居民主体视角下民族旅游社区多群体冲突的空间特征及形成机制——以西江千户苗寨为例

The spatial characteristics and formation mechanism of multigroup conflicts in ethnic tourism community from the perspective of residents: A case study of Xijiang Qianhu Miao Village

乡村旅游社区的快速发展使得社区内多群体冲突日益凸显,对社区冲突空间特征的认识,有助于实施有效的社区旅游空间规划与管理。研究选取西江千户苗寨为案例地,采用参与式制图与半结构访谈相结合的方法对当地居民进行调研,按照"负面情感-原因追溯-冲突构成-空间分布"这一逻辑链条,对案例地社区冲突进行探测。通过质性分析与空间分析的混合方法,识别社区冲突类型及对应的冲突对象关系,并分析空间分布特征及其形成机制。结果显示:(1)旅游开发背景下社区冲突的类型构成具有多元化特点,但存在包括日常生活干扰、经济利益矛盾、公共权力失语、环境破坏、生产建设受阻的主导结构类型。(2)居民主体视角下有居民-管理者、居民-外来经营者、居民-居民和居民-游客四种冲突对象关系,不同冲突对象关系占比及其冲突类型构成有所差异。(3)冲突对象关系的总体分布在空间上存在核心-边缘效应,旅游开发核心区四种不同冲突对象关系均有大量分布,边缘区以居民-管理者和居民-居民为主;不同冲突对象关系高值区的空间分布具有差异,居民-管理者表现为核心分散分布,居民-居民则为边缘分散分布,居民-外来经营者和居民-游客均为核心区集聚呈轴向分布。(4)冲突空间分布受到社区微观区位、统筹规划、市场化需求及不同主体实践方式等因素的影响,多群体在空间形成竞争关系,共同塑造社区空间。

Multi-group conflicts have been increasingly noticed with the rapid development of tourism in rural community. Studying the spatial characteristics of multi-group conflicts exerts much significance on community tourism planning and management, especially from the perspective of residents. This research employed a mixed method of participatory mapping and semi-structured interview to investigate local residents’ perception towards tourism development, which mainly included the places they were dissatisfied with during the development process. In order to measure community conflicts efficiently, the whole investigation process followed the logic of"negative emotion-reasons tracing-conflict types-spatial distribution".Surveys were conducted in the Xijiang Qianhu Miao Village of Southwest China. Through constructing the identification logics of conflict opponents, conflict types and corresponding opponents were identified. Then the spatial distribution and its formation mechanism were analyzed.Results suggested that:(1) Under the driven of tourism development, conflict types were characterized with diversification from the perspective of residents. Nevertheless, there was a primary structure constituted by everyday life interference, interest contradiction, public power dumbness, environment disruption and construction restriction, which accounted for 74.19% in all the conflicts.(2) Four conflict opponents were perceived by residents in community, which constituted four conflict opponent relationships, including residents and decision makers, residents and extraneous operators, residents and residents, and residents and tourists. The composition and proportion of conflict types varied from conflict opponents in every relationship but main conflict types existed.(3) Distribution of conflict opponent relationships presented a pattern of clustering in core regions and disperse in fringe, that is, a large number of four conflict opponent relationships were distributed in core regions but residents and decision makers as well as residents and residents were in fringe regions. Further, the high-density value areas of four relationships were different in spatial distribution. The conflicts between residents and decision makers were dispersed in core area, while those between residents were in fringe. Conflicts between residents and extraneous operators as well as tourists were axially clustered in core areas.(4) The formation mechanism of conflicts distribution was driven by micro geographical location, overall planning, market demand and stakeholders’ spatial practice. Multiple groups were competed in space, which shaped community space collectively.