第七章 建議
第三節 未來研究建議
一、抽樣方式上的建議
本研究乃以簡單隨機抽樣抽出 4 個具代表性的行政區，並接續採取配額及便利抽樣 的方式進行抽樣。建議未來的研究在財力、物力及人力允許下，抽樣的範圍可涵蓋高雄 市更多的行政區，或採取不同的抽樣方式以提高樣本的代表性。
二、將旅遊目的地的地理區域納入阻礙研究時的變數
本研究結果顯示，中高齡者海外旅遊的阻礙階層依序為：個人內在阻礙、人際間阻 礙及結構性阻礙。學者認為阻礙階層的排列關係除了受到原始模式建立的假設影響外，
亦隨不同的族群類型、社會經濟背景及休閒活動而有所差異。因此，建議未來的研究可 更進一步將旅遊目的地按地理區域劃分，以了解個體對不同的區域其海外阻礙知覺上之 差異或阻礙間之階層關係。
三、加入質化研究
本研究係以量化為主質化為輔的方式進行研究，其中質化研究主要在挖掘出專屬於 中高齡者的旅遊阻礙。因此，建議未來研究可採取深度訪談的方式了解中高齡者在面對 各種阻礙時，個體是如何進行協商或克服阻礙的影響，以檢驗現階段旅遊業者所運用的 協商策略(降價優惠、費用分期、彈性出團時間等)是否符合個體的需求。
四、統計分析工具的使用
本研究乃參考 Raymore et al.(1991)驗證休閒阻礙階層模式的分析方法，利用二項式 考驗進行階層排列順序的檢驗。本研究在進行分析的過程中，筆者曾與該篇負責分析的 統計學者 Dr. Eye 就階層模式驗證的統計方法及其分析結果進行討論。Dr. Eye 建議未來 可嘗詴以貝式模式選定(Bayesian model selection)進行阻礙階層模式的驗證。該模式係以 在使用不同的假設下使用機率理論進行選擇(Minks, 2005)。隨著統計方法日趨成熟，阻 礙階層模式的驗證方法的選擇也趨於多元。
五、針對嬰兒潮世代進行研究
目前的中齡者多屬嬰兒潮世代，極具市場發展的潛力與機會，但在觀光休閒領域中 針對嬰兒潮世代的研究較為缺乏。因此，本研究建議後續的分析應將中高齡者分開討
論，以凸顯出嬰兒潮世代與高齡者間的差別，更有助於觀光休閒市場進行市場區隔採取 適當的應對策略。
參考文獻
內政部戶政司（2008）。各縣市人口數按性別及五歲年齡組分。線上檢索日期：2008 年 10 月 5 日。網址：http://www.ris.gov.tw/gateway/stpeqr01.cgi
內政部戶政司（2009）。現住人口數按年齡分。線上檢索日期：2009 年 8 月 9 日。網址：
http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/m1-06.xls
內政部主計處（2009）。97 年家庭收支調查結果綜合分析。線上檢索日期：2009 年 9 月 1 日。網址：http://win.dgbas.gov.tw/fies/a11.asp?year=97
內政部統計處（2005）。中華民國 94 年老人狀況調查報告。台北：內政部統計處。
王國欽、陳嘉隆、周淑惠（2002）。老年旅客旅遊行為之探討。觀光研究學報，8（12），
1-15。
甘唐沖（2005）。國民旅遊卡使用者旅遊阻礙因素之研究。高雄餐旅學報，（7），12-19。
交通部觀光局（2007）。2007 年觀光統計年報。線上檢索日期：2008 年 11 月 6 日。網 址：http://library.tbroc.gov.tw/web/pdf/20080910153525.pdf
交通部觀光局（2007）。九十六年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。線上檢索日期：2007 年 11 月 2 日。網址：http://library.tbroc.gov.tw/web/pdf/20080724102449.pdf
交通部觀光局（2009）。2008 年歷年中華民國國民出國人數統計。線上檢索日期：2009 年 7 月 2 日。網址：http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/indexc.asp
交通部觀光局（2009）。國民出國及性別分析。線上檢索日期：2009 年 7 月 23 日。網址：
http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/indexc.asp
行政院經濟建設委員會（2008）。中 華 民 國 臺 灣 97 年 至 145 年 人 口 推 計 報 告 。 線 上 檢 索 日 期 ： 2009 年 4 月 10 日 。 網址：http://www.cepd.gov.tw/
宋東（2008）。嬰兒潮世代成新金主。天下雜誌數位閱讀網。線上檢索日期：2009 年 1 月 16 日。網址：http://download.cw.com.tw/new/index.asp
李宗派（2005）。探討退休政策之國際趨勢。社區發展季刊，112，168-178。
李青松、黃鬱烝、邱瑞琳（2006）。高齡者參與國內旅遊活動之研究。中華家政學刊，
39，31-46。
林惠玲、陳正倉（2002）。應用統計學二版。台北：雙葉書廊 林震岩（2007）。多變量分析。台北市：智勝。
邱浩政（2005）。量化研究法(一)：研究設計與資料處理（初版）。台北市：雙葉。
高雄市統計資訊服務網（2008）。高雄市各區現住人口數按性別及年齡分。線上檢索日 期：2008 年 10 月 27 日。網址：http://kcgdg.kcg.gov.tw/
陳欣宏（2004）。臺中市中老年人休閒阻礙與休閒需求研究調查。未出版碩士論文，國 立體育學院，桃園縣。
陳勁甫、吳劍秋（2005）。銀髮族海外旅遊動機與市場區隔之研究。旅遊管理研究，5（1）， 1-16。
陳思倫（2006）。觀光學：從供需理論解析產業(二版)。台北縣：前程文化。
陳振聲（2003）。銀髮族自覺健康狀況與休閒阻礙關係之研究-以團體國外旅遊為例。未 出版碩士論文，國立台北護理學院，台北市。
郭婉容（2000）。個體經濟學。台北市：三民。
陳順孙（2005）。多變量分析。台北：華泰。
陳錦玉、張智凱（2007）。金門婦女休閒參與與休閒阻礙之研究。觀光研究學報，2，
1-26。
黃榮鵬、蔡憲唐（2002）。銀髮族旅遊消費行為之研究-以北高兩市老人活動中心為例。
旅遊管理研究，2（1），79-99。
楊振樺、陳光華、李佳如（2007）。以Rasch模式探討自助旅行者之海外旅遊阻礙感認 知。休閒暨觀光產業研究，2（1），1-26。
楊登雅（2003）。休閒阻礙階層模式之驗證-以 Crawford & Godbey 之休閒阻礙三因子為 例。未出版碩士論文。國立台灣師範大學。台北市。
謝春滿（2005）。熟年商機。今周刊。線上檢索日期：2008 年 12 月 1 日。網址：
http://www.businesstoday.com.tw/Index/index.aspx
龔書清（2009）。高市鹽埕區人口外移，基層促調降地價稅。壹凸新聞。線上檢索日期：
2009 年 3 月 18 日。網址：http://download.cw.com.tw/new/index.asp
Abeyratne, R. I. R. (1995). Proposals and guidelines for the carriage of elder and disabled persons by air. Journal of Travel Research, 33(3), 52-59.
Ananth, M., DeMicco, F. J., Moreo, P. J., & Howey, R. M. (1992). Marketplace lodging needs of mature travelers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33(4), 12-24.
Anderson, B. B., & Langmeyer, L. (1982). The under-50 and over-50 travelers: A profile of similarities and differences. Journal of Travel Research, 20(4), 20-24.
Blazey, M. (1987). The differences between participants and non-participants in a senior Travel Program. Journal of Travel Research, 26, 7–12.
Boothby, J., Tungatt, M. F., & Townsend, A. R. (1981). Ceasing participation in sports activity: reported reasons and their implications. Journal of Leisure Research, 13 (1), 1-14.
Capella, L. M., & Greco, A. J. (1986). Information sources of elderly for vacation decision, Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), 148-151.
Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. C. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure.
Leisure Sciences, 9, 119-127.
Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. C. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320.
Eby, D. W., & Molnar, L. J. (2001). Age-related decision factors in destination choice for united states driving tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9(1/2), 97-111.
Fleischer, A., & Pizam A. (2002). Tourism constraints among Israeli seniors. Annals of Tourism Research, 29,106–23.
Gilbert, D., & Hudson S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints－A skiing participation.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (4), 906–925.
Godbey, G. C. (1985). Non-particiption in public leisure service: A model. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 3, p.1-13
Godbey, G. C. (2003). Leisure in Your Life: An Exploration.(6nd ed.). State College, Pa.:
Venture.
Hawkins, B. A., Peng, J., Hsieh, C. M., & Eklund, S. J. (1999). Leisure constraints: A replication and extension of construct development. Leisure Sciences,21, 179-192.
Henderson, K. A. (1991). The contribution of feminism to an understanding of leisure constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 363-377.
Henderson, K., Stalnaker, D., & Taylor, G. (1988). The relationalship between barriers to recreaction and gender-role personality traits for women. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(1), 69-80.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1981). Leisure counseling at crossroads. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 71-74.
Jackson, E. L. (1991). Leisure constraints/constrained leisure: special issue introduction.
Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 279-285.
Jackson, E. L. (1993). Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: Results from alternative analyses. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), 129-149.
Jackson, E. L. (2000). Will research on leisure constraints still be relevant in the twenty-first century. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 62-68.
Jackson, E. L. (2005). Constraints to Leisure. State College, PA: Venture.
Jackson, E. L., & Dunn, E. (1988). Integrating ceasing participation with other aspects of leisure behavior. Journal of Travel Research ,20 (1),31-45
Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. C. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints.
Leisure Sciences, 15, 1-11.
Jackson, E. L., & Henderson, K. A. (1995). Gender-based analysis of leisure constraints.
Leisure Sciences, 17, 31-51.
Jackson, E. L., & Rucks, V. C. (1995). Negotiation of leisure constraints by junior high-school students: An Exploratory study. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(1), 85-105.
Jackson, E. L., & Scott, D.(1999). Constraints to leisure. In Jackson E. L., & Burton T. L., Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (p.299-321). Pennsylvania：State
College, Venture, 1999.
Jackson, E. L., & Burton, T. L. (1999). Leisure studies－Prospects for the twenty-first century (p.36). Pennsylvania：State College, Venture.
Jang, S., & Wu, C. E. (2006). Seniors’ travel motivation and the influential factors: An examination of Taiwanese seniors. Tourism Management, 27, 306-316.
Javalgi, R. G., Thomas, E. G., & Rao, S. R. (1992). Consumer behavior in the U.S. pleasure travel marketplace: An analysis of senior and nonsenior travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 31(2), 14-19.
Kay, T., & Jackson, G. (1991). Leisure despite constraint: The impact of leisure constraints on leisure participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 301-313.
Lehto, X. Y., O’Leary, J. T., & Lee, G. (2001). Mature international travelers: An examination of gender and benefits. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9(1/2), 53-72.
Lindqvist, L. J., & Björk, P. (2000). Perceived safety as an important quality dimension among senior tourists. Tourism Economics, 6(2), 151-158.
Marvel, M. (1999). Competing in hotel services for senior. Hospitality Management, 18(11), 235-243.
McGuire, F. A. (1984). A factor analytic study of leisure constraints in advanced adulthood.
Leisure Sciences, 6: 313-326.
Milman, A. (1998). The impact of tourism and travel experience on senior travels’
psychological welling-being. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 166-170.
Minka, T. P. (2005). Bayesian model seletion.Retrieved August 28, 2009, from the World Wide Wed: http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~tpminka/statlearn/demo/
McLean, D. D., Hurd, A. R., & Rogers, N. B. (2008). Recreation and leisure in modern society. (8 nd.ed.). Canada : Jones and Bartlett.
Nyaupane, G. P., & Andereck, K. (2007). Understanding travel constraints: Application and extension of leisure constraints model. Journal of Travel Research, 46 (4), 433-439.
Pennington-Gray, L. A., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2002). Testing the constraints model within the context of nature-based tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 40 (3): 416–23.
Raymore, L., Godbey, G. C., Crawford, D. W., & Von Eye, A. (1993). Nature and process of leisure constraints: an empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15, 99-113.
Reece, W. S. (2004). Are senior leisure travelers different? Jounal of Travel Research, 43(1), 11-18.
Romsa, G., & Hoffman, W. (1980). An application of nonparticipation data in recreation:
testing the opportunity theory. Journal of Leisure Research, 12(4), 321-328 Rosenfeld, J. P. (1986). Demographics on Vacation. American Demographics, 8,38-41.
Ross, K. (2003). Booming Markerplace: 13 Truths about Baby Boomer Travel. Travel Marketing decisions. Retrieved December 1, 2008 from the World Wide Wed:
http://www.atme.org/pubs/archives/77_253_1108.CFM
Scott, D. (1991). The problematic nature of participation in contract bridge: A qualitative study of group-related constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 321-336.
Shoemaker, S. (1989). Segmentation of the senior pleasure travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 27(3), 14-21.
Shoemaker, S. (2000). Segmenting the mature market: 10 years later. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 11-26.
Tse, S. M. (2006). Crisis management in tourism. In Buhalis. D. & Carlos C.(Eds). Tourism management dynamics-trends, management and tools (p.28-38). Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Uysal, M., & Zimmerer P. (1990). Marketing resorts to the “gray” traveler. Leisure Information Quarterly, 16(1), 4-7.
Williams, J. A. (2001). A current perspective of the growing emphasis on the mature market in the healthcare segment by managed service companies. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing , 9(1/2) , 153-164 .
You, X., & O’Leary, J. T. (2000). Age and cohort effect: An examination of older Japanese travelers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(1/2), 21-42.
敬啟者，您好:
題號 項 目
8.過去您出國旅遊資訊的來源有哪些? (可複選)
附錄二 休閒阻礙階層模式驗證方法建議資料
RE：A mail come from Taiwan--Sylvia (June 27th ) 寄件者：voneye" <[email protected]>
收件者：[email protected] Dear Sylvia:
Sorry for responding so slowly, but it took me a while to understand what happened.
Here is what I think: your observation is right. The analyses are incomplete. They are correct, but not all comparisons have been performed that could have been performed.
This article was written 17 years ago. I don’t have the data available any more. Still, going over the article and the tests reported there, I think that, now, I would do the statistical analyses differently. There have been interesting methodological developments. In this context, I recommend considering methods of Bayesian model selection. These hypotheses allow one to test the sequence of constraints in a series of tests, each refining the ones performed before. Authors that have written about this include, for example, Hoijtink, Klugkist, and Laudy (I think they live in the Netherlands). These authors have also published computer programs that allow one to perform such tests. (I have not tried out these programs but I assume they work well). I hope this helps.
Thank you for reading this article so carefully.
Alex
Alexander von Eye
Michigan State University Department of Psychology 316 Psychology Building East Lansing, MI 48824-1116 USA
Phone: (517) 355 3408 Fax: (517) 432 2476
e-mail: [email protected]
From: [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 12:13 PM To: Alex Von Eye
Subject: A mail come from Taiwan--Sylvia (June 27th )
Dear Dr. Eye : June 27th I am a graduate student at Graduate institute of Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Leisure Studies, National University of Kaohsiung in Taiwan .
My master thesis is about the hierarchical model of overseas travel constraints for the middle age (45+). I read the paper “ Nature and process of leisure constraints: an empirical
test ” from you and Dr. Raymore, Dr. Godbey and Dr. Crawford (published in Leisure Sciences, 15, 99-113 on 1993). I got some valuable view and interest about hierarchical model of leisure constraints through this paper.
However, there are two questions on this paper that I didn’t understand very well, would you mind solving those questions for me? Because Dr. Godbey told me that you were the hierarchical model.
FIRST QUESTION:
On your research, “A binomial test was carried out to determine the probability of subjects going against the predicted hierarchical model as established.” A formula be used, and on the formula the p equals the probability each comparison has of going against the hierarchical model. But why “p” is not equals the counter-probability or the probability that a comparison confirms the hierarchical model?
SECOND QUESTION:
On the final step, there are four class be determined to exist that support the notion of a hierarchy of constraints. Class 1 (n=138),Class 2 (n=84),Class3 (n=38)and Class 4 (n=49), the four possible classes be compared with each other, which created six comparisons; Class 1 vs.
Class 2, Class 1 vs. Class 3, Class 1 vs. Class 4 , Class 2 vs. Class 3, Class 2 vs. Class 4, and Class 3 vs. Class4.
The binomial test resulted in a probability of .19, therefore, the comparisons supported the predicted hierarchical model.
Compare of classes result Value of binomial test Class1> Class2 Class1> Class2
.109 Class1> Class3 Class1> Class3
Class2> Class3 Class2> Class3 Class1> Class4 Class1> Class4 Class2> Class4 Class2> Class4 Class3> Class4 Class3< Class4
Foundation of the Class1> Class2, Class3 and Class2> Class3, it appears that this hierarchical process, from intrapersonal constraints to interpersonal constraints to structural constraints. Furthermore, I still didn’t understand the result of the only violation of the hierarchical model occurred with “H3<H4” very well. So please to solve those questions
Foundation of the Class1> Class2, Class3 and Class2> Class3, it appears that this hierarchical process, from intrapersonal constraints to interpersonal constraints to structural constraints. Furthermore, I still didn’t understand the result of the only violation of the hierarchical model occurred with “H3<H4” very well. So please to solve those questions