|Table of Contents|

Comparative Analysis of the Vulnerability of the Socio-EcologicalSubsystems of Tourist Destination—Take 9 Counties in Dabie Mountain Area as an Example(PDF)

南京师范大学学报（工程技术版）[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

Issue:
2020年04期
Page:
75-82
Research Field:
环境科学与工程
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Comparative Analysis of the Vulnerability of the Socio-EcologicalSubsystems of Tourist Destination—Take 9 Counties in Dabie Mountain Area as an Example
Author(s):
Yin Mahua; Wang Qun; Yang Wanming; Gu Hanyue
School of Geography and Tourism,Anhui Normal University,Wuhu 241002,China
Keywords:
socio-ecological subsystems of tourist destinations; vulnerability; Dabie Mountain Area
PACS:
K902.1
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1672-1292.2020.04.011
Abstract:
The research on the social-ecological vulnerability of tourism destinations is an important topic in the current regional sustainable development research. So based on the SEE-PSR research model,the author uses comprehensive index method to measure and compare the vulnerability of the social,economic and ecological subsystems of typical counties in Dabie Mountain Area from 2009 to 2016. The results show that:(1)The economic subsystem vulnerability shows a rapid decline trend,the social and ecological subsystem vulnerability increased. Meanwhile the contribution of pressure index to system vulnerability increases gradually,the contribution of response index decreases gradually,and the contribution of state index is relatively stable.(2)In terms of the amplitude,degree,trend and division,the three subsystems show significant differences on the pressure index,state index,response index and vulnerability index.(3)Social and economic subsystem pressure factors such as tourist density and urbanization rate become the main factors hindering the reduction of system vulnerability.

References:

[1] 田亚平,常昊. 中国生态脆弱性研究进展的文献计量分析[J]. 地理学报,2012,67(11):1515-1525.
[2]GILBBERTO C G,SILVIO F,MARTIN O C,et al. Science for the twenty-first century:from social contract to the scientific core[J]. International Social Science,2002,53(168):219-229.
[3]SCHELLNHUBER H J. Discourse:earth system analysis—the scope of the challenge[M]. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer Press,1998:123.
[4]王群,陆林,杨兴柱. 旅游地社会—生态子系统恢复力比较分析——以浙江省淳安县位例[J]. 旅游学刊,2016,31(2):116-126.
[5]沈苏彦. 恢复力:旅游影响研究的新视角[J]. 商业时代,2012(3):4-7.
[6]HOLLING C S,GUNDERSON L H,PETERSON G D. Sustainability and panarchies[M]//Gunderson L H,Holling C S. Panarchy:Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington,DC:Island Press,2002:63-102.
[7]陈娅玲,杨新军. 旅游地社会—生态系统及其恢复力研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境,2011,25(11):205-211.
[8]喻忠磊. 基于农户调查的旅游乡村社会—生态系统适应性研究——大秦岭旅游地金丝峡节点的实证分析[D]. 西安:西北大学,2012.
[9]王群,银马华,杨兴柱,等. 大别山贫困区旅游地社会—生态系统脆弱性时空演变与影响机理[J]. 地理学报,2019,74(8):1663-1679.
[10]唐小兵,周国华. 基于主成分分析的县域贫困脆弱性评价——基于2016年湖南省贫困县调研[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报(社会科学版),2017,11(3):47-52.
[11]杨飞,马超,方华军. 脆弱性研究进展:从理论研究到综合实践[J]. 生态学报,2019,39(2):1-13.
[12]苏飞,陈媛,张平宇. 基于集对分析的旅游城市经济系统脆弱性评价——以舟山市为例[J]. 地理科学,2013,33(5):538-544.
[13]陈佳,杨新军,王子侨,等. 乡村旅游社会—生态系统脆弱性及影响机理——基于秦岭景区农户调查数据的分析[J]. 旅游学刊,2015,30(3):64-75.
[14]王群,陆林,杨兴柱. 千岛湖社会—生态系统恢复力测度与影响机理[J]. 地理学报,2015,70(5):779-795.
[15]IPCC. Climate Change 2007:Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007.
[16]尹鹏,刘曙光,段佩利. 海岛型旅游目的地脆弱性及其障碍因子分析—以舟山市为例[J]. 经济地理,2017,37(10):234-240.
[17]徐浩田,周林飞,成遣. 基于PSR模型的凌河口湿地生态系统健康评价与预警研究[J]. 生态学报,2017,37(24):8264-8274.
[18]仝川. 环境指标研究进展与分析[J]. 环境科学研究,2000,13(4):53-55.
[19]陈明星,陆大道,张华. 中国城市化水平的综合测度及其驱动因子分析[J]. 地理学报,2009,64(4):387-398.
[20]刘倩,杨新军,石育中,等. 基于DPSIR模型的六盘山集中连片特困区生计安全评价[J]. 山地学报,2018,36(2):323-333.
[21]杨俊,关莹莹,李雪俊,等. 城市边缘区生态脆弱性时空演变—以大连市甘井子区为例[J]. 生态学报,2018,38(3):1-10.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2020-12-15