花粉过敏已经成为旅游景点中日益突出的生态系统损害。然而,很少有研究通过整合多学科生态学知识来评估花粉过敏的旅游风险,医学,物候学,和风险管理。根据联合国减灾战略建议的风险评估概念框架,我们首先建立了旅游景区花粉过敏风险的指标体系,并概述了评估方法,提出了18个可用的指标,涵盖了三个方面:植物过敏原的危害,旅游脆弱性,和评估单位的弹性。随后,以颐和园为例,我们对花粉过敏进行了旅游风险评估。通过生态调查获得了9个可用指标的值,物候观察,并对新浪微博上的访问者日志进行数据挖掘。结合绿区致敏指数模型和三维风险评估矩阵,揭示了不同评估单元游客春季花粉过敏的风险水平。结果表明:(1)颐和园主要有7种花粉致敏植物,包括侧柏,中国柏树,Salixbabylonica,油松,毛白杨,白杨和白蜡,其中侧柏和沙柳致敏性最高。(2)在18个地点中,游客在春季的三个地点面临花粉过敏的最高风险,也就是宁静的大厅,仁爱与长寿殿堂,文学与繁荣画廊。(3)长廊和长寿山两条路线在风险等级上得分较高。(4)在四个方面,前山和后山地区的风险水平很高。鉴于全球变暖和城市化背景下花粉过敏和游客行为的时空不确定性增加,今后应加强相关监测。此外,应将花粉过敏风险的动态和改进评估制度化,并将其纳入旅游体验质量评估。旅游管理部门应充分利用相关评估结果,开展更有效的风险沟通。
Pollen allergy has already been an increasingly prominent ecosystem disservice in tourism attractions. However, few studies have assessed the tourist risk of pollen allergy through integrating multidisciplinary knowledge of ecology, medicine, phenology, and risk management. Basing on the conceptual framework of risk assessment proposed by UNISDR, we first established an index system of pollen-allergy risk for tourists in attractions and outlined assessment methods 18 available indexes were put forward to cover three aspects: hazard of plant allergen, tourist vulnerability, and resilience of assessment units. Subsequently, taking the Summer Palace as the
case study area, we conducted a tourist risk assessment of pollen allergy. Values of nine available indexes were obtained via ecological investigation, phenological observation, and data mining of visitors\' logs on Sina Weibo. Risk levels of spring pollen allergy for tourists in different assessment units were revealed by combining the green zone allergenicity index model and three-dimensional risk assessment matrix. The results showed that: (1) There were seven primary pollen-allergenic plants in the Summer Palace, including Platycladus orientalis, Sabina chinensis, Salix babylonica, Pinus tabulaeformis, Populus tomentosa Carr, Morus alba L. and Fraxinus chinesis, among which Platycladus orientalis and Salix babylonica were the highest allergenic. (2) Among 18 spots, tourists faced the highest risk level of pollen allergy in spring at three spots, namely the Hall of Serenity, Hall of Benevolence and Longevity, and Gallery of Literary and Prosperity. (3) The two routes of the Long Corridor and Longevity Hill scored high on the risk level. (4) Among four areas, risk levels of the Front-hill and Rear-hill areas were high. Given the increasing spatial-temporal uncertainty of pollen allergy and tourist behaviors under global warming and urbanization, the related monitoring should be strengthened in the future. Furthermore, the dynamic and improved assessment of pollen-allergy risk should be institutionalized and be integrated into the evaluation of tourism experience quality. Tourism administration should make full use of relevant assessment results and conduct more effective risk communication.