从人类旅游干扰与生态系统响应互作的双重视角，选择保护区3个核心景区的不同植被类型。在初春植物萌芽敏感期（旅游“五一”黄金周期间），分别进行0～500次的践踏处理，并在2周、3个月后跟踪调查植被与土壤的响应情况。研究结果表明：①旅游践踏强度与植物生长负效应呈显著相关，各种类型植被都表现为高度降低，盖度下降，种群发生变异，土壤硬度增加等负面效应，即使经过2周和3个月恢复，践踏对植被生长负面影响并没有消失，仍在持续；②不同植被类型对人类旅游践踏干扰响应差别较大。小南川景区对旅游践踏响应最大，梁殿峡次之，野荷谷最小；③结合旅游者对景区土壤裸露度的可接受改变限度（Limits of Acceptable Change，LAC）测定，小南川景区在处理前后，均超过了LAC阈值；梁殿峡景区仅在500次践踏强度处理下，2周后LAC超过阈值，3个月后。恢复到LAC阈值以内；野河谷景区在75～500次践踏处理后，2周内都超过LAC阈值，3个月后250次和500次处理仍超过阈值水平。可见，瞬间饱和践踏很容易对植被带来重大破坏，这些后续变化已影响到旅游者游憩体验。3种地表植被类型中，除野荷谷景区外，小南川和梁殿峡景区植被长期管理问题十分突出。因此，在目前保护区缺乏系统规划建设前提下，采取相关措施已十分必要。
从生态系统响应和游客主观认知的双重视角，对六盘山旅游区旅游步道对人类旅游践踏干扰的响应进行了研究。结果表明：①自然状态下旅游践踏干扰主要集中在旅游步道边缘1—3m范围内，但不同生态系统差异较大。在调查的3个景区中，小南川景区乔灌草生态统主要集中在旅游步道1m左右；凉殿峡景区高山草甸生态系统集中在1—2m之间；野荷谷景区华北落叶松林下生态系统则达到3m左右；②采用地表覆盖物响应指数（Index of Land Cover Impact，IL-CI）和游客可接受改变限度（Limits of Acceptable Change，LAC）来衡量受干扰旅游步道响应程度，在1m范围内各调查样区ILCI均达到4级或5级严重冲击程度；1—2m间以凉殿峡景区ILCI值较高（39％），介于1—2级之间，而小南川与野荷谷景区儿口值属1级轻微影响；3m及以外三者影响基本较小。游客对游道沿线土壤裸露度可接受改变限度为55．7％，3个调查样区1m范围内植被覆盖减少率（CR）均超过此水平；③调查样区旅游步道响应强弱与游道坡度、边坡坡度以及游道宽度具有一定相关性；④地表覆盖物响应指数因与其它各响应变量间显著相关，可作为评估旅游干扰系统响应的一项简易而有效的指标。研究结果也表明，目前旅游践踏干扰已对游道沿线环境以及游客游憩体验产生了一定的负面影响。因此，改变目前景区开发无序状态，加强旅游步道规划设计和游客行为规范，建立长期环境监测系统，将对制定防治游憩冲击策略，促进六盘山生态旅游区可持续发展具有重要指导价值。
Evaluation of regional tourism competitiveness has been a hot issue of tourism geography and regional economics in recent years. This study introduces system theory and Professor Porter's National Diamond Model into constructing the evaluation index system of regional tourism competitiveness, which includes four decisive factors, namely production factor, market, industry and support competitiveness. And by comprehensive use of subjective and objective methods like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Analysis Hierarchy Process (AHP) the appraised values were calculated. At the same time, the method was applied to dynamic demonstration analysis of the tourism competitiveness of the provinces in Southwest China from 2001 to 2005. The result shows that their tourism comprehensive competitiveness has distinct differences. The comprehensive competitiveness of Sichuan and Yunnan are better, Chongqing and Guangxi are in the middle, and Guizhou and Tibet are weak. According to the competitiveness ranks in 2001-2005, comprehensive, production factor, industry and support competitiveness changed a little and market competitiveness changed a lot. This competitive pattern has been made mostly because natural resource conditions and economic development levels of the provinces are very different and are difficult to be changed in a short period.
