长江经济带旅游效率与规模的时空演化及耦合协调

区域旅游效率和旅游规模的空间差异明显,动态把握两者时空演化特征和耦合协调关系对推动旅游高质量可持续发展具有重要的理论意义和实践价值。测度长江经济带126个市域单元2001—2018年的旅游规模,引入DEA-MI模型对旅游效率进行测算和分解,运用探索性时空数据分析方法探讨区域旅游差异和空间结构的时空动态特征,构建旅游效率与规模的耦合协调度模型,分析两者的耦合优良性和协同一致性。结果表明:① 长江经济带旅游综合效率空间差异明显,平均情况呈现东西高中间低的分布特征,年际变动呈现波动下降态势,规模效率对综合效率起支撑作用,技术效率起影响和制约作用;② 旅游效率和旅游规模局部空间结构波动幅度较小,依赖方向较为稳定,后者波动性稍强于前者,且空间依赖方向变化相似,旅游效率局部结构竞争态势强于协作,旅游规模协作整合性较强;③ 旅游规模局部空间结构较稳定,市域单元相对位置变动较困难,旅游效率局部空间结构尚不稳定,市域单元存在较大的变动可能性;④ 旅游效率与规模的整体耦合度和耦合协调度逐渐提高,具有相似的时空分异特征,局部演进存在空间异质性和波动性,耦合协调度高值区扩散范围更广、速度较缓。

Spatiotemporal evolutions and coordination of tourism efficiency and scale in the Yangtze River Economic Belt

The spatial difference between regional tourism efficiency and tourism scale is evident. It is of great theoretical and practical value to dynamically grasp the spatial-temporal evolution characteristics and the coupling coordination relationship of them to promote the high-quality sustainable development of tourism. This paper measures the tourism scale of 126 city units in the Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2001 to 2018. The DEA-MI model was introduced to measure and decompose tourism efficiency, while the exploratory spatio-temporal data analysis method was used to explore the spatial and temporal characteristics of regional tourism differences and spatial structure. In addition, the coupling coordination degree model of tourism efficiency and scale was established to examine the coupling superiority and synergy consistency of the two. The results demonstrated the following: (1) the spatial difference in comprehensive tourism efficiency of the study area was recognizable. The average situation exhibited the spatial distribution characteristics of "high in the east and west and low in the middle", and inter-annual changes decline in fluctuations. Scale efficiency played a supporting role in overall efficiency, and technical efficiency played a restrictive role. (2) The fluctuation range with the local spatial structure of tourism efficiency and tourism scale was relatively small, and the direction of dependence was relatively stable. The volatility of the latter is slightly stronger than that of the former, and the change of spatial dependence direction is comparable. The competitive situation of local spatial structure of tourism efficiency was stronger than that of cooperation, and the integration of tourism scale cooperation was strong. (3) The local spatial structure of tourism scale was relatively stable as it was was difficult to change the relative position of the city unit. However, the local spatial structure of tourism efficiency was still unstable, and it was likely to change the possibility within the city unit. (4) The overall coupling degree and coupling coordination degree of tourism efficiency and scale were gradually improved with similar spatial and temporal differentiation characteristics. There was spatial heterogeneity and volatility in local evolution, and the high value region of the degree of coupling coordination generated a broader range and slower diffusion.