国际与国内乡村旅游研究比较与启示

COMPARISON AND INSIGHTS OF INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC RURAL TOURISM RESEARCH

关键词:  乡村旅游  国际  研究进展  研究热点  CiteSpace

Key words:  rural tourism  international  research progress  research hotspot  CiteSpace

摘要:

目的 我国正处于全面推进乡村振兴的关键期，乡村旅游是助推乡村振兴的重要抓手。系统梳理国内外乡村旅游研究进展，对比分析国内外乡村旅游研究的时空演化、学科融合等的差异与热点，为我国乡村旅游研究与实践提供指导借鉴，具有必要性和紧迫性。方法 文章借助CiteSpace软件，以2000—2021年Web of Science（WOS）核心数据库和CNKI数据库的乡村旅游文献为研究样本，对国际与国内乡村旅游研究的时空特征、学术共同体和热点演进进行文献计量可视化分析和比较归纳。结果 （1）从时间维度来看，国内外乡村旅游的发文数量均呈上升趋势，可分为萌芽期、探索期和成长期3个阶段。（2）从空间维度来看，美国、英国和西班牙等西方发达国家是国际乡村旅游研究的引领者，中国近年也位居前列。（3）从学科交叉融合来看，国际乡村旅游主要在经济学、政治学和社会学等学科背景下展开研究，并呈现与计算机科学、动物医学等跨学科研究态势。国内乡村旅游研究主要基于地理学、经济学和社会学等学科背景，多数机构呈个体点状研究状态。（4）从研究热点来看，国际上偏重市场运营导向的创新可持续发展研究。国内偏重战略政策引导下的乡村旅游功能研究。（5）从热点演进来看，国际研究总体呈现出从碎片化开发到整体性保护治理，从满足留住游客到创新引领需求，从社会关系网络支撑到互联网科技赋能的研究趋势。国内研究从旅游供给—旅游需求—旅游外部效应的脉络演变。结论 我国应跟踪国际热点前沿，加强国际交流合作；开展跨学科综合集成，推进多方协同创新；响应国家战略需求，创新本土理论实践。

Abstract:

Rural tourism is an important measure to promote rural revitalization in China during the imperative time to achieve comprehensive rural revitalization at present. It thus becomes essential to comprehensively review the rural tourism research in China and abroad, compare and analyze their differences and hotspots in the temporal and spatial evolution and disciplinary integration of rural tourism. Such a timely and urgently needed review would help inform rural tourism research and practice in China. Based on the CiteSpace software, we systematically screened the rural tourism related literature in the Web of Science and CNKI databases from 2000-2021 and analyzed the selected samples in a bibliometric analysis. We consequently visualized and summarized the temporal and spatial characteristics, disciplinary integration, and research hotspot evolution of the selected body of literature from China and abroad. Our results showed that: (1) Temporally, the number of rural tourism articles was on a rise both in China and abroad, and such a development could be divided into three stages: the budding stage, the exploratory stage, and the growth stage. (2) In terms of the spatial coverage of the research, the developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain were leading in the field of rural tourism research, while China has become a frontrunner in recent years as well. (3) In terms of disciplinary integration, international rural tourism research was mainly carried out in the context of economics, political science, and sociology, while other disciplines such as computer science and veterinary science have been increasing used as well. Rural tourism research in China, instead, was mainly found in the field of geography, economics, and sociology, with scarce efforts from individual institutions. (4) International studies on rural tourism focuses on sustainability research based on market and operation oriented innovation, whereas in China, the research hotspot was on the function of rural tourism under the guidance of strategic policies. (5) International research on rural tourism gradually transit from fragmented research to holistic perspectives on conservation and governance, from meeting tourist retention to innovation-led demand management, and from social network support to internet technology empowerment. On the contrary, research in China had evolved in the vein of tourism supply-tourism demand-tourism externalities. We suggest that China should follow the international hotspots and especially strengthen the disciplinary integration via international exchange and cooperation. Meanwhile, new theories should be developed for local management practices of rural tourism development.