旅游环境舒适度评价及其时空分异——以杭州西湖为例

旅游环境舒适度是影响旅游者出行决策和消费行为的重要因素,进一步影响到目的地适游期长短和旅游设施利用率。影响旅游舒适度的因素主要包括气候与环境两方面。以杭州西湖景区为研究对象,尝试将影响舒适度的空气质量、噪音等环境因素与气候因素共同纳入评价体系,选取温度、相对湿度、二氧化碳、一氧化碳、噪音5项指标和6个代表性检测点,进行为期1a定时定点检测,在排除二氧化碳与一氧化碳影响的基础上,构建了旅游环境舒适度评价模型,研究景区尺度存在的旅游环境舒适度时空分异特征。研究发现:不舒适时段主要集中在1月上旬到2月下旬,舒适和较舒适时段主要集中于2月下旬到7月中旬、8月下旬到11月下旬;山区与湖区各项环境指标要优于近城区、游客集聚区及交通繁忙区,平均舒适度山区(1.30)湖心区(1.66)城区(1.82)近城区(2.02)游人集聚区(2.47)交通繁忙区(2.48)。6个观测点在不同时段表现的舒适度差异也不同,差异最大的时段出现在4月中旬到5月中旬,差异最小时段出现在1月上旬到2月下旬。温湿度与噪音存在反向协同作用,引起环境舒适度变化。温湿度舒适时段往往旅游活动频繁,导致噪音升高降低了旅游环境舒适度。温湿度不舒适期旅游活动减少使得声环境相对舒适。

Evaluation of tourism environmental comfort and its spatial-temporal differentiation: a case study of West Lake in Hangzhou, China

Tourism environmental comfort (TEC) is a key factor for tourists to make travel decisions and choose trip patterns at the destination, which further affects the time span as well as the utility rate. Climate and environment are two major elements that affect TEC at an attraction area. While much research has been done on climatic comfort, little is found on the impacts of environmental factors. With increasing environmental pressure such as noise and air quality caused by over-crowding and heavy traffic, environmental factors have been found to have great effects on TEC at attraction areas in China. Being different from other studies, this paper tries to merge two environmental factors of air quality and noise into the evaluation system of TEC and focuses on the impacts of spatial and temporal variety on micro-TEC at a natural scenic area. In this study, the West Lake National Scenic Area in Hangzhou was selected as the study site, and five environmental parameters including temperature, humidity, CO₂, CO and noise, were monitored and recorded at 6 typical spots (mountain area, lake area, downtown, suburb, tourist-concentrated area and traffic-busy area) at a proximate interval of half a month from November 2010 to October 2011. Two days were chosen for the monitoring each month, usually a week day in the second week of a month and a weekend day in the last week of the month. Daily time for monitoring was from 12:00 to 14:00 each day, which was the busy time for tourist visitation. All the data collected at the six spots were calculated with a newly developed model, and spatial and temporal variation were analyzed. As a result we found: (1) Five indicators monitoring in mountain and lake area are better than downtown, suburb, tourist-concentrated area and traffic-busy area. (2) Recorded data of either CO or CO₂ density in the air was far from the uncomfortable benchmarks for all the six spots. So these two factors were not significant and omitted for consideration of TEC valuation. (3) Using the data of temperature, humidity and noise, a TEC evaluation model was developed and different degrees of TEC were classified for the study area; (4) The results suggested that there appears significant spatial and temporal variation of TEC in the study area. Mountain and lake areas enjoyed much better TEC than suburb, tourist-concentrated and traffic-busy areas, with their TEC indexes increasing from mountain (1.30), to lake area (1.66), downtown (1.82), suburb (2.02), tourist-concentrated area (2.47), and traffic-busy area (2.48). It seems that natural environments such as forest and water can provide better TEC at micro-scale. (5) TEC values at the six spots varied with time and places, with the maximum differences from mid-April to mid-May and the minimum from early January to late February. (6) Temporally, the period from early January to late February falls within the TEC range of uncomfortableness while the comfortable and fairly comfortable periods fall within both ranges from late February to mid-July and from late August to late November. (7) It is found that there could be a synergistic effect of humiture and noise. When humiture is within a comfort zone, frequent tourism activities cause noise increased and TEC decreased. When humiture is less comfortable, reduced tourism activities makes acoustic environment more comfortable.