多形式客流预警信息下的游客疏散心理研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-0696.2026.05.12

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 针对节假日旅游高峰期景区游客过度聚集、超出承载限制的问题，聚焦景区局部突发大客流场景，探究客流预警信息发布下游客疏散心理的影响机制，以优化景区客流管理、预防拥挤踩踏事故。首先，基于防护型行为决策模型（PADM），分析游客的疏散行为决策机理；其次，设计并开展问卷调查，获取游客的感知数据；最后，构建结构方程模型（SEM），揭示客流预警信息（风险等级、呈现形式）、游客对信息的信任、疏散知识和经验对游客风险感知和恐慌情绪的影响，通过多群组分析对比信息呈现形式对游客疏散心理影响路径的调节作用。结果表明：风险等级、信任与疏散经验是风险感知的关键前因；风险等级、风险感知、信任和疏散知识则共同影响恐慌情绪；尤为重要的是，信息呈现形式具有显著的调节作用：“强调行动指示”能够有效传递风险感知，并产生较低恐慌情绪，景区管理方应将其作为预警信息发布的核心策略，以提升应急管理效能与安全性。

关键词: 交通工程；景区客流预警；游客疏散心理；多群组分析；防护型行为决策模型；信息呈现形式

Abstract: Addressing the issue of excessive crowding and exceeding capacity limits of scenic spots during the holiday travel peak season, sudden large tourist flow scenarios in specific areas of the scenic spots were focused and the impact mechanism of tourist flow warning information dissemination on downstream tourist evacuation psychology was explored, aiming to optimize tourist flow management in scenic spots and prevent crowded and stampede accidents. Firstly, based on the protective action decision model (PADM), the evacuation decision-making mechanism was analyzed. Secondly, the questionnaire survey was designed and conducted to obtain perceptual data of tourists. Finally, a structural equation model (SEM) was constructed to reveal the impact of tourist flow early warning information (risk level, presentation format), tourists’ trust in the information, evacuation knowledge and experience on tourists’ risk perception and panic emotion. The moderating effect of information presentation formats on the psychological impact pathway of tourist evacuation was compared by multi-group analysis. Results indicate that risk level, trust, and evacuation experience are key antecedents of risk perception, while risk level, risk perception, trust, and evacuation knowledge collectively influence panic emotion. Crucially, the information presentation format exhibits a significant moderating effect. “Emphasizing action instructions” can effectively convey risk perception while inducing lower panic levels. Therefore, scenic area management should adopt this as the core strategy for issuing early warning information, in order to enhance emergency management effectiveness and safety.

Key words: transportation engineering; tourist flow warning in scenic spots; tourist evacuation psychology; multi-group analysis; protective action decision model (PADM); information presentation format

中图分类号:

U491.1

韩艳1，刘润田1，关宏志1,2. 多形式客流预警信息下的游客疏散心理研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2026, 45(5): 105-112.

HAN Yan1, LIU Runtian1, GUAN Hongzhi1,2. Tourist Evacuation Psychology under Multiple Formats of Tourist Flow Warning Information[J]. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University(Natural Science), 2026, 45(5): 105-112.

参考文献

［1］ KULLER M, SCHOENHOLZER K, LIENERT J. Creating effective flood warnings:a framework from a critical review［J］. Journal of Hydrology, 2021, 602: 126708.
［2］ HAO Yuyue, WANG Yaqi. The effects of warning design features on risk perception and performance in remote emergency response［J］. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: 25201.
［3］吕孝礼, 徐浩, 朱宪. 地震紧急预警信息设计与公众避险行为倾向: 来自多模态情景模拟实验的发现［J］. 中国行政管理, 2023, 39(10): 121-130.
LYU Xiaoli, XU Hao, ZHU Xian. Earthquake imminent warning message design and citizens’ intended protective action: evidence from survey experiment with multi-modal scenarios［J］. Chinese Public Administration, 2023, 39(10): 121-130.
［4］ MILETI D S, SORENSEN J H. Communication of Emergency Public Warnings: A Social Science Perspective and State-of-the-Art Assessment［R］. USA: Oak Ridge National Lab, 1990.
［5］ LINDELL M K, PERRY R W. The protectiveaction decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence［J］. Risk Analysis, 2012, 32(4): 616-632.
［6］ WANG Yi, KYRIAKIDIS M, DANG V N. Incorporating human factors in emergency evacuation—an overview of behavioral factors and models［J］. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2021, 60: 102254.
［7］ ZHOU Kai, WU Wenting, LI Tianjie, et al. Exploring visitors’ visual perception along the spatial sequence in temple heritage spaces by quantitative GIS methods: a case study of the Daming Temple, Yangzhou City, China［J］. Built Heritage, 2023, 7(1): 24.
［8］孙典. 基于公众风险感知的台风预警信息排程研究［D］. 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨工程大学, 2018.
SUN Dian. Research on Typhoon Disaster Warning Scheduling Based on Public Risk Perception［D］. Harbin: Harbin Engineering University, 2018.
［9］曾杨, 黎金玲, 郭海湘, 等. 基于风险感知的室内疏散情绪传染与干预策略研究［J］. 系统仿真学报, 2022, 34(12): 2691-2703.
ZENG Yang, LI Jinling, GUO Haixiang, et al. Research on emotional contagion and intervention strategy of indoor evacuation based on risk perception［J］. Journal of System Simulation, 2022, 34(12): 2691-2703.
［10］ GUO Yanan, AN Shi, COMES T. From warning messages to preparedness behavior: the role of risk perception and information interaction in the Covid-19 pandemic［J］.International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2022, 73: 102871.
［11］ LI Chong, LI Yingqi. Factors influencing public risk perception of emerging technologies:A meta-analysis［J］. Sustainability, 2023, 15(5): 3939.
［12］余肖禹, 谢科范, 梁本部. 应急避难场所感知与疏散行为的关系研究［J］. 管理学报, 2020, 17(6): 931-936.
YU Xiaoyu, XIE Kefan, LIANG Benbu. The relationship between emergency shelter perception and evacuation behavior［J］. Chinese Journal of Management, 2020, 17(6): 931-936.
［13］ T/CCPITCSC 155—2024 节假日城市旅游客流风险识别与预警技术规范［S］.
T/CCPITCSC 155—2024 Technical specification for risk identification and early warning of city tourism passenger flow during holidays［S］.
［14］ TAHESH G, ABDULSATTAR H, ABOU ZEID M, et al.Risk perception and travel behavior under short-lead evacuation: post disaster analysis of 2020 Beirut Port explosion［J］. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2023, 89: 103603.
［15］ AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION.The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder［M］. 2nd ed. Washington, D C: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2025.
［16］ MOLAN S, WEBER D, KOR M. Understanding the intention to stay and defend during a bushfire: An application of virtual reality to improve awareness of predictors associated with behavioral response［J］. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2023, 84: 103444.
［17］王建军, 柳倩, 卢霄娟, 等. 新能源汽车政策下居民出行意向多群组分析［J］. 北京交通大学学报, 2024, 48(3): 55-63.
WANG Jianjun, LIU Qian, LU Xiaojuan, et al. Multi-group analysis of residents’ travel intentions under new energy vehicle policy［J］. Journal of Beijing Jiaotong University, 2024, 48(3): 55-63.
［18］ HAIR J F , BLACK W C, BABIN B J, et al. Multivariate Data Analysis［M］. 8th ed. Andover: Cengage, 2019.
［19］李婉莹, 关宏志, 韩艳. 考虑出行者心理需求的旅游出行服务使用意向研究［J］. 重庆交通大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 42(8): 96-105.
LI Wanying, GUAN Hongzhi, HAN Yan. Behavioral intention to use tourism mobility service incorporating traveler psychological needs［J］. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University (Natural Science), 2023, 42(8): 96-105.

[1]	朱政泽, 熊宇恒. 基于多时空特征和图注意力网络的交通流预测模型研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 44(10): 51-59.
[2]	李晓伟1，刘倩1，石兰馨1,2，李昊田1，陈君1，时宗琦3. 天气和建成环境对乘客公交通勤时间的非线性影响[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2025, 44(3): 96-104.
[3]	周和平，李文杰. 考虑鲁棒成本与绝对后悔的最短路径问题研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2024, 43(1): 91-98.
[4]	李振龙, 董爱华, 杨磊. 基于群决策和熵权法的换道轨迹评价研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 42(1): 120-127.
[5]	许旺土1，文琰杰2. 基于组合客观赋权法的交通信用评级方法[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2022, 41(04): 27-32.
[6]	焦柳丹1,朱影含1,吴雅2,宋向南3. 基于演化博弈理论的城市轨道交通高峰票价定价研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(08): 42-49.
[7]	查伟雄，冯涛，严利鑫. 考虑车辆到达时间窗的应急公交调度优化模型[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(08): 57-62.
[8]	王涛1，谢思红1，黎文皓1,2，李文勇1. 基于FFOS-ELM和PF的短时交通流自适应预测模型[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(06): 21-27.
[9]	郑义彬，蔡航鹏，赖伟伟，刘冠宇. 基于复杂网络的湖北省高速公路网特性分析[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(05): 31-37.
[10]	吴文静，孙刃超，宗芳，贾洪飞. 居民低碳通勤出行的主观态度识别及影响分析[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(05): 53-58.
[11]	李岩1，南斯睿2，胡文斌3，汪帆1，陈宽民1. 机非标线分隔道路电动自行车越线风险模型[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(02): 13-20.
[12]	裴同松1，裴彧2. 基于马尔科夫链-BP神经网络模型对公路运量的预测研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(02): 35-41.
[13]	常四铁，严飞，左康. 出行者对出行方式服务属性的感知差异研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(02): 42-46.
[14]	蒋劲羽1，赵旭1，李铖钰1，杨忠振2. 农村公路治超站选址与治超车路径优化研究[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(02): 61-68.
[15]	任其亮，张丽莉，吴玲玲. 城市组团间居民出行方式选择决策方法[J]. 重庆交通大学学报（自然科学版）, 2021, 40(01): 36-43.