山旅游目的地形象感知研究[J]. 经济地理, 2019, 39(12):221-229. DOI:10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2019.12.025.
[23] 李艳, 孙阳, 陈雯. 反身性视角下信息流空间建构与网络韧性分析:以长三角百度用户热点搜索为例[J]. 中国科学院大学学报, 2021, 38(1):62-72. DOI:10.7523/j.issn.2095-6134.2021.01.009.
[24] Kaufmann M, Siegfried P, Huck L, et al. Analysis of tourism hotspot behaviour based on geolocated travel blog data:the case of Qyer[J]. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2019, 8(11):493. DOI:10.3390/ijgi8110493.
[25] 卢淑莹, 黄鑫, 陶卓民. 基于地理标记照片的入境游客空间特征与移动轨迹:以南京市为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(2):315-326.DOI:10.31497/zrzyxb.20210204.
[26] Fang B, Ye Q, Kucukusta D, et al. Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism reviews:influence of readability and reviewer characteristics[J]. Tourism Management,2016, 52:498-506. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.018.
[27] Salas-Olmedo M H, Moya-Gómez B, García-Palomares J C, et al. Tourists' digital footprint in cities:comparing Big Data sources[J]. Tourism Management, 2018, 66:13-25. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2017.11.001.
[28] 四川日报. 大熊猫国家公园(四川)自然教育先行试验区建设启动[EB/OL]. (2020-07-26)[2021-10-26]. http://www.sc.gov.cn/10462/12771/2020/7/26/85c562ee7a4c42dcb14753a69aba67de.shtml.
[29] 四川日报. 大熊猫国家公园(四川)自然教育先行试验区建设启动[EB/OL]. (2020-07-20)[2021-10-26]. http://www.sc.gov.cn/10462/10464/10797/2020/7/20/9e0aa9e6b3ed4e0ca6ad0050680836ed.shtml.
[30] 姜龙, 董鑫, 古晓东. 四川省大熊猫国家公园植被覆盖度时空变化分析[J]. 四川环境, 2021, 40(4):191-198. DOI:10.14034/j.cnki.schj.2021.04.026.
[31] 秦青, 刘晶茹, 于强, 等. 四川省大熊猫保护地生态安全及其时空演变[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(20):7255-7266. DOI:10.5846/stxb201907191527.
[32] 刘再华, 田友萍, 安德军, 等. 世界自然遗产-四川黄龙钙华景观的形成与演化[J]. 地球学报, 2009, 30(6):841-847. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:1006-3021.2009.06.016.
[33] 田成, 李俊清, 杨旭煜, 等. 利用红外相机技术对四川王朗国家级自然保护区野生动物物种多样性的初步调查[J]. 生物多样性, 2018, 26(6):620-626. DOI:10.17520/biods.2017082.
[34] 刘静, 苗鸿, 郑华, 等. 卧龙自然保护区与当地社区关系模式探讨[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(1):259-271. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2009.01.032.
[35] 曹俊. 四川四姑娘山风景名胜区地貌特征[J]. 四川地质学报, 2004, 24(4):237-240. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-0995.2004.04.012.
[36] 吴传钧. 论地理学的研究核心:人地关系地域系统[J]. 经济地理, 1991, 11(3):1-6.
[37] 项潇, 马月伟, 余丽丽, 等. 国内大熊猫栖息地研究进展[J]. 四川林业科技, 2018, 39(6):31-35. DOI:10.16779/j.cnki.1003-5508.2018.06.006.
[38] 臧振华, 申国珍, 徐文婷, 等. 大熊猫分布区珍稀濒危物种丰富度空间格局与热点区分析[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2015, 37(7):1-10. DOI:10.13332/j.1000-1522.20150004.
[39] 成涛. 四姑娘山国家地质公园地质遗迹景观评价及保护性开发研究[D]. 成都:成都理工大学, 2017.
[40] 刘明, 赵永涛, 于慧, 等. 四川大熊猫栖息地世界自然遗产的生态旅游探讨[J]. 山地学报, 2010, 28(3):313-320.DOI:10.16089/j.cnki.1008-2786.2010.03.018.
[41] Qin Q, Huang Y, Liu J R, et al. The landscape patterns of the giant panda protection area in Sichuan Province and their impact ongiant pandas[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(21):5993. DOI:10.3390/su11215993.
[42] 赵永涛, 于慧, 罗勇, 等. 大熊猫栖息地自然遗产保护理论探讨[J]. 山地学报, 2014, 32(3):357-364. DOI:10.16089/j.cnki.1008-2786.2014.03.017.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References