自助游中英文外文文献翻译2017

本科毕业设计（论文）
中英文对照翻译
(此文档为word格式,下载后您可任意修改编辑!)
原文The Serendipity Finding and Independent Travel
Norman W, Hallo J
Abstract
The independent travel market is not homogeneous. As smart phones and mobile navigation devices became ubiquitous, independent travelers are now allowed to explore the destination without making detailed plans. The purpose of this study is to explore tourists' preferences for the level of structure vs. serendipity in their travel experience, and investigate how different styles of independent travel relate to other tourist behavior.
Findings showed that independent travelers, overall, had a higher preference for serendipity than following a structured itinerary. Respondents who were more ‘serendipitous’ participated in more activities, particularly sightseeing and outdoor sports, while those who preferred ‘structured’ travel took part in fewer activities, in spite of their planning. As predicted, the ‘structured’ respondents spent more time on travel planning and were more likely to look for specific information, such as price and location. The ‘serendipitous’ respondents, however, did not wander without knowledge. Searching for more general information about the area, they in fact used more information sources than those who preferred ‘structured’ travel. Keywords: serendipity, independent travel, travel planning, information search Introduction Within tourism research, numerous typologies have emerged to classify tourists according to their travel behaviour, preference, and experiences (Uriely 2005) One fundamental distinction is the difference between tour groups and independent travellers (Madriga11995). In the past, joining package tours generally require less individual preparation, while independent travellers must engage in some level of planning and information search prior to their journey. The growing popularity of smartphones and mobile navigation devices, however, has increased the potential of personalized travel (Tumas and Ricci 2009). Independent travellers are now free to wander off and explore the destination with minimal planning and more
spontaneity. The independent travel market can be further segmented into different groups, such as backpackers (e.g., Larsen 2011; O'Reilly 2006), bicycle tourism (e.g., Lamont 2009; Ritchie 1998), and self-drive tourism (e.g., Lane and Waitt 2007; Prideaux and Carson 2003). In addition to their choice of transportation and accommodation, independent travellers may also differ in the amount of structure and planning in their trips. While some like to check reviews and make reservations beforehand, others may prefer to discover hidden local gems and be surprised. This study is the first attempt to examine the concept of 'serendipity' as a travel style. The measurement for this new pattern of travel was developed based on the different activity styles of independent pleasure travellers by McKercher et al. (2006). Although it is labeled as'style ofindependent travel' (SIT) with two dimensions: structure and serendipity, travel style is a broad concept consisting of one's travel budget, choice of transportation, special interest activities, ypes of experience sought, and more. While previous typologies have identified other aspects of travel style, it is argued that mobile technology and increased global connectivity have made it easier for people to travel on the spur of the moment. Along with new technologies and social changes, tourists have also become more mature and experienced as they evolve into a 'new' style of tourists, who are more autonomous, flexible, environmentally sensitive, and enjoy the state of being a tourist rather than making a checklist of attractions to
visit (Stanciulescu et al. 2011). Therefore, it is necessary to investigate independent travellers' preference for structured or serendipitous experiences so as to better understand the complexity of independent travel and provide appropriate information to different types of tourists in this new era. Literature Review
Novelty and Independent Travel People of different personalities make different choices when it comes to travel. Plog (1974) first proposed that traveler personality fell on a spectrum from allocentrism to psychocentrism. Being more confident and curious, allocentric personalities were more likely to choose exotic locations and independent travel. On the contrary, psychocentric travellers were more insecure, and would prefer to visit familiar destinations and join packaged tours (Plog 1991). Building on Plog's allocentrism-psychocentrism continuum, Madrigal (1995) considered travel style as one type of travel behaviour with two main categories: group tour and independent travel. Becken (2003) further categorized the tourists in New Zealand into six clusters: coach tourists, visiting friends and relatives tourists (VFR), auto tourists, backpackers, campers, comfort travellers. Although auto tourists, backpackers, campers, and VFR tourists were generally considered independent travellers, they displayed a range of different characteristics within independent travel. The allocentrism psychocentrism continuum initially depicts the contrast between mass group tourists and independent
travellers, but both travel styles could be further examined under the same continuum. Novelty has been identified as one of the main motivations for travel (Crompton 1979; Lee and Crompton 1992; Snepenger 1987). Basala and Klenosky (2001) developed a novelty-familiarity continuumto classify different travel styles, including novelty seekers, familiarity seekers, and the group in between- average travellers. Weaver et al. (2009) also used 'novelty' to segment tourists into three groups: 'thrill seekers,' 'change seekers,' and 'homebodies' who were not seeking anything but trying to escape boredom. Their findings indicated that 'change seekers' were more likely to choose fully-packaged tours while 'thrill seekers' would rather buy partially-packaged tours, and their preferences would vary based on the destination.
Discussion
The two dimension of SIT also illustrated the difference between general and specific travel information. When asked about the type of travel information one would search for through the Internet, people who were more serendipitous would look for more general information about the area, while structured independent travellers would focus on detailed information related to price, addresses and phones numbers, and on-line reservations. Even though serendipitous travellers spent less time on travel planning than structured travellers, it should be noted that both types went through the anticipation stage of travel (Oawson and Knetsch
1966). For those who preferred more structure in their trips, the longer planning time might signify a higher level of anticipation, as they mapped out their itinerary and imagined what they would see and taste. Serendipitous travellers, on the other hand, searched for general maps and images of the area, so they still had some pre-trip expectations. As opposed to iconic attractions and signature dishes, perhaps what they looked forward to the most was to be surprised. Hyde and Lawson found that some independent travellers purposely did not read up on the destination so as not to be 'disappointed' (2003: 19). The expectancy disconfirmation model of customer satisfaction stressed the importance of expectation as a point of reference for service quality and satisfaction (Oliver 1980). Therefore, it would be interesting to further explore how structure and serendipity may relate to different levels of pre-trip expectations, which in turn may affect travel experience and satisfaction.
译文意外的发现之旅与自助游
作者：诺曼；哈洛
摘要目前的自助旅游市场发展的并不是很完善。

但是随着智能手机和移动导航设备的普遍使用，自助游旅客现在可以在没有制定详细计划的情况下就可以探索目的地。

本研究的目的是探索传统旅游方式的游客和自助游游客的旅行方式的偏好有什么区别，并研究不同风格的自助旅游与其他旅游方式的不同。

研究结果表明，总的来说，自助
游旅客有一个更高的自主安排旅游活动的偏好，而不是遵循一个结构化的设定好的旅游行程。

这些自助游者比较偏向于参与更多的活动，尤其是旅游和户外运动，而那些喜欢“结构化”旅游方式的游客则较少参加活动，他们都是根据旅行社等的安排进行旅游，尽管他们有活动计划。

正如预测的那样,“结构化”旅游者花更多的时间在旅游规划和寻找特定信息上，如：景点的价格和位置。

然而，那些自助游者没有固定的模式，不会特意搜寻信息，相比于那些喜欢“结构化”旅行的游客，在旅游过程中，他们实际上使用了更多来源的信息。

关键词:意外旅程、自助旅游、旅游规划、信息搜索引言在关于旅游的研究中，专家学者们根据游客的旅游行为、偏好和经验，将旅游方式划分为众多类型，其中，一个最基本的分类就是旅游团和自主旅行者。

在过去，通过加入旅行团来旅游，一般不需要准备什么，而自助游旅行者在开始他们的旅程之前，则必须进行一定程度的规划和信息搜索。

随着智能手机和移动导航设备的日益流行，为自助游旅客带来了极大的便利，以及增加了旅游的个性化魅力(托马斯和里奇，2009)。

自助游旅行者现在可以以最小的计划来自由地探索目的地，并且伴随着更多的自主性。

自助游旅游市场可以进一步划分为不同的群体，如背包客(拉森2011; 赖利2006)、自行车旅游(拉蒙特2009;里奇1998)和自驾车旅游(莱茵和韦特2007;普利多和卡森2003)。

除了他们选择的交通工具和住宿，自助游旅行者可以以不同的方式来计划他们的旅行。

这项研究是第一次尝试将“意外的旅程”概念也作为一种旅游方式。

对这一旅行模式是基于自助游的范畴，也属于自助游旅游方式的一种。

虽然它属于自助旅游，但其旅行风格是一个广泛的概念，包括一个人的旅行预算，选择的交通工具，特殊利益的活动，寻求的体验等。

以前对旅游类型的划分已经确定了其他旅游方式的旅游风格，但是移动技术的发展和智能手机的普及，增加了全球的连通性，使人们的旅行变得更容易。

随着新技术的使用和社会变的游客也变得更加成熟，并且逐渐演变成一个“新的自助游”游客，他们的旅游风格变得更自主、灵活、根据自己的意愿安排参观旅游景点，而不是做一个旅游规划清单。

因此，有必要探讨自助游旅行者的偏爱问题或其以外旅程的旅游体验，以便更好地理解复杂的自助游旅行活动以及为新时代下不同类型的游客提供适当的信息。

文献综述
不同性格的自助游旅行者当进行旅游时，通常会做出不同的选择。

帕洛格(1974)首次提出，如果旅行者性格比较好奇，也比较有自主独立性，那么他们就更有信心来自我安排旅游行程，他们都比较倾向于选择异国情调的旅游目的地并进行独立的旅行。

相反，那些比较敏感的旅行者更缺乏安全感，宁愿去自己熟悉的目的地，或者加入背包旅游(帕洛格1991)。

基于帕洛格的理论上，马德里加尔(1995)认为旅游方式的风格有两个主要类别:团体旅游和自助旅游。

贝肯(2003)进一步把新西兰的游客分为六类:教练游客、拜朋友和亲戚的旅游游客、自驾游旅客、背包客、露营者、休闲旅游旅客。

虽然汽车自驾游游客、背包客、露营者通常被认为是独立的自助游旅行者，但是他们也有一系列不同的特点。

最初的意外旅程式的自助游旅，旅游团游客和自助游旅行者，这两种旅行方式的旅游，游客的旅游动机不同(克朗普顿
1979;李和克朗普顿1992;)。

巴萨和科诺斯基(2001)开发了一种新奇的旅行方式。

韦弗等2009年也使用了“新奇”一词，他们将部分游客分成三组:“寻求刺激者”,“改变者,”和“恋家”。

他们的研究结果表明,“改变者”更有可能选择完全背包式的旅游，而“寻求刺激”偏向于部分背包旅游方式，并且他们的偏好根据各自的旅目的地不同额有所变化。

讨论这种意外旅程式的自助游旅游可通过二个维度来进行阐述，即通用的和特定的旅游信息的区别。

这种新的自助游旅客在被问及怎么获得旅游信息时，他们说主要是通过互联网搜索，他们会倾向于对自己想去的旅游目的地的一般信息进行寻找；而结构化的自助游旅行者将专注于与旅游过程中价格相关的详细信息，地址和电话号码以及在线预订住宿。

即使相比于结构化旅行者的旅行计划，这些旅客花费更少的时间，但应该注意的是，这两种类型的自助游旅客都会在出发前，做好前期的准备工作。

对于那些更喜欢结构化旅游方式的游客来说，计划时间越长可能意味着其对旅游的预期更高，为自己规划行程时，会想象他们会看到什么，吃到什么。

而意外旅程式自助游旅行者，他们也会做一些简单的出发前准备工作，寻找一般的信息，所以他们仍然有一定的旅游预期。

标志性的景点和招牌菜，也许是他们最期待的。

海德和罗森发现一些独立旅行者故意不去了解所要去的旅游目的地，以免会“失望”。

客户满意度的期望模型强调了游客预期作为服务质量和满意度的参考点的重要性。

文献出处：Norman W, Hallo J , et al. Serendipity and Independent Travel [J]. Tourism Recreation Research, 2017, 1(2): 169-183.。