省际旅游资源相对效率的演化分析

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2013.011.1354

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以大陆31个省级区域2000~2010年的面板数据为例,运用修正后的DEA模型对各省旅游资源的相对效率进行评价,进一步运用G指数、重心、标准差椭圆对各项效率的演化进行空间分析。研究发现：总体上省际旅游资源的相对效率受纯技术效率驱动,旅游资源的集约化增长取得一定进步。总效率的热点区变化幅度不太大,纯技术效率的热点区由大西南转移到泛长三角及周边,规模效率的热点区由西北地区转向长三角及京津地区。总效率与纯技术效率的重心向东北发生偏移,规模效率的重心向西南发生偏移。从标准差椭圆的转角θ大小来看,总效率与纯技术效率总体上表现出东北-西南的空间分布格局,规模效率大致呈正东-正西的空间分布格局。相对效率具有分形特征,在未来一段时间内,中国省际旅游资源的各项效率仍然会表现出增长的趋势。

关键词: 旅游资源, 相对效率, 规模效率, 优势度, 分形

Abstract:

The tourist efficiency is one of the central issues of domestic tourism research. By selecting the panel data of 31 provinces in Chinese Mainland from 2000 to 2010, this article firstly used the entropy method to calculate the superiority degree of provincial tourist resources, and then evaluated the relative efficiency of provincial tourist resources by the means of the modified DEA model, and thirdly made an spatial analysis about the evolution of various efficiency by applying the methods of Getis-Ord G_i^*, gravity centre, standard deviational ellipses and fractal theory. The results are as follows: the relative efficiency of provincial tourist resources in Chinese Mainland is driven by the pure technical efficiency, which reflects that the intensive growth of tourist resources has made some progress. Generally speaking, the total efficiency of tourist resources in the eastern and middle area is driven by the pure technical efficiency, but the total efficiency in the west is driven by the scale efficiency. Through the analysis of Getis-Ord G_i^*, we can find that the total efficiency of the hot-spot areas has not changed greatly, but the hot-spot areas of the pure technology efficiency has transferred from the southwest of China to the Changjiang Delta and its surroundings, and the hot-spot areas of the scale efficiency has transferred from the northwest of China to the Changjiang Delta as well as Beijing and Tianjin. All in all, the gravity centre of the total efficiency and the pure technology efficiency have shifted to the northeast, however, the gravity centre of the scale efficiency has shifted to the southwest. From the perspective of rotationθof the standard deviational ellipses, the total and pure technology efficiencies generally present a northeast-southwest spatial distribution pattern, and the scale efficiency roughly presents a east-west spatial distribution pattern. For the relative efficiency has some fractal characteristics, the various efficiency of provincial tourism resource of China will continue to show growth trend in the future. Constrained by the selected indicators and research data, this study has still some limitations. For one thing, what has been calculated in this article is a relative efficiency, and the result is just a ratio, which has not fully reflected the actual efficiency of tourist resources; for another, the efficiency of tourist resources is a complex problem, also involving in location, economic development, and even the travel mode, this study does not take into account these factors which are also directions for the future research. However, the conclusions of this study are in line with the actual situation fundamentally. As a result, we should increase the investment in capital, technology, talent and change the growth mode of tourism in order to improve the pure technology efficiency of tourist resources; in addition, due to the decrease of scale returns, we should try to avoid only pursuing the amount and preventing the idleness and waste of the tourist resources in the future.

Key words: tourist resources, relative efficiency, scale efficiency, superiority degree, fractal

中图分类号:

F592

方叶林, 黄震方, 余凤龙, 涂玮. 省际旅游资源相对效率的演化分析[J]. 地理科学, 2013, 33(11): 1354-1361.

Ye-lin FANG, Zhen-fang HUANG, Feng-long YU, Wei TU. Evolution Analysis of Relative Efficiency of Provincial Tourist Resources[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2013, 33(11): 1354-1361.

图/表 8

图1

表1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表2

图6

参考文献 27

[1]	曼昆. 经济学原理(第三版上册)[M]. 梁小民,译.北京:机械工业出版社,2003:125~127.
[2]	杨威,金凤君,王成金,等.东北地区经济增长效率及其时空分异研究[J].地理科学,2011,31(5):544~550.
[3]	戴尔阜,王昊,吴绍红,等.东北温带旱作农业主要作物生产潜力及资源利用效率评价——以黑龙江海伦市为例[J].地理研究,2007,26(3):461~469.
[4]	古丽鲜,肖劲松.中国资源型城市经济发展效率评价[J].干旱区地理,2009,32(4):624~630.
[5]	许陈生. 我国旅游上市公司的股权结构与技术效率[J].旅游学刊,2007,22(10):34~39.
[6]	郭岚,张勇,李志娟.基于因子分析与DEA方法的旅游上市公司效率评价[J].管理学报,2008,5(2):258~262.
[7]	卢明强,徐舒,王秀梅,等.基于数据包络分析(DEA)的我国旅行社行业经营效率研究[J].旅游论坛,2010,3(6):734~738.
[8]	陆相林. DEA方法在区域旅游发展评价中的应用——以山东省17地市为例[J].湖北大学学报(自然科学版),2007,29(3):302~306.
[9]	杨荣海,曾伟.基于DEA方法的云南省旅游业效率研究[J].云南财经大学学报,2008,24(1):88~92.
[10]	马晓龙,保继刚.中国主要城市旅游效率影响因素的演化[J].经济地理,2009,29(7):1203~1208.
[11]	马晓龙,保继刚.中国主要城市旅游效率的区域差异与空间格局[J].人文地理,2010,25(1):105~110.
[12]	陆琳,张传军.基于DEA的森林旅游运营效率研究[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(27):11907~11908.
[13]	黄秀娟,黄福才.中国省域森林公园技术效率测算与分析[J].旅游学刊,2011,26(3):25~30.
[14]	彭建军,陈浩.基于DEA的星级酒店效率研究——以北京、上海、广东相对效率分析为例[J].旅游学刊,2004,19(2):59~62.
[15]	黄丽英,刘静艳.基于DEA方法的我国高星级酒店效率研究[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,2008,(1):42-46.
[16]	顾江,胡静.中国分省区旅游生产效率模型创建与评价[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2008,19(4):93~98.
[17]	陶卓民,薛献伟,管晶晶.基于数据包络分析的中国旅游业发展效率特征[J].地理学报,2010,65(8):1004~1012.
[18]	Koop J.Technology spillover,agglomeration,and regional economic development[J].Journal of Planning Literature,2005,20(2):99-115.
[19]	汪德根,陈田.中国旅游经济区域差异的空间分析[J].地理科学,2011,31(5): 528~536.
[20]	佟连军,宋亚楠,韩瑞玲,等. 辽宁沿海经济带工业环境效率分析[J].地理科学,2012,32(3):294~300.
[21]	刘湘南,黄方,王平,等.GIS空间分析原理与方法[M].北京:科学出版社,2005:190~193.
[22]	魏权龄. 数据包络分析(DEA)[J].科学通报,2000,45(17):1793~1808.
[23]	陶长琪,齐亚伟.中国区域技术相对效率的时空演变分析[J].经济地理,2011,31(5):730~735.
[24]	许月卿,李双成.我国人口与社会经济重心的动态演变[J].人文地理,2005,20(1):117~120.
[25]	赵媛,杨足膺,郝丽莎,等.中国石油资源流动源-汇系统空间格局特征[J].地理学报,2012,67(4):455~466.
[26]	国家统计局国民经济综合统计司.新中国六十年统计资料汇编[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2010.
[27]	徐建华. 现代地理学中的数学方法(第二版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002:414~415.

省份	总效率	纯技术效率	规模效率	规模报酬	省份	总效率	纯技术效率	规模效率	规模报酬
北京	0.031	0.811	0.038	drs	广西	0.033	0.187	0.177	drs
天津	0.223	0.312	0.714	drs	海南	0.027	0.069	0.397	drs
河北	0.009	0.224	0.041	drs	重庆	0.021	0.181	0.118	drs
山西	0.010	0.190	0.051	drs	四川	0.023	0.889	0.026	drs
内蒙古	0.025	0.128	0.198	drs	贵州	0.022	0.173	0.126	drs
辽宁	0.034	0.480	0.071	drs	云南	0.013	0.233	0.056	drs
吉林	0.019	0.126	0.152	drs	西藏	0.002	0.012	0.152	drs
黑龙江	0.038	0.178	0.212	drs	陕西	0.016	0.194	0.082	drs
上海	0.807	0.807	1.000	—	甘肃	0.004	0.040	0.099	drs
江苏	0.061	0.987	0.062	drs	青海	0.011	0.015	0.694	drs
浙江	0.042	0.726	0.058	drs	宁夏	0.010	0.012	0.806	drs
安徽	0.010	0.211	0.045	drs	新疆	0.012	0.074	0.160	drs
福建	0.017	0.348	0.049	drs	均值	0.055	0.344	0.192
江西	0.034	0.425	0.081	drs	MAX	0.807	1.000	1.000
山东	0.024	0.607	0.040	drs	MIN	0.002	0.012	0.026
河南	0.024	0.470	0.051	drs	东部	0.115	0.547	0.227
湖北	0.016	0.287	0.055	drs	中部	0.022	0.254	0.103
湖南	0.021	0.270	0.078	drs	西部	0.013	0.182	0.232
广东	0.074	1.000	0.074	drs

各项效率	总效率			纯技术效率			规模效率
各项效率	2001年	2005年	2009年	2001年	2005年	2009年	2001年	2005年	2009年
转角（°）	38.335	13.734	14.248	49.320	20.357	24.821	82.783	78.704	86.020