王中可;张洁;郭峦;

桂林旅游学院;广西大学;

认知路径;;支付意愿;;绿色展会;;结构方程;;Logit模型

绿色展会(green event)因关注环境产出、能给参与者带来全新的参展体验并形成新的吸引力而备受关注,但参展商对绿色展会的认知路径及支付意愿尚存争议。文章基于参展商视角,调研了908份有效样本,采用双边界二分式引导技术问卷和结构方程模型,定量研究受访者对绿色展会理念的认知路径及支付意愿。研究显示:(1)样本总体对绿色展会理念的认知、参与度和感知价值存在三维架构关系,且参与度处于三维架构关系的核心;(2)同意-同意支付概率下,受访者对绿色展会理念具有稳健的支付路径,且感知价值处于路径核心;(3)抗议支付概率下,受访者认可绿色展会理念,具有一定的感知价值,但认知存在责任推诿和环境价值漠视的偏差;(4)经Logit模型计算,受访者对绿色展会理念的平均支付意愿为105.6275元/人~*a~(-1),最高投资限额为588.3452万元,倘若超过这一限额,将可能激起较多的抗议响应。

Research on the Awareness towards and Willingness to Spend on Green Events:An Analysis from the Exhibitors' Perspective

WANG Zhongke;ZHANG Jie;GUO Luan;Guilin Tourism University;Guangxi University;

Green Events focus on environmental output. They provide a totally new experience to the public and, due to their innovative attraction power, can also receive widespread attention. However,the exhibitors' awareness and willingness to spend on green events remains to be controversial. This research analyses 908 surveys, based upon the perspective of exhibitors, through a double-bounded dichotomous-choice orientation and a structural equation model(SEM) which quantitatively assess the awareness and willingness to spend of the respondents. The research threw the following results:(1)There is a three-dimensional structure relationship among the respondents regarding awareness,attendance and the perceived value of green events; there is also a strong correlation between awareness and attendance, which indicates that the respondents correct awareness of greens events will significantly increase the willingness to attend and, at the same time, a good experience will further deepen the level of awareness. Secondly, attendance has a major effect on the improvement of the perceived value, a fact which shows that the respondents can have a series of unique experiences while attending and experiencing green events, which can further significantly enhance the perceived value.The attendance degree occupies the very core of the three-dimensional architectural relationship of this sampling model.(2) Upon the probability of agreeing and being willing to spend, respondents have a pretty solid willingness to spend on the green event concept, and there is still a significant interaction between awareness and attendance. This shows that the participants who agree with the probability of attending are more motivated and likely to become loyal participants of these events. Secondly, the relationship between attendance and perceived value shows that a unique experience while attending the green event can significantly enhance the perceived value, and the effect becomes more solid.Finally, when the perceived value improves, respondents are more willing to spend on the green event,showing that, on the group of respondents considered as a whole, the perceived value of the Green Event enjoys high recognition, and thus are willing to spend more on a green concept. Upon the probability of agreeing and agreeing to spend, the perceived value lies at the core of the path.(3) Under the probability of protesting against spending, the respondents acknowledge that there is a certain perceived value on the concept of green event, and that this perceived value is realized through passive attendance. This research findings further reveal the potential motivation to withhold expenditures due to "income restrictions"and "institutional inadequacy", that is: the respondents actually attended the green event and confirmed their perceived value, but refused to spend either due to economic reasons or because of institutional blockages.(4) According to the Logit model calculation, the average willingness of respondents to spend on a green event concept was RMB 105. 6275/person ~*a~(-1). The maximum investment amount was RMB 588. 3452 million, a limit which, if exceeded, may arise more protests.

awareness;;willingness to spend;;green event;;structural equation model(SEM);;logit model

[1]GETZ D.Event tourism:Definition,evolution,and research[J].Tourism Management,2008,29(3):403-428. [2]GETZ D,Page S J.Progress and prospect for event tourism research[J].Tourism Management,2016,52(2):593-631. [3]KEARUBS K,PAVLOVICH K.The role of stakeholders in Sydney’s green games[J].Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,2002,9(3):157-169. [4]LAING J,FROST W.How green was my festival:Exploring challenge and opportunities associated with staging green event[J].International Journal of Hospitality Management,2010,29(2):261-267. [5]LUO Qiuju,LUO Qianwen.Cross-province analysis on exhibition industry and economic development level,and the spatial spillover effects[J].Scientia Geographica Sinica,2016,36(1):1-7.[罗秋菊,罗倩文.中国省域展览业与经济间相关关系及其空间溢出研究[J].地理科学,2016,36(1):1-7.] [6]DAI Guangquan,TAN Jianping.The spatial temporal distribution of integrated impact index for the canton fair:Astudy based on content analysis method(CAM)&the information entropy of Chinese complete newspaper database(CCND)[J].Acta Geographica Sinica,2012,67(8):1109-1124.[戴光全,谭健萍.基于报纸媒体内容分析和信息熵的广交会综合影响力时空分布[J].地理学报,2012,67(8):1109-1124.] [7]PARK E,BOO S.An assessment of convention tourism’s potential contribution to environmentally sustainable growth[J].Journal of Sustainable Tourism,2010,18(1):95-113. [8]WAN Y K P,CHAN S H J.Factors that affect the levels of tourists’satisfaction and loyalty towards food festival:A case study of Macau.[J].International Journal of Tourism Research,2013,15(3):226-240. [9]AJZEN I.From Intention to Action:A Theory of Planned Behavior[A]//Kuhl J,Beckman J.Action Control:From Cognition to Behavior[M].Heidelberg:Springer,1985:11-39. [10]WONG I A,WAN Y K P,QI S.Green event,value perception,and the role of consumer involvement in festival design and performance[J].Journal of Sustainable Tourism,2015,23(2):294-315. [11]MELVILLE S,KRUGELL W F,SAAYMAN A.Willing to pay:Who are the cheap talker[J].Annals of Tourism Research,2016.56(1):96-111. [12]WHIFIELD J,DIOKO L A,WEBBER D E.Measuring and examining the relevance of discretionary corporate social responsibility in tourism:Some preliminary evidence from UKconference sector[J].Journal of Travel Research,2012,51(3):289-302. [13]KIRKWOOD H.Green event practice[J].Expo Magazine,2008,20(8):28-29. [14]GETZ D.Event Management and Event Tourism[M].New York:Cognizant Communication Corporation 1997:65. [15]ELKONGTON J.Cannibals with Fork the Triple Bottom Line of21stCentury Business[M].Capston:Oxford 1997:76-81. [16]GETZ D.Policy for sustainable and responsible festival and events:Institutionalization of a new paradigm[J].Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,Leisure and Event,2009,1(1):61-78. [17]ANDERSSON D,LUNDBERG E.Commensurability and sustainabi-lity:Triple impact assessment of a tourism event[J].Tourism Management,2013,37(8):99-109. [18]Scrucca F,Severi C,Galvan,N,et al.A new method to assess the sustainability performance of event:Application to 2014world orienteering championship[J].Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2016,56(1):1-11. [19]CHANTAL D,CHARLES A.Promoting sustainable event practice:The role of professional association[J].International Journal of Hospitality Management,2010,29(2):236-224. [20]SHERWOOD P.A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of the Impact of Special Event:The Development of Indicator[D].Melbourne:Victoria University,2007. [21]CARLSON J,GETZ D,SOUTAR G.Event evaluation research[J].Event Management,2001,6(4):247-257. [22]CASE R.Event and the Environment[M].London:Routledge2013:183. [23]HSIN H,PARSA H G,JOHN S.The dynamics of green restaurant patronage[J].Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,2010 51(3):344-360. [24]LAROCHE M,BERGERON J,BARBARO-FORLEO G.Targeting consumer who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products[J].Journal of Consumer Marketing,2001,18(6):503-520. [25]MANAKTOLA K,JAUHARI V.Exploring consumer attitude and behavior towards green practices in lodging industry in India[J].International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,2007,19(5):364-377. [26]AMENDAH E,PARK J.Consumer involvement and psychological antecedents on eco-friendly destination:Willingness to pay more[J].Journal of Hospitality&Leisure Marketing,2008,17(3/4):262-283. [27]KEPPLER J H.Theory and Measurement of Externalities[D].Porris:Paris University,Institute of Finance Dauphine,2007. [28]LI Jingmei,LIU Tieying.A TCM and CVM-base appraisal of coastal recreation resource in Qingdao[J].Tourism Science,2010,24(4):49-59.[李京梅,刘铁鹰.基于旅游费用法和意愿调查法的青岛滨海游憩资源价值评估[J].旅游科学,2010,24(4):49-59.] [29]VOCK M,VAN D W,DE R K.Understanding willingness to pay for social network site[J].Journal of Service Research,2013,16(3):311-325. [30]BIRDIR S,üNAL?,Birdir,et al.Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for coastal tourism management:Case form Mersin Turkey[J].Tourism Management,2013,36(6):279-283. [31]DONG Xuewang,ZHANG Jie,LIU Chuanhua,et al.Bias analysis and reliability and validity test in contingent valuation method:A case study of assessment of Jiuzhaigou's recreational value[J].Acta Geographica Sinica,2011,66(2):267-278.[董雪旺,张捷,刘传华,李敏,钟士恩.条件价值法中的偏差分析及信度和效度检验--以九寨沟游憩价值评估为例[J].地理学报,2011,66(2):267-278.] [32]CAO Huaishu,LIAO Hua.The public’s willingness to pay for improvement of environment quality:A hierarchical Bayesian analysis[J].Chinese Journal of Management,2013,10(2):274-279.[曹怀术,廖华.公众改善环境之意愿的层次贝叶斯分析[J].管理学报,2013,10(2):274-279.] [33]RANDALL A,IVES B,EASTMAN C.Bidding games for valuation of esthetic environment improvements[J].Journal of Environmentally Economics and Management,1974,1(3):132-149. [34]LOOMIS J B,WALSH R G.Recreation Economic Decisions:Comparing Benefits and Costs.(the 2ndedition)[M].Pennsylvania:Venture Publishing,1997:152. [35]BATMAN I J,WILLIS K G.Valuation Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of Contingent Valuation Method in the US,EU and Developing Countries[M].New York:Oxford University Press 1999:67-90. [36]LANGFORD I,BATEMAN I,LANGFORD H.A multi-level modeling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,1996,7:197-211. [37]ARROW K,SOLOW R,PORTNEY R P,et al.Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[J].Federal Register,1993,58(10):4602-4614. [38]JOHNSON J,NEMET G.Willingness to Pay for Climate Policy:A Review of Estimate[D].Madison,Wisconsin:University of Wisconsin-Madison,2005. [39]BROUWER R,BRANDER L,BEURKERING P A.convenient truth:Air travel passengers willingness to pay to offset their CO2emission[J].Climatic Change,2008,90(3):299-313 [40]CASEY J F,BROWN C B,SCHUHMANN P.Are tourist willing to pay additional fees to protest corals in Mexico?[J].Journal of Sustainable Tourism,2010,18(4):557-573. [41]BISHOP R C,HEBERLIEN T A.Measuring value of extramarket goods:Are indirect measuring biased[J].American Journal of Agriculture Economics,1979,61(5):926-930. [42]HANEMANN W M.Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses[J].American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984,66(3):332-341. [43]HANEMANN W M,KANNINEN B J.The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data[A]//Bateman I J,Willis K G.Valuing Environmental Preference:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US.EU.and Developing Countries[M].New York:Oxford University Press,1999:302-441. [44]GUMMESSON E.Green service quality[A]//Proceedings of QUIS3.Quality in Services Symposium[M].New York:International Service Quality Association.1994:56. [45]BLOCH P H,RICHINS L.The theoretical model for the study of product importance perception[J].Journal of Marketing,1983,47(3):69-81. [46]BEATTY S E,SMITH M.External search effort:An investigation across several product categories[J].Journal of Consumer Research,1987,14(1):83-95. [47]GOOSSENS C.Tourism information and pleasure motivation[J].Annals of Tourism Research,2000,27(2):301-321. [48]GURSOY D,GAVCAR E.International leisure tourists’involvement profile[J].Annals of Tourism Research,2003,30(4):906-926. [49]SHERIF M.Attitude,Ego-Involvement,and Change[M].New York:John Wiley 1967:26-90. [50]PEGG S,PATTERSON I.Rethinking music festivals as a staged event:Gaining insights from understanding visitor motivations and the experiments they seek[J].Journal of Convention&Event Tourism,2010,11(2):85-99. [51]COHEN E,AVILELI N.Food in tourism:Attraction and impediment[J].Annals of Tourism Research,2004,31(4):755-778. [52]BELL R,MARSHALL D W.The construct of food involvement in behavioral research:Scale development and validation[J].Appetite,2003,40(3):235-244. [53]MICHAELIDOU N,DIBB S.Product involvement:An application in clothing[J].Journal of Consumer Behavior,2006,5(5):442-453. [54]O’CASS A,CHOY E.Studying Chinese generation Y consumer involvement in fashion clothing and perceived brand status[J].Journal of Product&Brand Management,2008,17(5):341-352. [55]PRAYAG G,RYAN C.Antecedents of tourists’loyalty to Mauritius:The role and influence of destination image,place attachment,personal involvement,and satisfaction[J].Journal of Travel Research,2012,51(3):342-256. [56]CHEN C F,TSAI M H.Perceived value,satisfaction and loyalty of TV travel product shopping:Involvement as moderator[J].Tourism Management,2008,29(6):1166-1171. [57]RODERICK J,BRODIE R J,LINDA D,et al.Customer engagement:Conceptual domain,fundamental and implication for research[J].Journal of Service Research,2011,14(3):252-271. [58]WHITTAKER G,LEDDEN L,KALAFATIS S P.A reexamination of the relationship between value,satisfaction and intention in business services[J].Journal of Service Marketing,2007,21(5):345-357. [59]ROBBINS D,DICKINSON J,CALVER S.Planning transport for special events:A conceptual framework and future agenda for research[J].International Journal of Tourism Research,2007,9(5):303-314. [60]ZEITHAML A.Consumer perception of price,quality,and value:A mean-end model and synthesis of evidence[J].Journal of Marketing,1988,53(3):2-22. [61]GOUNARIS P,TAEMPELIKOS P,CHATZIPANAGIOTOU K.The relationships of customer-perceived value,satisfaction,loyalty and behavioral intention[J].Journal of Relationship Marketing,2007,6(1):63-87. [62]ROSENBAUM S,WONG I A.Value equity in event planning:A case study of Macao[J].Marketing Intelligence&Planning,2010,28(4):403-417. [63]SIU N Y,WAN P Y K,DONG S.The impact of servicescape on the desire to stay in convention and exhibition centers:The case of Macao[J].International Journal of Tourism Research,2013,15(3):226-240. [64]CHALLIS B.What fans want-green event-and their favor brand![EB/OL].http://www.agreenfestival.com,2016-11-07. [65]HUBBARD D,KELLY W,MANDABACH D,et al.Perception of quality,satisfaction,loyalty,and approximate spending at an American wine festival[J].Journal of Culinary Science&Technology,2012,10(4):337-351. [66]HAN H,HSU L T,SHEU C.Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice:Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities[J].Tourism Management,2010,31(3):325-334. [67]BANERJEE B,MCKEAGE K.How green is my value:Exploring the relationship between environmentalism and materialism[A]//Allen C T,John D R.Advance in Consumer Research[M]Provo UT:Association for Consumer research1994:147-153. [68]WEBSTER F E.Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer[J].Journal of Consumer Research,1975,2(12):188-196. [69]SHERRY F,KOZINETS V.Comedy of the commons:No madic spirituality and burning man festival[J].Research in Consumer Behavior,2007,11(11):119-147. [70]MOSTAFA M.Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’green purchase intention:A hierarchical multivariate regression model[J].Journal of International Consumer Marketing,2006,19(2):97-126. [71]SUCHARD T,POLONSKI M J.A Theory of Environmental Buyer Behavior and its Validity:The Environmental Actionbehavior Model[M].Chicago:American Marketing Association,1991:187-201 [72]DALLMAN D A.Mail and Internet Survey:The Tailored Design Method[M].New Jersey:Wiley,2007:1-80. [73]RAINE-EUDY R.Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity:An empirical demonstration[J].Structural Equation Modeling,2000,7(1):124-141. [74]KLINE R B.Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling[M].New York:Guilford Press.2006. [75]RRIGDON E.A necessary an sufficient identification rule for structural equation models estimated[J].Multivariate Behavior Research,1995,30(3):359-383. [76]SCHUMAKER E,LOMAX G.A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling[M].Mahwah,NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2010:86. [77]AMIGUES J P,BOULATOFF C,DESIGUES B,et al.The benefits and cost of riparian analysis habit preservation:Awillingness to accept/willingness to pay using contingent valuation[J].Ecological Economics,2002,43(1):17-43. [78]GREEN D,JACOWITS K E,KAHNEMAN D,et al.Referendum contingent valuation,anchoring and willingness to pay for public good[J].Resource and Energy Economics,1998,20(3):85-116. [79]ZARKIN A G,GATES S C,BALA M V.Estimating the willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment:A pilot study[J].Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,2000,18(2):149-159.

国家社会科学基金项目“乡村振兴战略下滇桂黔民族地区乡村旅游质效提升研究”(18BTY202);; 广西哲学社会科学规划项目“广西旅游景区新媒体营销策略研究”(15DGL003);; 桂林旅游学院研究基金项目“新媒体在旅游目的地营销应用研究”(2014YB08)共同资助~~

引言 1 文献综述 1.1 绿色展会 1.2 支付意愿 2 研究假设和概念模型 2.1 参展商对绿色展会的认知与参与度 2.2 参展商对绿色展会的认知和感知价值 2.3 参展商对绿色展会的参与度与感知价值 2.4 参展商对绿色展会的感知价值与支付意愿 2.5 参展商对绿色展会的认知与支付意愿 2.6 参展商对绿色展会的参与度与支付意愿 3 研究设计 3.1 案例概况 3.2 研究设计及调研实施 4 研究结果 4.1 描述性统计 4.2 测量指标的信度和效度 4.3 模型拟合 4.3.1 样本总体模型 (模型1) 4.3.2 同意-同意概率模型 (模型2) 4.3.3 抗议支付概率模型 (模型3) 4.4 支付意愿的参数估计 5 结论、启示与研究不足

ECON1904

0

旅游学刊

Tourism Tribune

LYXK

2019

03

11-1120/K

1002-5006

LYXK201903011

75-89

F713.83

J157;

14;

引言理解人们对绿色展会理念的态度和支付行为一直是学术研究的热点[1-2]。对于绿色展会理念的研究最早可以追溯至2000年悉尼奥运会的筹办过程[3],之后的雅典奥组委和北京奥组委也重点关注了奥运会与环境的关系[4]。随着展览业的发展,展览经济关联性增强[5-6],人们逐渐认识到展览业并非“无烟工业”。大量涌入的参与者会造成城市交通的拥堵[7]、有机食品的浪费、物料的过度消耗等严峻的环境问题[8]。因此,Getz指出,关注展会与环境的关系,并使展会项目具有可持续性、更加绿色环保将是未来展览业发展的重要方向[1-2]。随后,Laing和Frost系统总结了绿色展会(green event)理念,他们认为“绿色展会是指具有可持续发展战略的或将可持续发展理念融入展会的策划、管理、运营职能中的展会”[4]。在此框架下,较多学者开始关注参与者对绿色展会理念的认知和行为之间的关系。计划行为理论(theory of planned behavior,TPB)指出,人们的认知与态度紧密相关,态度对行为具有显著影响[9]。基于TPB理论视角,较多学者构建模型,进一步揭示参与者对绿色展会的态度与行为之间的定量关系。Wong等指出受访者的参与度对绿色展会的价值感知具有显著影响,并且价值感知对绿色展会的支付具有正相关关系[10]。Wan等研究了澳门食品节的游客重游行为,发现游客对绿色节庆属性的认知与感知满意度显著影响重游行为的发生概率[8]。此外,Park等基于利益相关者视角研究会议组织中不同利益群体对绿色会议理念 的感知、态度和行为的关系,研究发现,不同利益群2014世界定向运动锦标赛(World Orienteering体均对“绿色”的认知具有共识性[7]。从既有的文献Champion-ship)为例,采用TBL理论详细评估了案上看,这些研究均从不同的侧面揭示了受访者对绿例的可持续发展[18]。Chantal等以从业者的视角,采色展会理念的认知和行为之间的某一方面联系,但用TBL理论研究了事件管理中可持续发展的实践是受访者对绿色展会理念从认知到支付的完整路问题[19]。Sherwood指出从既有文献上看,学者们重径仍缺乏深入研究,且各因素间的影响机理尚存争视经济和社会文化的可持续发展的研究,但却忽视议。同时,较新的研究指出,受访者对绿色展会理了事件对环境可持续发展的探讨[20],类似地,Carlson念的支付意愿备受关注[11],尽管如此,较少研究定量和Getz也认为事件领域对环境可持续发展的影响计算绿色展会中受访者支付意愿。本研究围绕上研究长期受到忽视[21]。综上所述,事件领域的可持述问题,采用双边界二分式引导技术问卷,结合结续发展研究着重采用TBL理论框架,从经济、社会构方程模型,定量研究受访者对绿色展会理念的认文化和环境3个方面评估事件的可持续发展,相比知路径及支付意愿。之下,事件领域对环境的可持续发展评估仍有待后续研究。1文献综述Case等认为绿色展会的研究应重点关注展会项目的环境产出,例如交通、能源的消耗、食品供给1.1绿色展会以及购买习惯等因素[22]。Laing和Frost的研究也指Getz指出,基于旅游的角度可以将事件(event)出绿色展会的核心是可持续发展,并在这一理念下划分为四大类:商业贸易类事件、运动竞技类事件、践行社会责任,提升展会的品牌价值,形成差异化文化节庆类事件和娱乐类事件[2]。其中,商业贸易竞争战略,带来全新的参展体验[4]。因此,大多数学类事件又包含传统的会议、展览、奖励旅游等[1]。在者认为TBL理论是绿色展会可持续发展理念的核本研究中所涉及的相关概念及分类参考Getz等人心内涵。本研究在观测指标体系构建时借鉴上述的研究结论,会展指商业贸易类事件中的会议和展研究的结论。览,展会则指某一具体的展览项目。随着展览业竞此外,还有研究指出,融入绿色可持续发展理争的加剧和西方国家对环境保护政策的日趋严格,念之后的展会将可能成为新的吸引物[23-26]。后续的越来越多的展览策划者和运营机构希望展会能成研究显示,绿色之所以能够产生新的附加吸引力是为绿色展会[12]。Kirkwood调查发现,2008年英国大因为:第一,绿色理念通常反映企业的社会责任,展约有83%的展会运营商计划在未来的1~2年内对旗示企业奉献精神,能在目标客户群中树立良好的感下的展会项目进行绿色升级改造,使之符合欧盟苛知形象[25]。第二,随着公众环保意识的增强,他们在刻的环保要求[13]。Getz认为“当今的价值观要求所选择展会时将会优先考虑参加具有环保理念的绿有展会都应该是绿色管理和绿色运营的环境友好色展会项目,并且这样的选择模式可能是固化的,型展会,并且关注展会的环境产出将成为未来节事并逐渐形成品牌忠诚[26]。活动研究的重点领域”[1],尽管如此,绿色展会理念的核心内涵仍存争议。1.2支付意愿Getz于1997年首次讨论了事件管理领域的可环境是公共产品,无法依据一般的市场理论评持续发展问题[14]。同年,Elkington正式提出(tripe-价其价值(包括正外部效应和负外部效应)。依据bottom-line, TBL)理论,他主张从经济发展、社会文Kepple的研究,环境价值理论上有3种表征方式,分化和环境3个方面研究可持续发展[15]。随后Getz认别为赔偿意愿(willingness-to-accept, WTA)、旅游费为研究事件及绿色展会的可持续发展时,也应采用用法(travel-cost-method, TCM)和支付意愿(willing-TBL的理论及方法[16]。后续的研究均遵循Elkingtonness-to-pay, WTP)[27]。WTA一般用于生态补偿领域和Getz的理论框架,分别从经济发展、社会文化和的受偿研究[28];TCM主要用于资源享乐价值评估,环境3个方面评估事件的可持续发展。例如,且适用范围较窄[28]。相比之下,WTP的适用范围较Andersson等将TBL理论进一步细化,提出6项关键广,从既有的文献上看,WTP曾被广泛用于社会网评估项目,并着重从经济领域和社会文化领域对旅络[29]、海洋旅游[28, 30]、景区水土涵养[31]和绿色节事活游事件的可持续发展进行研究[17]。Scrucca等学者以动[11]等领域的研究。Melville等明确指出应采用条 件价值理论的支付意愿表征绿色展会的感知价问卷和离散型问卷。封闭式的离散型问卷最早由值[11]。国内学者曹怀术和廖华也认为采用意愿调查Bishop于1979年引入CVM的研究[41]。但直到20世法研究环境改善策略具有积极意义[32],但是,国内事纪80—90年代末期,Hanemann建立了二分式选择件领域对支付意愿的研究仍较少。支付意愿的函数模型之后[42-43]才被广泛运用。以环境经济学视角,绿色展会本质上是一种环Hanemann借鉴了交通研究中的随机效用最大化原境的改善策略(包括展厅内环境或展会整体环境产理(random utility model, RUM),提出离散型双边界出)。自从1974年Randall首次将条件价值理论二分式引导技术问卷的4种概率[42(]分别为:同意-(contingent valuation method, CVM)中的WTP用于同意、同意-不同意、不同意-同意和不同意-不同研究环境质量的改善以来[33],这一方法曾被广泛用意)。如果以py-y、py-n、pn-y和pn-n分别表示第i于环境产品的改进型评估。条件价值理论基于新个被调查对象回答概率,BIDi为其初始投标值,古典经济学中的需求理论,定量测量希克斯消费者BIDHi表示给出的较高投标值,BIDLi表示给出的较剩余,这种理论的假设是个人对环境物品的改善所低投标值。如果用Ay-yi、Ay-ni、An-yi和An i-n分别表具有的消费偏好是稳健的。Loomis指出这种偏好示第i个被调查对象的回答结果,如果回答结果为可以用方程定量描述[34],随后,Bateman定义了CVM“同意的消费偏好方程[35]。如果用C表示环境改进时所需-同意”则令Ay-yi=1,否则令Ay-yi=0。以此类推Ay-ni、An-yi和An-ni。依据上述理论,本研究的双要支付的补偿量,那么CVM评价环境改善的关键边界二分式引导技术问卷的核心问题设计如图1性问题是如何确定补偿变量。所示。为了准确测量补偿变量,就必须降低假想性偏差并选择合适的问卷方式与计量模型。Langford等学者首先研究了条件价值理论的假想性偏差[36],他们发现如果不采取适当的技术降低此偏差就会使研究的结果变得不稳健。在这一理论的指导下,1993年美国海洋和大气管理局(NOAA)推荐采用廉价磋商技术降低条件价值理论的假想性偏差[37],尽管如此,较新的研究却发现,向受访对象提供完全信息,并尽可能使假想对象具象化可以显著降低图1双边界二分式WTP核心问题设计假想性偏差。例如研究气候变化问题,Johson和Fig. 1 The double-bounded dichotomous of WTPNemet系统综述了气候变化的支付意愿研究,他们依据Hanemann的研究,以投标值为解释变量,发现,相比全球尺度而言,将研究范围缩小到国家接受投标值的概率为被解释变量,则函数F(*,θ)服或地区尺度会使受访者易于理解和接受[38]。进一步从Logistic分布[44],那么双边界二分式WTP数学期的研究显示,倘若将气候变化具象为减少二氧化碳望公式如式(1)所示,通过人口统计学纵向加总可排放,并进一步聚焦于降低家庭成员短途或中长途以得到WTP的总期望值,模型如式(2)所示。旅游飞行的次数,受访者将更愿意履行支付意愿[39]。nβ0+此外,Casey等对墨西哥湾旅游者支付意愿的研究∑βix2ˉi+β1bidmaxE(WTPi)=1*ln1+e再次证明了向受访者提供完全信息并具象化假想βn1β0+1+e∑(1)βix2ˉi对象的重要性[40]。Melville等在研究南非WackynE(WTP)=Wine Festival参与者对绿色节事理念的支付意愿时,明确指出应从范围尺度和场景特征尺度将绿色∑nE(WTPi)(2)i=1展会理念具象化[11]。对于参展商而言,绿色展会作2研究假设和概念模型为一种新的展会理念是较抽象的,因此,我们遵循Casey等和Melville等的研究结论,实际调研时,在2.1参展商对绿色展会的认知与参与度严谨表述绿色展会理念的前提下,从范围尺度和场Gummesson提出应该基于参与者的感知价值景尺度将其具象化[11,40]。视角研究绿色理念[44]。Bloch也于20世纪80年代提CVM的问卷种类较多,有开放型问卷、连续型出消费者对服务产品的认知和参与性消费密切相 关[45]。在旅游研究中,Beatty等认为,认知的独特性者共同影响进一步形成稳健的参与忠诚[56]。基于以是旅游者选择参与某项活动的依据,这种独特性通上文献的研究结论,本研究提出如下假设:常是指旅游者认识到某种特别的价值,更重要的H2:参展商对绿色展会的认知与感知价值呈正是,这样的特别价值既能刺激旅游者产生独特的认相关关系知,也能刺激旅游者产生持续的参与行为[46]。类似地,Goossens提出参与性实际上是旅游者对旅行乐2.3参展商对绿色展会的参与度与感知价值趣的一种独特认知[47]。Gursoy等的研究还显示旅游Roderick等提出参与度影响感知价值[57],虽然者的参与动机是一个多维度的建构过程,其中也包感知价值具有多样性,但是正如Wong等指出,感知括认知因素[48],这项研究还指出,旅游者的参与性与价值的绩效与表现形式是关键因素[10]。Whittaker旅游者独特的认知密切相关,并符合Sherif提出的的研究进一步指出,对于服务型产品而言,功能性选择忠诚度模型[49]。绩效与表现形式对消费者具有显著影响[58],因为服类似地,在节事活动研究中,参与者对节事活务型产品具有无形性,消费者购买此类产品的心理动的某种认知(例如独特氛围、精巧策划和绿色主满足感有赖于该产品能否凸显某一独特的功能(如题等)显著影响参与度。例如Pegg研究了游客对音“绿色”等)以及这种功能是否能转化为适当的感知乐节的参与意愿,他们发现,氛围的营造显著影响价值形式传递给消费者[58]。对于绿色展会而言,展参与者的积极性[50]。Cohen也通过研究发现,节事商的参与度有赖于绿色展会是否凸显“绿色”价值活动能否给参与者带来全新的体验将直接关系到或“可持续发展”价值,以及这些价值的具体表达活动策划的成败[51]。此外,Bell还发现,展会或节事方式。活动的主题将会是所有参与者讨论的热点和焦基于上述的理论框架,较多学者研究了展会中点[52]。综上所述,参与行为与认知密切相关,并相参与度与感知价值的具体关系。例如Hsin等对绿互影响,形成较稳健的参与模式。基于此,本研究色餐厅的研究表明,旅游者对“绿色”价值的感知来提出如下假设:源于餐厅供应的食品是否纯天然、是否非转基因、H1:参展商对绿色展会的认知和参与度具有相是否具有本地特色等方面[23]。但是Laing和Frost对互影响的关系绿色节庆的研究却指出,节庆活动是否提供绿色食2.2品仅是绿色价值感知的一部分,更重要的是主办方参展商对绿色展会的认知和感知价值对废弃物的管理,例如对一次性餐具、宣传品和垃在市场研究中Michaelidou指出,消费者选择商圾分类的管理等[4]。除此之外,Robbins认为公共交品时,更倾向于购买那些感知价值更高的商品[53]。通的可达性不但有助于减少温室气体的排放,还有此后O’Cass研究了中国人的消费习惯,他指出,中助于提高展会参与者的积极性[59]。Whitfield也提出国消费者对商品的认知与品牌的感知价值具有正展厅内是否禁烟、是否采用环保装修材质、是否干相关性,这种正相关性将直接影响购买意愿[54],因此净整洁以及甲醛的浓度等均会影响展会的参与者消费者的认知对感知价值具有显著的影响。Wong对“绿色”的感知价值[12]。基于以上文献,我们提出等研究了绿色展会的感知价值,发现感知价值具备如下假设:多种属性,他们提出在绿色展会的研究中,参与者对“绿色”的感知价值来源于他们对于“环境友好”H3:参展商对绿色展会的参与度与感知价值呈理念的认知,这种认知是基于参与者对展会项目的正相关关系某种绩效(如“绿色”)的表现形式和认同度[10]。因此参与者对绿色理念的认知将影响他们对绿色展会2.4参展商对绿色展会的感知价值与支付意愿价值感知。Zeithaml提出感知价值实际上是消费者基于利此外,更多的文献指出,参与者对绿色理念的益交换而获得的满足感,同时他还指出利益交换最认知与感知价值具有正相关关系。例如Praya认重要的就是支付行为(或时间、机会成本等)[60]。为,旅游者对旅行意义的认知程度影响他们在旅行Gounaris的研究证明感知价值与支付意愿呈正相关活动中获得的享乐价值[55],Chen研究了我国台湾地关系[61]。在此框架下,节事活动领域的学者如区旅游者对电视旅游节的参与意愿,他们发现旅游Rosenbaum通过研究证实参展商或专业观众对展会者对节事活动认知和感知价值存在正相关关系,两的价值感知与满意度有直接的联系[62],之后Siu进一 步证明展会参与者对展会的价值感知不但直接影弃原有的参与方式,取而代之采用更加环保经济的响他们对展会的满意度评价,还直接影响他们在展做法[69],正如Webster所言,付出与放弃本质上也是会中的停留时间与支付意愿[63]。一种支付[68]。除此之外,Mostafa的研究指出,如果更进一步的研究也指出参与者对绿色展会的消费者对环境的关注度越高,对绿色产品的支付意感知价值与支付意愿也呈正相关关系。例如Laing愿就越强[70]。类似地,Suchard也通过研究发现,消和Frost认为,至少有48%的展会参与者更愿意为展费者会主动参与绿色环保行动,例如消费更多的环会的“绿色”价值履行支付意愿[4],类似地,Challis调保型产品,更愿意使用公共交通工具等方式[71]。基研了32个国家的节庆活动参与者,他认为49.8%的于以上文献,我们提出:参与者愿意为降低环境污染而支付合适的费用[64]。H6:参展商对绿色展会的参与度与支付意愿呈而Hubbard等通过研究美国葡萄酒节参与者的支付正相关关系意愿也指出,他们更愿意消费本地产葡萄酒,因为根据以上H1~H6,提出绿色展会的认知路径及这能够更好地支持东道主城市的可持续发展[65]。基支付意愿模型(图2)。于以上文献,我们提出假设:H4:参展商对绿色展会的价值感知与支付意愿呈正相关关系2.5参展商对绿色展会的认知与支付意愿Ajzen指出个体的认知决定了意愿,强烈的意愿倾向又与行为显著关联[9]。在此基础上,Han以绿色酒店为例,研究了旅游者对“绿色”的认知与行为图2概念模型图绩效的关系,他指出旅游者对“绿色”理念的认知度Fig. 2 The conceptual model越高,就越有可能选择入住(支付机会)绿色酒店[66]。3研究设计Laroche的研究也显示消费者如果对“绿色”理念的认知程度与消费意愿呈正相关关系[24]。然而另一些研究从反面证实了认知与支付意3.1案例概况愿的关系。例如Banerjee认为,如果环保主义消费中国-东盟博览会是中国及东盟十国经贸部门者认识到自己或他人的行为对环境造成(或即将造共同主办的国际性贸易博览会,至今已连续举办了成)不利的影响,那么他们就会表现出强烈的抗议13届。近年来,中国与东盟十国普遍遭受环境恶化倾向,比如采取必要的措施制止或劝诫行为等[67]。的冲击,我国提出经济发展不能以牺牲环境为代Webster认为这种抗议倾向实际上也是一种间接的价。受此影响,南宁市从2013年开始,依据绿色展支付意愿,只不过这种消费并不是支付货币,而是会理念,每年投入一定资金对中国-东盟博览会的为了劝诫他人而支付时间或支付某种机会成本[68]。环境、场馆设施、管理制度及运营方式进行绿色升基于以上观点,我们提出:级改造。这种改造不仅包括展会周边环境改造,如H5:参展商对绿色展会的认知与支付意愿呈正改善城市基建设施(修建地铁、增加城市绿化面积、相关关系治理城市河渠)、开通免费穿梭巴士、设立行人专用道路、限制酒店最高定价(以鼓励展商住在展馆周2.6参展商对绿色展会的参与度与支付意愿边,减轻道路交通压力),还包括展厅内环境改造,Laing和Frost认为,展会项目的利益相关者能如布展时提倡绿色装修、推荐采用新科技展示手够互相妥协、互相合作对绿色展会的成功举行至关段、制定严格的垃圾分类制度、采取严厉的环境惩重要,由于绿色理念可能会增加运营成本,因此在罚措施等。此外,2016年中国-东盟博览会还设立绿色展会的筹备过程中,必然要经历冲突、妥协的环境合作系列论坛。然而相较于国内同类展会而过程,在此过程中,各利益相关主体能摒弃异议支言,中国-东盟博览会的绿色改造措施仍有待完善。持绿色办展本身就体现了参与度与支付意愿之间的关系[4]。Sherry以美国Burning Man Festival为例3.2研究设计及调研实施说明节庆活动的参与者愿意为绿色环保理念而放为保证研究的信度与效度,问卷主要借鉴国内?75? 外相关文献的基础研究,并依据案例客观现状进行和变异系数描述性统计(表1)。除受访者人口统计适当调整。Dallman指出,样本量和抽样方式将会学指标外(表1),其余变量均值不低于3.733;方差对支付意愿的研究结果产生显著影响[72]。Arrow提用于描述数据离散程度,本研究的方差围绕0.3波出,条件价值理论中的支付意愿研究应该采用实地动,且波动幅度较小,说明受访者对各观测指标理面访式调研(face-to-face)[37],本研究遵循这项建解较好,且有较高的认同度。议。由于初始投标值的设计对支付意愿研究的影响较大,为了进一步提高研究的信度与效度,采取4.2测量指标的信度和效度预调研的方式确定初始投标值。本研究采用SPSS 21.0对样本总体进行探索性第13届中国-东盟博览会开展时间较短,开幕因子分析,KMO=0.935(>0.7),Bartlett球形检验显时间为2016年9月11日—14日,笔者在开展的第1著(p<0.000),样本总体的Cronbach.sα=0.899(>0.7)天即9月11日进行预调研,采用简单的支付卡式问表明数据整体可靠性较高,适合做因子分析。主成卷,共发放问卷100份,经过整理得到4种投标方分分析法将观测变量分成4个因子,总方差解释率案。初级投标值为5元、10元、20元和50元,次级较为50.086%,表明具有较好的效度。高投标值为10元、20元、30元和100元,次级较低投潜变量的组合信度(或称为:构建信度)属于内在一致性指标,通常表示测量指标分享或解释该潜标值为3元、5元、10元和30元。正式调研从9月12变量的一致性程度。组合信度越高,表示测量变量日—14日止,采用双边界二分式引导技术问卷。问对潜变量解释程度越高;组合信度越低,表示测量卷共由4部分组成:第一部分是介绍与说明,强调匿指标与潜在变量之间存在歧义性。Raine认为潜变名性和研究性;第二部分是认知路径测量,共22项量指标的组合信度Cronbach.sα>0.50以上即可[74],观测指标(见表1观测变量中a1~a20,a25~a26部目前较多学者认为结构方程的组合信度值分),采用李克特5分量表进行测量;第三部分是双Cronbach.sα>0.80以上为非常好,Cronbach.sα>0.70边界二分式引导技术的支付意愿研究,共设计4组为较好,在探索性研究中,容许个别指标的临界判投标方案,并包括抗议支付专项研究;第四部分是别值为Cronbach.sα=0.50,即大于0.5的Cronbach.s人口统计学调查,共4项观测指标(见表1观测变量α值均是可接受的。本研究中大部分潜变量的组合中a21~a24,其中,收入变量以人民币为货币单位,信度均高于0.7(表1),表明组合信度较好,仅模型2受教育程度变量采用中国现行的教育层次)。本研和模型3的F4支付意愿潜变量略低于0.6(模型2的究共发放问卷1000份(中文问卷900份,英文问卷F4潜变量组合信度为0.568;模型3的F4潜变量组100份),经过回收整理得到有效问卷908份,有效率合信度为0.572),但仍高于临界值,故总体上各结构为90.80%。从调研结果来看,各数据符合正态分方程模型的潜变量组合信度总体较好。布,抽样代表性较好。4.3模型拟合4研究结果Hanemann提出离散型双边界二分式支付意愿研究中,受访者支付概率可分为4种类型,分别为同4.1意-同意、同意-不同意、不同意-同意和不同意-不描述性统计同意[42],有效样本容量是结构方程模型拟合是否稳本次调研的样本人口统计学结构分布为:中国健的关键因素。从本次调查收集到的数据来看,同籍展商占大多数(占比为89.43%),女性为主(占比意-同意概率下样本量为531份(n=531),同意-不同为54.07%),年收入水平处于3万~5万元区间(以人意概率下样本量为77份,不同意-同意概率下样本民币计,占比为35.24%)的中等收入群体为主,年龄量为22份,不同意-不同意概率下样本量为3份,抗结构主要是26~35岁的年轻人(占比为40.31%),受议支付样本量为273份(n*=273)。Kline认为结构教育层次以大学本科教育水平为主(本科占比为方程中样本量低于100时,参数估计是不可靠的[74],60.35%),职业特征则是公司职员占比最高(占比为Rigdon认为若观测变量超过10个,样本量低于20044.38%)。时,模型的参数估计会不稳健,且模型的统计检验对问卷第二部分认知路径测量和第四部分人力会降低[75]。而Schumacker等提出在社会学研究口统计学特征的26项观测变量分别进行均值、方差领域,结构方程的最低有效样本量应该不低于200 份,500份以上则更好[76],本研究遵循Schumacker和中3个结构方程模型拟合优度检验结果均超过参考Rigdon等人的研究结论。在此框架下,研究样本总值(续表1-B),表明本研究的3个模型拟合优度较体(N=908)、同意-同意概率(n=531)和抗议支付概好,结构方程较稳健,且具有较高的信度与效度。率(n*=275)下受访者对绿色展会的认知框架及支4.3.1样本总体模型(模型1)付意愿模型。采用Amos 21.0中极大似然估计拟合首先,模型1(图3)中参展商对绿色展会理念的结构方程各路径系数,本研究中各模型均经修正,认知、参与度和感知价值整体上呈现稳健的三维架路径系数均经过标准化处理并做显著性检验,各模构关系。具体表现在,认知和参与度之间存在较强型如图3~图5所示。N表示样本总体,n表示同意-的相互关系(F1\F2,路径系数为0.894),说明受访者同意支付概率样本,n*表示抗议支付样本(下同)。对绿色展会的正确认知会显著提高参与的积极性,同时参与的良好体验又会进一步促进认知的加深,这一结果支持Roderick等的研究结论[46]。其次,参与度对感知价值的提升具有稳健的促进作用(F2\F3,路径系数为0.917),说明受访者能够通过参加绿色展会,经历绿色展会理念带来的一系列独特的参展体验,能够显著提升对感知价值的认知。这一结果同样也支持Brodie等的研究结论[57]。最后,注:***,**,*表示0.01,0.05,0.1水平显著相关(下同)。参与者总体对绿色展会的正确认知也能促进感知图3模型1:样本总体的认知及支付意愿模型(N=908)Fig. 3 Model 1:The cognition and willingness-to-pay价值的提升(F1\F3,路径系数为0.029)。可是,我们model of total samples (N=908)发现这一路径系数显著低于上述前两条路径,显示这种相关效应较弱。这可能是由于仅从认知但缺少参与体验的方式而带来的感知价值可能是片面的,或者是不完整的,因此受访者可能更倾向于通过实地参与,感受绿色展会理念所带来的独特参展体验之后,才能对其感知价值具有较全面、较稳健的知觉。此外,模型1显示与支付意愿相关的3条路径图4模型2:同意-同意概率群体的认知及支付统计均不显著或不符合期望。理论上,随着参与度意愿模型(n=531)的提高、感知价值的提升和对绿色展会的正确认知Fig. 4 Model 2:The conceptual model of yes-yes均能产生一定的支付意愿,但模型却呈现相反的结payment (n=531)果。我们认为这可能一方面与服务性产品的属性有关,另一方面还与受访者的“搭便车效应”有关。Whittaker认为服务型产品的无形属性是关键因素[58],展会作为服务型产品集,具有无形性、质量不稳定性和体验的复杂性,这决定了参展商必须通过亲身参与体验之后才能获得产品的某种效用,而不能仅通过某些刻板印象或者晕轮效应等途径提升认知(F1/F4,路径系数为图5模型3:抗议支付群体的认知及支付意愿模型(n*=275)-0.604,不符合期望,且统计不显著)。“搭便车效应”指的是群体中的部分行为人Fig. 5 Model 3:The conceptual model of protest采取某种不易察觉的度量,即可享受到与之付出不payment (n*=275)相称的某种福利。绿色展会理念所带来的是展会评价结构方程拟合优度的指标体系共有3大类环境产出的改善,但环境公共物品的福利极易产生共计13项指标(续表1-B),分别为简约适配度指标漏损,进而导致“劣币驱逐良币”的现象,致使样本体系(共4项指标)、绝对适配度指标体系(共5项指中部分行为人即使享受到绿色展会理念所带来的标)和增值适配度指标体系(共4项指标)。本研究福利,但是也不愿意支付(F2/F4,路径系数为1.283, =n*t度(en43)信ym85合型0.7700.7850.0.572pa275)组模((n*=率t概protest-0258356.927.747.858.299.30-6.4.626.396.935.367.7.72-7.357.437.687.247.68-1.291.280.821.351.付heTodel3)荷50支(M载5409627议275)子0.6070.4860.5380.0.5810.6840.4690.360.3020.5020.5810.3550.70.7730.4650.7070.7270.7940.7780.7840.0840.0.2560.5000.8050.822抗因yit2)il度信型ab合模ob0.6100.7060.7460.568(pr531)组率es(n=概t意es-y-71073.728.348.599.259.-6.595.607.347.715.308.898.99-6.776.806.887.6.92-1.401.231.401.381.38Y-同odel2)荷04意载17531)(M5733同子0.5800.1800.570.4710.5230.5550.4410.30.2970.4350.4720.2800.6440.7090.3440.5670.0.6010.6680.6180.0670.2410.1300.0840.7230.6n=(因8)1)度90el信44=Nod合0.6860.70.7910.625fit(M组1)表to(on701型tit41模la908)=2.2.41N-.18367.6312.213.0713.9511-9.217.9010.6210.857.12.212.63-9.169.189.49.579.48-2.402.231.76计ss统ne(体popu验od(荷检go77总72035本ple载54子0.6210.2850.5650.0.5990.4990.4630.330.3340.4990.5450.3150.60.7180.3390.6160.6280.7110.7390.7140.0890.0.2390.0620.6880.751度of样am优stS因合te拟nd数5系1821cs771548ti异0.1.1641.3151.0921.1670.9931.1421.2501.1551.21.1411.2110.8300.7871.1.0141.1380.9850.890.9521.0071.6250.7811.30.9911.0248)及sa90标le=is变指N(量计测统量性变述e描D各entsofvariabatst8e差iv908)方pt=0.0280.03580.03810.03470.03580.03310.03550.03710.03570.03660.03550.03650.03020.02940.03560.03340.03540.03290.03130.03240.03330.04230.02930.03850.03300.0336riNsc(73值7325758均4.444.0324.0754.1044.1874.2944.1233.8663.4.0374.1693.7804.4034.4633.9174.2974.2984.34.4454.3982.2402.9323.2.6094.2844.242程方7]7]7]7][1[1[1构easurem3))7][1[6)1]3)0113)[701结M8]200138]1)0][5[517)2],22],2[1)rg[1),5]5]]],2],24]4]99,2]2][5[49][1[1[4][1e[6[6[4[2))1])表献001212[2)))[4]0)[5[1)rgeage,19947)1212be01Tab.1文,22020[23]0112100116002020nd3]alundberg,20考l,undbeLLcK,220undberg,2l,l,20u[6)8][6eferencetMLall,l,stolonski,1[64],)erson,2010)参tal,LR和rost,2010)和taroProst,2010)ta75F和ettarost,20和rost,2010)FFatF,e,eta&,eF和Pd,e19akeer,和d,ar&和akeer,etal,2007)he和&和ldieeler,tffiis,2016)tehithitfield,etanderssonhitfield,etal,bbaingnderssonanerjeesin,etal,2010)uubbard,eaingnderssonainghitocaraingobbins,etal,2uchardhifield,etal,2012)eggainghihitelvilbsnderssonui,etal,2013hale(W(W(A(W(L(A(B(H(H(H(L(A(L(W(L(L(R(S(W(P(L(W(W(M(A(S(C(W术品圾传台技术为料垃宣长的更来s展示技行品资身用会留带le率建展理保品食传随使念会展ab用染搭体处环食因产宣理具理展制境度逗会量ri利污料媒类非的基特用处餐会色印烟修环浓会展变va源声材多然转地取术性展绿张禁装厅醛展色测能噪收用分的圾人天非本才技次色加纸行格度展甲色绿观会厅回,采垃他择择择要类一绿参收出严过的内平绿受bserved展展可绘用诫选选选需分少传择回交外位洁厅水在接加O高低用喷采劝中中中有圾减宣选可公内展整展育入于间于增提降采少该该会会会实垃量极先用倡厅止净低龄业教收向时向本尽的成2:a1:应a2:应a3:应a4:减a5:应a6:应a7:展a8:展a9:展a10:确a11:按a1a13:积a14:优a15:采a16:提a17:展a18:防a19:干a20:降a21:年a22:职a23:受a24:年a25:倾a26:倾ns-eio值愿量onti度价意变atentni与知ueal付潜Lvariabl知1:认Fogto-payC2:参FarticipatP3:感erceivedvPF4:支ingnesilFW 续表1-B结构方程拟合优度指标测量Tab. 1-B The measurement of goodness to fit to SEM样本总体同意指标名称参考值指标体系-同意概率抗议支付概率模型1(N=908)模型2(n=531)模型3(n*=275)自由度(df)简约适配度指标体系242.075251.454215.282卡方/自由度(χ2/df)≤5.001.0531.0570.920简约拟合指数(PNFI)≥0.500.6840.6810.674简约拟合优度(PGFI)≥0.500.6420.6540.630卡方(χ2)绝对适配度指标体系230238234均方根残差(RMR)≤0.050.0270.0320.046拟合优度(GFI)≥0.900.9800.9650.944调整后拟合优度(AGFI)≥0.900.9700.9480.917近似均方残差根(RMSEA)≤0.080.0080.0100.000规范拟合系数(NFI)≥0.90增值适配度指标体系0.9660.9300.936比较拟合指数(CFI)≥0.900.9980.9961.000增量拟合指数(IFI)≥0.900.9980.9961.006相对拟合优度(RFI)≥0.900.9530.9040.911统计显著,但不符合期望)。此外,我们还注意到中付的核心前提。受访者无法仅从认知和参与的角国-东盟博览会从2013年开始逐步采用绿色理念对度履行支付意愿,而必须先基于参与,再获得感知展会的运营流程进行升级改造,相比起国际同类展价值效用之后,才愿意履行支付意愿。这一结果支会而言,中国-东盟博览会的绿色改造升级仍处于持Rosenbaum和Siu等的研究结论[62-63],即展商对绿过程性阶段,尚未最终完成。这可能会影响受访者色展会的感知价值是核心,这既是支付意愿的前对绿色展会的感知价值,造成心理期望与实际感知提,又是认知和参与的共同结果。价值之间存在差距,这种差距与上述两种原因相叠4.3.3抗议支付概率模型(模型3)加,最终影响支付意愿的表达(F3/F4路径系数为抗议支付群体是指受访者对于支付的主体、假-0.400,统计不显著,且不符合期望)。想市场或支付工具产生消极抗辩意愿特征的群4.3.2同意-同意概率模型(模型2)体。对于一般的抗议支付主要采用描述性统计,以模型2(图4)显示同意-同意支付概率下,受访揭示受访者抗议支付表象的原因。本研究对受访者对绿色展会的认知及支付意愿具有稳健的路者的抗议支付行为进一步细分,将其分为抗议支付径。研究表明,首先,认知与参与度(F1/F2,路径系和真实零支付两种情况,其结果如表2所示。数为0.939)仍存在显著的相互作用,这种相互影响Ambigues认为“收入限制”是零支付与抗议支付的比模型1更强(0.894),这显示同意-同意概率下受原因[77],但是Green等的研究结论却显示“收入限访者的参与积极性更高,并可能形成参与忠诚度。制”仅为原因之一,除此之外还包括“制度不健全”和“企业道德责任”等多种因素[78]这一结果支持Amendah和Chen等的研究结论[26,56]。本研究中原因2。是由于“收入限制”因素而引起的零支付,原因1和其次,参与度与感知价值(F2/F3,路径系数为0.961)原因5是由于“制度不健全”而引起的抗议支付,三同样高于模型1(0.917),这也显示受访者通过参与者总和占抗议支付的88.72%,这一结果支持绿色展会而获得的独特参展体验能显著提升感知Ambigues和Green等的研究结论。此外,我们还注价值,且这种效应比模型1更稳健。最后,通过感知意到只有极少数人否认或不关心绿色展会理念(原价值的提升,受访者更愿意为绿色展会履行支付意因3和原因4),这也间接证明绿色展会的理念是有愿(F3/F4,路径系数为0.178),显示这一概率群体的价值的。受访者总体上对绿色展会的感知价值具有较高的但上述统计结果仅是抗议支付的表面原因,通认可度,并愿意进一步为绿色理念履行支付意愿。过模型3(图5)的研究可以揭示抗议支付的潜动但是模型2却显示与支付意愿相关的另外两条路径因。研究显示,抗议支付群体仅承认绿色展会具有既不符合期望也不显著,表明感知价值是受访者支一定的感知价值,且这种感知价值是通过被动参与 表2抗议支付统计表(n*=275)Tab. 2 The protest payment (n*=275)编号类型原因样本数占比(基于总体)No.TypesReasonsSamplesRatio(%)1抗议支付这是政府的工作,与我无关6122.18(6.72)2零支付我无力承担此项费用,但是我愿意在方便的时候,参加绿色展会的宣传志愿服务7326.54(8.04)3抗议支付我只在展会中逗留很短时间,所以不关心绿色环保问题176.18(1.87)4抗议支付绿色环保理念的展会根本无价值也无意义41.45(0.44)5抗议支付我担心支付的钱根本无法真正用在中国-东盟博览会的绿色环保理念的升级改造上11040.00(12.11)6抗议支付其他103.63(1.10)实现的(F2/F3,路径系数为0.541)。这一研究结果者提出应将真实零支付以较小正数(如0.1元)替代进一步揭示表2中原因2和原因5的受访者因“收入并纳入统计[79],但本研究认为这一做法缺乏理论基限制”和“制度不健全”而拒绝支付的潜动因,即受础且主观性较强,故本研究仅考虑正WTP样本。为访者实际通过亲身参与绿色展会,肯定其感知价了增加模型的代表性,同时考虑受访者的人口统计值,但囿于经济原因和制度所困而暂时拒绝支付。学和心理认知的异质性,增设态度(Att)变量,这一但除此之外,模型3的其余路径均不显著或不变量将问卷第一部分的22个问题(见表1中除符合期望。一方面是由于模型的研究假设与受访a21~a24之外的所有问题)求均分,以此代表受访者者的实际态度相悖,另一方面也揭示此部分受访者对绿色展会的态度变化集。方程变量如表3所示:对绿色展会的认知存在偏差。如表2中原因1、原因采用Stata12.1中的极大似然估计拟合方程系3及原因4所示,受访者认为对展会进行绿色改造无数,结果如表4所示:关己任、对环境采取漠视态度以及否认绿色展会理由于pn-n的支付概率太小,样本容量为3份,软念的价值均是认知偏差的主因。因此,对于抗议支件无法拟合数据。其中,方程系数表中括号内为z付群体而言,主办方应该采取适当的宣传方式,纠检验值;方程检验表中,3个方程的Prob>chi2=正人们对绿色展会的认知偏差,提升他们主动参与0.0000说明方程均显著,Pseudo R2则反映方程对变意识,进一步提升参与者对绿色展会理念感知价值量的解释优度。将表4的方程拟合系数带入式(1),与支付意愿。计算得到各概率下平均支付意愿为py-y=99.9845元/人*a-1、py-n=5.3278元/人*a-1;pn-y=0.3152元/人*a-4.4支付意愿的参数估计1,那么平均支付意愿为105.6275元/人*a-1。Hannemann指出,离散型CVM模型概率残差依据式(2),查阅《广西年鉴》2015年中国-东盟服从Logistic分布[43]计算时采用Logit模型和Probit博览会各系列展览的参展商总量进行人口关联纵模型拟合均可,但是这两个模型的估计结果存在差向加总(5.57万人),得到参展商对中国-东盟博览会异,一般而言Porbit模型估计值大于Logit模型估计进行绿色展会升级改造的总支付意愿为588.3452值,但究竟采用哪个模型评估更接近真实值目前尚万元。鉴于绿色展会理念实质上是一种环境改善无定论,本研究采用Logit模型。此外,Zarkin等学策略,受访者对环境改善的总支付意愿实际上是指表3方程变量定义表Tab. 3 The definition of variables变量Variables定义与赋值Definition of variables年龄Age被调查者的年龄(岁)[0, 25)=1;[25, 35)=2;[35, 45)=3;[45, 55)=4;[55,+∞)=5年收入Income被调查者的年收入(元)[0, 20 000)=1;[20 000,30 000)=2;[30 000,50 000)=3;[50 000,100 000)=4;[100 000,+∞)=5投标值Bid被调查者投标值受教育程度Edu被调查者的受教育年限(小学及以下=1;9年义务教育=2;高中或职高=3;大学=4;研究生=5)性别Gender被调查者的性别(男=1;女=0)职业Job被调查者从事的职业(个体户=1;学生=2;农民或工人=3;企业职员=4;政府或事业单位职员=5)态度Att对问卷第一部分共22个问题求均分 表4 Logit模型系数估计表(n1=633)Tab. 4 The coefficient of logit equations (n1=633)变量Variablespy-ypy-npn-ypn-nβBid0.068 0(6.82)***0.042 1(-4.86)***0.068 0(6.82)***-βAtt0.121 7(0.53)0.204 4(0.78)0.121 7(0.53)-βGender-0.087 8(-0.35)0.346 9(1.32)-0.087 8(-0.35)-βIncome0.264 3(2.07)*-0.232 7(-1.71)*0.264 3(2.07)*-βAge-0.381 3(-2.76)**0.413 7(2.95)**-0.381 3(-2.76)**-βEdu-0.148 2(-1.04)0.207 3(1.31)-0.148 2(-1.04)-βJob0.185 1(-0.25)-0.115 6(-1.01)0.185 1(1.71)*-β常数-0.266 5(-0.25)*-2.657 2(-2.13)*-0.266 5(-0.25)-LR chi2(7)108.8456.1885.76-Prob>chi20.000 00.000 00.000 0-Pseudo R20.194 70.119 90.448 9-注:n1表示所有支付概率样本,***,**,*表示0.01,0.05,0.1水平显著相关,括号中为Z统计量。环境改进时所需要支付的补偿量[11,27-28]。据此建议知价值的是关键因素[10],尽管如此,研究发现抗议支主办方,如果对中国-东盟博览会进行绿色升级改付的受访者普遍存在责任推诿和环境价值漠视的造的投资时,应以总支付意愿为投资依据,倘若采认知偏差。取激进的投资策略,将显著增加展商的参展成本,Logit模型计算显示,第13届中国-东盟博览会可能激起较多的抗议响应。参展商对该展会进行绿色理念升级改造的平均支付意愿为105.6275元/人*a-1,经过人口纵向加总之5结论、启示与研究不足后得到中国-东盟博览会进行绿色展会理念升级改造的投资最高阈限为588.3452万元,据此建议主办本研究采用双边界二分式引导技术问卷,调查方,倘若对中国-东盟博览会进行绿色升级改造的了908份有效样本,在此基础上将受访者分为样本投资时,应充分考虑参展商的总支付意愿的理论依总体、同意-同意支付概率群体和抗议支付概率群据。体3大类,分别定量计算不同类型的受访者对绿色本研究的理论贡献在于如下3个方面:第一,在展会的认知路径和支付意愿。得出以下结论:绿色展会感知价值的理论研究中,一直存在受访者受访者总体对绿色展会理念的认知、参与度与的参与性与认知之间的争论,如Wong等认为参与感知价值之间存在相互影响、相互关联的三维架度是感知价值获取的基础[10],相反,Praya和Chen等构,这表明,受访者对受访者对绿色展会理念的认则认为认知是感知价值获取的前提[55-56],本研究通知和参与度之间存在相互影响、相互促进的关系符过结构方程证明感知价值可以同时从认知和参与合TPB理论框架[9];但与此同时,受访者更倾向于通两方面获取,但是受访者更倾向于提高参与性。第过提升参与度获得感知价值效用,这也表明参与度二,本研究通过结构方程揭示受访者从认知到支付处于三维架构关系的核心。可是,我们发现样本总意愿的过程性行为,在这一过程中,感知价值处于体对绿色展会理念的支付意愿不显著,这与会展产核心地位。第三,一般而言,抗议支付研究仅采用品的属性“、搭便车”心理效应和案例实情紧密相关。描述性统计,用于揭示受访者抗议支付的表象,但感知价值处于认知及支付意愿路径的核心,这本研究采用结构方程和描述性统计相结合的研究一结果符合价值中心论的观点[53-54, 56, 60]。具体而言:方式,进一步揭示受访者抗议支付心理的潜动因,同意-同意支付概率下存在稳健的认知及支付意愿研究显示受访者虽然存在认知偏差,但仍然承认绿路径,且感知价值是正确认知和积极参与的结果,色展会的感知价值。因此,在今后的抗议支付研究又是支付意愿的前提条件。中,应采用结构方程与描述性统计相结合的方式,抗议支付概率下,受访者通过被动参与的方进一步深化研究。式,肯定绿色展会理念的感知价值,这再次证明感本研究的实践启示在于:首先应重视参与性。 在绿色展会的宣传工作中,一直强调公众对绿色展会认知的重要性,并认为在此基础上才能提升参与性,但是我们的研究指出,提升参与性更重要。据此建议主办方应采取适当的营销、促销策略,提升公众对绿色展会参与的积极性,通过参与提升认知。其次,突出感知价值。感知价值是认知及支付意愿路径的核心,据此建议主办方在绿色展会的管理运营过程中,突出绿色展会的独特参展体验和绿色展会的环境友好性等独特价值。最后,纠正部分参展商的认知偏差。认知偏差是导致部分参展商抗议支付的重要原因,这种偏差主要包括责任推诿和环境价值漠视。据此建议主办方应该加大宣传力度,突出政府和公众共同参与并采取设置志愿服务岗位等措施,进一步提升公众对绿色展会理念的认知。本文研究的不足主要有以下3方面:Wong和Melville等人系统研究了收入效应对支付意愿的影响,结果显示多数情况下收入对支付意愿具有正效应[10-11],本研究也支持此项结论。但是展会中公司实力也能影响支付意愿,因此未来的研究中应该同时考虑公司实力与收入两个因素对绿色展会的支付意愿的影响效应。此外,本研究仅从人口统计学特征的角度对支付意愿主体进行分类,Melville等提出应从心理潜动因的角度讨论支付意愿主体的类型特征[11]。因此后续研究应重点从心理潜动因的角度探究支付主体的结构异同性。最后,众所周知,参展商和专业观众是展会中两大最重要的利益主体,这两大群体对展会的利益诉求既有区别又有联系。本研究基于展商视角,揭示了参展商对绿色展会理念的认知及支付意愿的关系。但是,专业观众对绿色展会的认知与支付意愿之间的关系如何,以及这两大群体对绿色展会的态度是否存在显著差异等仍有待后续研究。绿色展会的认知路径及支付意愿研究——基于参展商视角@王中可$桂林旅游学院!广西桂林541006 @张洁$桂林旅游学院!广西桂林541006 @郭峦$广西大学!广西南宁530004绿色展会(green event)因关注环境产出、能给参与者带来全新的参展体验并形成新的吸引力而备受关注,但参展商对绿色展会的认知路径及支付意愿尚存争议。文章基于参展商视角,调研了908份有效样本,采用双边界二分式引导技术问卷和结构方程模型,定量研究受访者对绿色展会理念的认知路径及支付意愿。研究显示:(1)样本总体对绿色展会理念的认知、参与度和感知价值存在三维架构关系,且参与度处于三维架构关系的核心;(2)同意-同意支付概率下,受访者对绿色展会理念具有稳健的支付路径,且感知价值处于路径核心;(3)抗议支付概率下,受访者认可绿色展会理念,具有一定的感知价值,但认知存在责任推诿和环境价值漠视的偏差;(4)经Logit模型计算,受访者对绿色展会理念的平均支付意愿为105.6275元/人~*a~(-1),最高投资限额为588.3452万元,倘若超过这一限额,将可能激起较多的抗议响应。认知路径;;支付意愿;;绿色展会;;结构方程;;Logit模型[1]GETZ D.Event tourism:Definition,evolution,and research[J].Tourism Management,2008,29(3):403-428. [2]GETZ D,Page S J.Progress and prospect for event tourism research[J].Tourism Management,2016,52(2):593-631. [3]KEARUBS K,PAVLOVICH K.The role of stakeholders in Sydney’s green games[J].Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,2002,9(3):157-169. [4]LAING J,FROST W.How green was my festival:Exploring challenge and opportunities associated with staging green event[J].International Journal of Hospitality Management,2010,29(2):261-267. [5]LUO Qiuju,LUO Qianwen.Cross-province analysis on exhibition industry and economic development level,and the spatial spillover effects[J].Scientia Geographica Sinica,2016,36(1):1-7.[罗秋菊,罗倩文.中国省域展览业与经济间相关关系及其空间溢出研究[J].地理科学,2016,36(1):1-7.] [6]DAI Guangquan,TAN Jianping.The spatial temporal distribution of integrated impact index for the canton fair:Astudy based on content analysis method(CAM)&the information entropy of Chinese complete newspaper database(CCND)[J].Acta Geographica Sinica,2012,67(8):1109-1124.[戴光全,谭健萍.基于报纸媒体内容分析和信息熵的广交会综合影响力时空分布[J].地理学报,2012,67(8):1109-1124.] [7]PARK E,BOO S.An assessment of convention tourism’s potential contribution to environmentally sustainable growth[J].Journal of Sustainable Tourism,2010,18(1):95-113. [8]WAN Y K P,CHAN S H J.Factors that affect the levels of tourists’satisfaction and loyalty towards food festival:A case study of Macau.[J].International Journal of Tourism Research,2013,15(3):226-240. [9]AJZEN I.From Intention to Action:A Theory of Planned Behavior[A]//Kuhl J,Beckman J.Action Control:From Cognition to Behavior[M].Heidelberg:Springer,1985:11-39. [10]WONG I A,WAN Y K P,QI S.Green event,value perception,and the role of consumer involvement in festival design and performance[J].Journal of Sustainable Tourism,2015,23(2):294-315. [11]MELVILLE S,KRUGELL W F,SAAYMAN A.Willing to pay:Who are the cheap talker[J].Annals of Tourism Research,2016.56(1):96-111. [12]WHIFIELD J,DIOKO L A,WEBBER D E.Measuring and examining the relevance of discretionary corporate social responsibility in tourism:Some preliminary evidence from UKconference sector[J].Journal of Travel Research,2012,51(3):289-302. [13]KIRKWOOD H.Green event practice[J].Expo Magazine,2008,20(8):28-29. [14]GETZ D.Event Management and Event Tourism[M].New York:Cognizant Communication Corporation 1997:65. [15]ELKONGTON J.Cannibals with Fork the Triple Bottom Line of21stCentury Business[M].Capston:Oxford 1997:76-81. [16]GETZ D.Policy for sustainable and responsible festival and events:Institutionalization of a new paradigm[J].Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,Leisure and Event,2009,1(1):61-78. [17]ANDERSSON D,LUNDBERG E.Commensurability and sustainabi-lity:Triple impact assessment of a tourism event[J].Tourism Management,2013,37(8):99-109. [18]Scrucca F,Severi C,Galvan,N,et al.A new method to assess the sustainability performance of event:Application to 2014world orienteering championship[J].Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2016,56(1):1-11. [19]CHANTAL D,CHARLES A.Promoting sustainable event practice:The role of professional association[J].International Journal of Hospitality Management,2010,29(2):236-224. [20]SHERWOOD P.A Triple Bottom Line Evaluation of the Impact of Special Event:The Development of Indicator[D].Melbourne:Victoria University,2007. [21]CARLSON J,GETZ D,SOUTAR G.Event evaluation research[J].Event Management,2001,6(4):247-257. [22]CASE R.Event and the Environment[M].London:Routledge2013:183. [23]HSIN H,PARSA H G,JOHN S.The dynamics of green restaurant patronage[J].Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,2010 51(3):344-360. [24]LAROCHE M,BERGERON J,BARBARO-FORLEO G.Targeting consumer who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products[J].Journal of Consumer Marketing,2001,18(6):503-520. [25]MANAKTOLA K,JAUHARI V.Exploring consumer attitude and behavior towards green practices in lodging industry in India[J].International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,2007,19(5):364-377. [26]AMENDAH E,PARK J.Consumer involvement and psychological antecedents on eco-friendly destination:Willingness to pay more[J].Journal of Hospitality&Leisure Marketing,2008,17(3/4):262-283. [27]KEPPLER J H.Theory and Measurement of Externalities[D].Porris:Paris University,Institute of Finance Dauphine,2007. [28]LI Jingmei,LIU Tieying.A TCM and CVM-base appraisal of coastal recreation resource in Qingdao[J].Tourism Science,2010,24(4):49-59.[李京梅,刘铁鹰.基于旅游费用法和意愿调查法的青岛滨海游憩资源价值评估[J].旅游科学,2010,24(4):49-59.] [29]VOCK M,VAN D W,DE R K.Understanding willingness to pay for social network site[J].Journal of Service Research,2013,16(3):311-325. [30]BIRDIR S,üNAL?,Birdir,et al.Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for coastal tourism management:Case form Mersin Turkey[J].Tourism Management,2013,36(6):279-283. [31]DONG Xuewang,ZHANG Jie,LIU Chuanhua,et al.Bias analysis and reliability and validity test in contingent valuation method:A case study of assessment of Jiuzhaigou's recreational value[J].Acta Geographica Sinica,2011,66(2):267-278.[董雪旺,张捷,刘传华,李敏,钟士恩.条件价值法中的偏差分析及信度和效度检验--以九寨沟游憩价值评估为例[J].地理学报,2011,66(2):267-278.] [32]CAO Huaishu,LIAO Hua.The public’s willingness to pay for improvement of environment quality:A hierarchical Bayesian analysis[J].Chinese Journal of Management,2013,10(2):274-279.[曹怀术,廖华.公众改善环境之意愿的层次贝叶斯分析[J].管理学报,2013,10(2):274-279.] [33]RANDALL A,IVES B,EASTMAN C.Bidding games for valuation of esthetic environment improvements[J].Journal of Environmentally Economics and Management,1974,1(3):132-149. [34]LOOMIS J B,WALSH R G.Recreation Economic Decisions:Comparing Benefits and Costs.(the 2ndedition)[M].Pennsylvania:Venture Publishing,1997:152. [35]BATMAN I J,WILLIS K G.Valuation Environmental Preferences:Theory and Practice of Contingent Valuation Method in the US,EU and Developing Countries[M].New York:Oxford University Press 1999:67-90. [36]LANGFORD I,BATEMAN I,LANGFORD H.A multi-level modeling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation[J].Environmental and Resource Economics,1996,7:197-211. [37]ARROW K,SOLOW R,PORTNEY R P,et al.Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation[J].Federal Register,1993,58(10):4602-4614. [38]JOHNSON J,NEMET G.Willingness to Pay for Climate Policy:A Review of Estimate[D].Madison,Wisconsin:University of Wisconsin-Madison,2005. [39]BROUWER R,BRANDER L,BEURKERING P A.convenient truth:Air travel passengers willingness to pay to offset their CO2emission[J].Climatic Change,2008,90(3):299-313 [40]CASEY J F,BROWN C B,SCHUHMANN P.Are tourist willing to pay additional fees to protest corals in Mexico?[J].Journal of Sustainable Tourism,2010,18(4):557-573. [41]BISHOP R C,HEBERLIEN T A.Measuring value of extramarket goods:Are indirect measuring biased[J].American Journal of Agriculture Economics,1979,61(5):926-930. [42]HANEMANN W M.Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses[J].American Journal of Agricultural Economics,1984,66(3):332-341. [43]HANEMANN W M,KANNINEN B J.The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data[A]//Bateman I J,Willis K G.Valuing Environmental Preference:Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US.EU.and Developing Countries[M].New York:Oxford University Press,1999:302-441. [44]GUMMESSON E.Green service quality[A]//Proceedings of QUIS3.Quality in Services Symposium[M].New York:International Service Quality Association.1994:56. [45]BLOCH P H,RICHINS L.The theoretical model for the study of product importance perception[J].Journal of Marketing,1983,47(3):69-81. [46]BEATTY S E,SMITH M.External search effort:An investigation across several product categories[J].Journal of Consumer Research,1987,14(1):83-95. [47]GOOSSENS C.Tourism information and pleasure motivation[J].Annals of Tourism Research,2000,27(2):301-321. [48]GURSOY D,GAVCAR E.International leisure tourists’involvement profile[J].Annals of Tourism Research,2003,30(4):906-926. [49]SHERIF M.Attitude,Ego-Involvement,and Change[M].New York:John Wiley 1967:26-90. [50]PEGG S,PATTERSON I.Rethinking music festivals as a staged event:Gaining insights from understanding visitor motivations and the experiments they seek[J].Journal of Convention&Event Tourism,2010,11(2):85-99. [51]COHEN E,AVILELI N.Food in tourism:Attraction and impediment[J].Annals of Tourism Research,2004,31(4):755-778. [52]BELL R,MARSHALL D W.The construct of food involvement in behavioral research:Scale development and validation[J].Appetite,2003,40(3):235-244. [53]MICHAELIDOU N,DIBB S.Product involvement:An application in clothing[J].Journal of Consumer Behavior,2006,5(5):442-453. [54]O’CASS A,CHOY E.Studying Chinese generation Y consumer involvement in fashion clothing and perceived brand status[J].Journal of Product&Brand Management,2008,17(5):341-352. [55]PRAYAG G,RYAN C.Antecedents of tourists’loyalty to Mauritius:The role and influence of destination image,place attachment,personal involvement,and satisfaction[J].Journal of Travel Research,2012,51(3):342-256. [56]CHEN C F,TSAI M H.Perceived value,satisfaction and loyalty of TV travel product shopping:Involvement as moderator[J].Tourism Management,2008,29(6):1166-1171. [57]RODERICK J,BRODIE R J,LINDA D,et al.Customer engagement:Conceptual domain,fundamental and implication for research[J].Journal of Service Research,2011,14(3):252-271. [58]WHITTAKER G,LEDDEN L,KALAFATIS S P.A reexamination of the relationship between value,satisfaction and intention in business services[J].Journal of Service Marketing,2007,21(5):345-357. [59]ROBBINS D,DICKINSON J,CALVER S.Planning transport for special events:A conceptual framework and future agenda for research[J].International Journal of Tourism Research,2007,9(5):303-314. [60]ZEITHAML A.Consumer perception of price,quality,and value:A mean-end model and synthesis of evidence[J].Journal of Marketing,1988,53(3):2-22. [61]GOUNARIS P,TAEMPELIKOS P,CHATZIPANAGIOTOU K.The relationships of customer-perceived value,satisfaction,loyalty and behavioral intention[J].Journal of Relationship Marketing,2007,6(1):63-87. [62]ROSENBAUM S,WONG I A.Value equity in event planning:A case study of Macao[J].Marketing Intelligence&Planning,2010,28(4):403-417. [63]SIU N Y,WAN P Y K,DONG S.The impact of servicescape on the desire to stay in convention and exhibition centers:The case of Macao[J].International Journal of Tourism Research,2013,15(3):226-240. [64]CHALLIS B.What fans want-green event-and their favor brand![EB/OL].http://www.agreenfestival.com,2016-11-07. [65]HUBBARD D,KELLY W,MANDABACH D,et al.Perception of quality,satisfaction,loyalty,and approximate spending at an American wine festival[J].Journal of Culinary Science&Technology,2012,10(4):337-351. [66]HAN H,HSU L T,SHEU C.Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice:Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities[J].Tourism Management,2010,31(3):325-334. [67]BANERJEE B,MCKEAGE K.How green is my value:Exploring the relationship between environmentalism and materialism[A]//Allen C T,John D R.Advance in Consumer Research[M]Provo UT:Association for Consumer research1994:147-153. [68]WEBSTER F E.Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer[J].Journal of Consumer Research,1975,2(12):188-196. [69]SHERRY F,KOZINETS V.Comedy of the commons:No madic spirituality and burning man festival[J].Research in Consumer Behavior,2007,11(11):119-147. [70]MOSTAFA M.Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’green purchase intention:A hierarchical multivariate regression model[J].Journal of International Consumer Marketing,2006,19(2):97-126. [71]SUCHARD T,POLONSKI M J.A Theory of Environmental Buyer Behavior and its Validity:The Environmental Actionbehavior Model[M].Chicago:American Marketing Association,1991:187-201 [72]DALLMAN D A.Mail and Internet Survey:The Tailored Design Method[M].New Jersey:Wiley,2007:1-80. [73]RAINE-EUDY R.Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity:An empirical demonstration[J].Structural Equation Modeling,2000,7(1):124-141. [74]KLINE R B.Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling[M].New York:Guilford Press.2006. [75]RRIGDON E.A necessary an sufficient identification rule for structural equation models estimated[J].Multivariate Behavior Research,1995,30(3):359-383. [76]SCHUMAKER E,LOMAX G.A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling[M].Mahwah,NY:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2010:86. [77]AMIGUES J P,BOULATOFF C,DESIGUES B,et al.The benefits and cost of riparian analysis habit preservation:Awillingness to accept/willingness to pay using contingent valuation[J].Ecological Economics,2002,43(1):17-43. [78]GREEN D,JACOWITS K E,KAHNEMAN D,et al.Referendum contingent valuation,anchoring and willingness to pay for public good[J].Resource and Energy Economics,1998,20(3):85-116. [79]ZARKIN A G,GATES S C,BALA M V.Estimating the willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment:A pilot study[J].Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,2000,18(2):149-159.

J;

2019-03-21

J157_14;

王中可;

Y

2019-03-06

展会,支付意愿,结构方程,Logit模型,感知价值,认知路径,样本总体,概率,定量研究,路径图,

展会:7072,支付意愿:6778,结构方程:1153,Logit模型:1065,感知价值:1042,认知路径:585,样本总体:172,概率:168,定量研究:131,路径图:124,

15

2886K

CNKI:SUN:LYXK.0.2019-03-011

Y

Y

71-85

D

975

2

1.181101

21

QS0101;

2.04

J153

J157;J153;

J;

中文;

201903

0002;F0;

36872971;36872972;06854976;

0701019;0088702;

CJFD2019

XHZLPERIODICAL2_METADATA

0

Y

0701019:36872971;0701019:36872972;0088702:06854976;

v.34;No.271

10.19765/j.cnki.1002-5006.2019.03.011

LYXK201903

Y

Y

0

0018;

CJFD_LYXK

128021508;12802150302;12802310501

XML;EPUB;

绿色展会:144.4*464.027;受访者:50.8*260.475;支付意愿:70.4*297.044;结构方程:17.2*89.9278;认知路径:14.4*75.2884;参展商:28.4*126.926;Logit模型:1.8*6.84341;篇长:20824

绿色展会;受访者;支付意愿;结构方程;认知路径;参展商;Logit模型;

2

1414.213

WANG Zhongke

桂林旅游学院;

Guilin Tourism University;

36872971;

0701019;

绿色展会;支付意愿;认知路径;参展商;

受访者;结构方程;Logit模型;

桂林旅游学院_王中可;; 桂林旅游学院_张洁;; 广西大学_郭峦;;

F713.7