文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：论旅游的边界与层次

英文题名：On the Limits and Classification of the Concept of Tourism

作者：徐菊凤[1]

第一作者：徐菊凤

机构：[1]北京联合大学旅游学院

第一机构：北京联合大学旅游学院

年份：2016

卷号：31

期号：8

起止页码：16-28

中文期刊名：旅游学刊

外文期刊名：Tourism Tribune

收录：人大复印报刊资料;CSTPCD;;国家哲学社会科学学术期刊数据库;北大核心:【北大核心2014】；社科基金资助期刊;CSSCI:【CSSCI2014_2016】；

语种：中文

中文关键词：旅游;旅游本质;旅游边界;旅游统计

外文关键词：tourism; nature of tourism; boundary of tourism; tourism statistics

摘要：世界旅游组织出于经济统计需要而对旅游和旅游者概念的界定广为人知,不但旅游行业的统计数据来自其界定的口径,旅游基础理论和旅游学教科书也深受其影响。由于其准官方和国际组织背景,此前虽有一些学者指出了其概念界定的宽泛性会带来误解,但是无人对其做出系统分析。文章详细辨析了世界旅游组织拟定的统计性旅游概念的内涵与外延范围,梳理了相关文件对旅游、访问、旅行三大基本概念外延边界关系的界定和历史演变,指出这种界定虽然符合一定的经济统计需要,但明显有悖于常识认知和逻辑规律,阻碍了人们对旅游概念形成理性认知。它以"旅游"统计之名,行"旅行"统计之实,混淆了旅游、访问、旅行的关系,对人们正确理解旅游与旅行的关系带来干扰。依据这种口径统计出的数据,不能直接反映真实的旅游业和旅游现象,更对旅游基础理论形成障碍和冲击。文章提出了符合常识认知与逻辑规律的旅游和旅游者概念认知方式,分别从旅行和休闲两个角度分析了旅游的内在属性与外延边界,辨析了旅游与旅行在三个层次上的关系,运用了纯旅游、准旅游、泛旅游、非旅游等概念来细分旅游与旅行的关系。文章指出部分语词的汉语翻译错误加剧了旅游概念理解的混乱,对"visitor"一词长期被翻译为"游客"的危害进行了讨论。
The definition of tourism given by World Tourism Organization, though originally made for the purpose of statistics, has profound influence. It has not only applied to tourism statistics, but also well accepted by the circle of tourism studies and even adopted by tourism textbooks. Some scholars have questioned the WTO definition as confusing because it is overly broad. However, as a result of the UN background and semi-official feature of WTO, there is still lacking a systematical criticism of the WTO definition. This article aims to offer a critical analysis of both connotation and extension of the WTO definition of tourism. After reviewing past definitions and differentiations of the following three concepts： tourism, visit, travel, it shows that these related documents, under the influence of WTO definition as serving for the purpose of statistics, have contradicted, not only to the way how we define a concept logically and consistently, but also to the common use of these words, which hinders people from forming a rational cognition on what is tourism. If we continue adopting this statistic-oriented definition, we are doomed to fail to capture the real nature of tourism industry, and also the phenomenon of tourism. Moreover, such definition acts as an obstacle for the circle of tourism studies to pursue a tourism theory which could offer itself a concrete foundation. As an alternative, this article offers its own definition of both concepts of tourism and tourist, which is aimed at not only compatible with our common use of words, but also logical consistency. It discerns the distinct connotation and extension of the concept of tourism combining both perspectives of travel and leisure, and thus compares and differentiates the concept of tourism and the concept of travel at three different levels. Moreover, in order to clearly define the differences and relations between travel and tourism, we will introduce concepts of ＂pure tourism＂, ＂quasi-tourism＂, ＂pan-tourism＂ and ＂non-tourism＂. At last, this article points out that some of the confusions and mistakes within Chinese circle of tourism studies have been exacerbated by translation error, such as the translation of the word ＂visitor＂ into Chinese as the same meaning as ＂tourist＂.