|
|
|
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ / v.32, no.5, 2004³â, pp.1-10
|
±¹¸³°ø¿ø ¹æ¹®ÀÇ Á¦ÇÑ¿ä¼Ò ¹× ŸÇùÀü·«
( Constraints and Negotiation Strategies of National Park Visitors ) |
| È«¼º±Ç;ÀåÈ£Âù;À̼®È£;±èÀçÇö; °Ç±¹´ëÇб³ »ý¸íȯ°æ°úÇдëÇРȯ°æ°úÇÐÀü°ø;±¹¸³¹æ¼ÛÅë½Å´ëÇб³ »çȸ°úÇкΠ°ü±¤Çаú;µ¿±¹´ëÇб³ °ü±¤´ëÇÐ °ü±¤°æ¿µÇаú;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ »ý¸íȯ°æ°úÇдëÇРȯ°æ°úÇÐÀü°ø;
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
| ÃÊ ·Ï |
|
|
| This study applied the leisure constraints and negotiation concept to the travel context, especially for traveling in national parks. More specifically, it tries to identify how constraints and negotiation impact a person's travel behavior. The population of this study is the people who intend to visit the national parks for their summer vacations. The data was collected through the panel study, which surveyed the same set of people before and after their trip. Among 527 samples, 39.7£¥ traveled what they planned without any changes. 24.7£¥ did not travel or postponed their trip, and 35.7£¥ enjoyed their vacation but with changes of destination, time or travel periods. These results support that people may use negotiation strategies to overcome their constraints in a travel context. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the impact of constraints on travel behavior among the three groups. The results also confirm that people have to overcome intra-, inter-, and structural constraints for visiting the national parks. Thus, the findings of the study suggest that the concepts of leisure constraints and negotiation is applicable to the travel contexts. Because of its exploratory characteristics, several limitations and cautions were raised. |
| |
| Ű¿öµå |
| Constraint;Negotiation Strategy;National Park; |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸÁö / v.32, no.5, 2004³â, pp.1-10
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1225-1755
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200416641390590)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î |
|
| ³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø |
|
|
|
|
|
|