How Tourism Industry Development Affects Residents’ Well-Being: An Empirical Study Based on CGSS and Provincial-Level Matched Data

Abstract

Happiness is not only for the pursuit of individuals but also the common goal of society as a whole. The tourism industry can promote social well-being by stimulating consumption, narrowing the income gap and improving infrastructure. However, overemphasizing the economic benefits of tourism industry development will produce a series of social problems, including environmental damage, forced consumption, and vicious price hikes. When the negative impact of industry development exceeds the positive impact of economic benefits, the happiness enhancement effect of tourism will decline significantly, resulting in the “well-being paradox” of tourism. Based on Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) data and provincial-level matched data, this study finds that the development of China’s tourism industry has a negative impact on residents’ well-being; however, there is a masking effect that disguises the actual income gap among residents. Tourism industry development can reduce the negative effect on residents’ well-being by narrowing the income gap. At the same time, the empirical results show that gender can significantly moderate the masking effect and that this income gap effect impacts women less than men.

1. Introduction

Since antiquity, people have pursued greater well-being. In antiquity, traditional Chinese culture defined well-being on multiple levels, including not only earthly well-being with food and sex but also the aesthetic pleasure of being in harmony with nature, heaven and earth, as well as the altruistic pleasure of serving society and contributing to the country. Thus, Chinese people maintained a positive and optimistic attitude [1]. In the new democratic society, well-being is not only a personal pursuit but also the mission of the party and the state. The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that “the main contradiction in our society has been transformed into the contradiction between people’s growing needs for a better life and unbalanced, insufficient development”. At this stage, the pursuit of well-being has become the common goal of society as a whole [2].

The idea that “tourism makes life happier” has become the mission and industrial direction of tourism. In addition, people believe that tourism is an effective way to achieve well-being [3]. In 2016, the policy document “Opinions on Further Expanding Consumption in the Fields of Tourism, Culture, Sports, Health and Elderly Care, Education and Training” issued by the state clearly stated that it is necessary to comprehensively promote the “five well-being industries” composed of tourism, culture, sports, health and elderly care and improve residents’ well-being, including their growing needs, while promoting the rapid political and economic development of the country. The fact that the tourism industry is listed as the first of the “five well-being industries” highlights the full affirmation of the party and the government that the tourism industry meets people’s needs for a better life, and the promulgation of a series of policies has laid the foundation for the high-quality, advanced and efficient development of the tourism industry. In 2019, the annual total of domestic tourists reached 6.006 billion, and the foreign exchange income from foreign tourism reached 131,254 million USD. At the beginning of 2020, under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the tourism industry initially suffered a heavy blow. However, with the improvement of the pandemic situation, the tourism industry has recovered significantly. Tourism has become an inseparable activity from the pursuit of happiness in life. It is not only the result of satisfying lifestyles but also the product of the pursuit of well-being. In practice, however, tourism development often aims to maximize economic benefits, gradually pushing the industry into the pursuit of economic scale and efficiency. Tourism, as a tool to promote economic development and stimulate domestic demand, brings about the destruction of authenticity caused by unreasonable and excessive commercialization of tourist attractions. The commercial characteristics of scenic spots determine that the economic benefits of scenic spots are greater than the social benefits in the actual operation, and there may be a rush to pursue short-term economic benefits in the operation. This departures from the goal of improving well-being and quietly alienating tourism from its core mission. The “well-being paradox”, also known as “the puzzle of well-being income”, was proposed by Richard Easterlin, an American economist and professor. When economists explore the “well-being paradox” and “inhibition”, they mainly start from two aspects. The first is individual characteristics [4,5,6], including gender, age, health, education and marital status; the second is the environment at large [7,8,9], including the economic environment, political environment and ecological environment. Most studies believe that income inequality is the main factor affecting residents’ well-being. Similarly, there is a paradox of well-being in tourism development—a more innovative and professional tourism infrastructure in a given location has not achieved greater well-being for residents [10]. The objects of the well-being paradox in tourism mainly include tourists and the residents of tourism destinations. The analysis of well-being focuses on subjective and psychological well-being, and it considers the impact of tourism activities on tourists’ well-being and the impact of tourism industry development and destination real estate industry agglomeration on tourism destination residents. Tourism has gradually evolved from an activity aimed at meeting the needs of tourists to an industry pursuing economic scale and efficiency. Will alienation from the core goal of well-being weaken tourism’s role in promoting resident well-being? This study combines individual data from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and provincial data to investigate the relationship between and impact of tourism industry development and resident well-being and to provide empirical support for formulating tourism development policies and improving the national well-being index.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Literature Review

The field of philosophy was the first to discuss well-being. Philosophers believe that well-being is a practical activity of the soul in line with virtue. As psychology has begun to pay attention to the study of well-being, the concept and measurable indicators of well-being are becoming clearer. According to cognitive characteristics, happiness can be divided into objective and subjective well-being. Objective well-being defines happiness mainly by external criteria, while subjective well-being is an overall emotional and cognitive evaluation of people’s quality of life. As subjective well-being is easily measurable, individually subjective and relatively stable, academics have mostly used the subjective well-being of individuals to measure happiness. When economics, sociology and other disciplines began to conduct research on well-being, the field gradually expanded, and research on the influencing factors of well-being became more comprehensive. The influencing factors of well-being have been analyzed from the perspective of individual characteristics and social characteristics.

Individual characteristics include gender, age, marital status, health status, political outlook and religious beliefs. The first and most influential factors are gender and age. The empirical results of some literature shows that women’s well-being is higher than men’s [11,12,13,14] and that the relationship between age and well-being shows a U-shaped curve [15]. Middle-aged people aged 30-50 have the lowest level of well-being [16]. The second most influential factors are from the family environment. It is generally accepted in China that the impact of the family environment on personal growth is particularly important; that is, students from a high-income background have higher subjective well-being than those from a low-income background [17]. Third, health status is significant as an indicator of well-being. Most studies have confirmed that good health has a significant positive impact on an individual’s subjective well-being. That is, people with a healthier self-evaluation have a higher sense of well-being, and illness will reduce the subjective sense of well-being [18]. Fourth, marital status is also significant to well-being. A stable marriage has a positive impact on well-being. The well-being of individuals in single, divorced, cohabitating and other states is lower than that of married couples. At the same time, well-being reacts to changes in marital status [19]. Fifth, political outlook and religious beliefs play a significant role in well-being. In China, party membership is an invisible label with an excellent ability to promote individual well-being through psychological support, increased social capital and improved income levels [20].

The environmental perspective of social characteristics affecting well-being mainly focuses on the economy, politics and society. Early economists believed that economic growth improves well-being. Based on relevant data from developed and developing countries, scholars have confirmed that growth in income level significantly improves an individual’s well-being regardless of whether the country is classified as rich or poor [21,22,23]. However, on the other hand, there are also divergent arguments, the most representative of which is the “happiness paradox” proposed by Richard Easterlin, an American economist, who believes that national economic development will not bring about the improvement of national subjective well-being [24]. With the gradual deepening of the field, domestic research in China continues to emerge to verify whether there is a significant “well-being paradox” in the country. Chen (2013) used CGSS (2006) data to demonstrate a significant negative relationship between economic growth and residents’ well-being [23]. However, some scholars have shown instead that economic growth can have a positive effect on well-being. Xiong (2012) analyzed well-being data covering a 10-year period and proposed that the well-being of Chinese residents has been on the rise and that economic development is the driving force behind the increase [25]. The long-term relationship between economic growth and residents’ well-being needs further verification. The income gap will also have an impact on residents’ well-being. Existing research mainly conducts analysis based on three aspects, i.e., relative deprivation, opportunity inequality and inequality perception, and confirms that there is a significant negative correlation between the income gap and well-being [26,27,28]. However, some scholars have proposed that the income gap has an incentivizing nature that can enhance residents’ well-being. The cognitive “positive tunneling effect” will make high-income people play an exemplary role in the future expectations of better income among low-income people. However, when the income gap exceeds a certain range, there will be a “negative tunneling effect” in which the incentive will turn into disappointment, and people’s well-being will decline [29]. According to the review of the literature on the influencing factors of well-being, individual well-being is highly related to economic, social and individual characteristics. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the influencing factors comprehensively across levels.

Can tourism bring well-being to people? A topic of much research on tourism is the extent to which tourism can bring well-being to people. As a leisure activity, tourism is characterized by its holistic effects on the individual and his or her consciousness, which coincide with the self-initiated subjectivity of the pursuit of well-being. Through the existing literature, scholars mainly discuss tourism and happiness from two aspects: one is tourists’ happiness, analyzing whether tourism activities can improve tourists’ happiness [30] and studying its influencing factors [31]. The second is to explore the interaction between tourism industry development and local residents’ well-being from the perspective of tourism destination residents’ well-being [32]. However, various social problems have resulted from the overemphasis on the economic benefits brought by tourism development. During the development of the tourism industry, this phenomenon is considered to be a deviation between the instrumental logic of pursuing the maximization of economic benefits and the ethics-based logic of better satisfying residents’ well-being, resulting in the “well-being paradox”. The focus on the economic benefits of the tourism industry ignores the social attributes of the pursuit of well-being in the essence of tourism. In the past, research on tourism well-being mainly focused on tourists and the residents of tourism destinations. Research is lacking on residents’ overall well-being from the perspective of tourism industry development, combining macroeconomic development with individual characteristics. Therefore, this study mainly analyzes the relationship between macro tourism industry development and micro assessments of well-being in China. Starting from the essence of tourism, it analyzes the problems in the development of the tourism industry. Does the phenomenon of tourism alienation in the process of tourism industry development in China lead to a negative correlation between tourism industry development and residents’ well-being?

2.2. Research Hypotheses

Too much emphasis on the economic benefits brought by tourism development has led to various social problems, which deviates from the ethical logic of better satisfying residents’ well-being, resulting in the “well-being paradox”. The focus on the economic benefits of the tourism industry ignores the social attributes of the pursuit of well-being in the essence of tourism. Zhu and Cao (2021) analyzed the high pursuit of quantity and efficiency in tourism industry development from the perspective of semiotics, and the “McDonaldization” of tourism resources broke the relationship between tourism industry development and the improvement in local living standards, thus reducing the well-being of residents [10].

A series of social problems has emerged in the wake of economically driven development of the tourism industry. The first is the destruction of the natural environment, resulting in the consumption and destruction of resources, environmental pollution and the transformation of traditional culture in the process of tourism development. Especially in the construction of rural tourism, newly designed tourism facilities are not designed to handle the garbage and wastewater brought by the influx of a large number of tourists, resulting in serious degradation of the rural environment and overuse of resources. Second, tourism industry development interferes with the lives of residents in tourist destinations. When the number of tourists in the peak tourism season exceeds carrying capacity of the tourism destination, the living space for the destination residents is squeezed so that most residents do not profit from the tourism industry, which has a significant negative impact on their well-being. Third, the simplification of tourism products reduces the marketable sense of experience. The phenomenon of blindly following trends in tourism development cannot meet the diverse needs of tourists and decreases their well-being. It can be concluded that for the purpose of economic development, the tourism industry inevitably leads to a series of instantiations of social alienation. When the negative impact of social problems is greater than the positive impact of economic benefits, it may reduce residents’ well-being. Accordingly, this paper proposes Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 1.

Tourism industry development has a negative impact on residents’ well-being. The higher the development level of the tourism industry is, the lower the well-being of residents.

The income gap is an important factor affecting well-being. A reasonable income gap can generate positive income expectations, encourage people to be more optimistic about their opportunities for promotion and life, and thus improve their sense of well-being. This is known as the “positive tunneling effect”. It is similar to being stuck in a tunnel. When people find that the vehicles next to them are moving, they will expect the vehicles in their own lane to also move, generating positive psychological expectations and an increase in hope. However, if the income gap continues to expand, optimistic expectations will disappear, which will reduce residents’ subjective well-being [33]. Therefore, narrowing the income gap is conducive to stimulating residents’ enthusiasm for life and production, which in turn will improve their sense of well-being.

The economic benefits of tourism industry development are reflected in increases in the income level of residents and the employment rate. By narrowing the income gap, industrial development assists with improving well-being. First, tourism drives the common development of related industries, providing jobs in catering, entertainment, aviation and other industries, thus increasing residents’ income [34]. Both tourism practitioners and residents can obtain economic benefits from tourism development and improve their income level and well-being. Second, the development of China’s tourism industry has significantly reduced the urban–rural income gap through the positive external economic effects released in the process of industrial agglomeration [35]. In short, the growth of the tourism economy will improve the income level of residents, narrow the income gap, and thus affect the subjective well-being of residents.

Through the combination of provincial data and individual data, this study tests the mediating effect of residents’ income gap and analyzes how the income gap affects the relationship between tourism industry development and residents’ well-being. Accordingly, this paper proposes Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2.

The development of the tourism industry improves well-being by narrowing the income gap; that is, the income gap plays an intermediary role in the impact of tourism industry development on well-being.

3. Research Design

3.1. Data and Variables

In the method adopted by this study, data on individuals are nested in provincial-level data. The individual data are from the CGSS database and are from 2010 to 2013, 2015 and 2017. The survey was conducted by the Department of Sociology of Renmin University of China and the Department of Social Sciences of the Hong Kong University of science and technology. The method of multi-stage stratified probability sampling was adopted. The survey content includes subjective well-being, personal and family basic information and so on. The provincial data are from the China Statistical Yearbook. After data cleaning, the sample size was 64,156.

The explained variable is residents’ well-being, which is selected from an item in the questionnaire: “in general, do you think your life is happy?” For this item, the five response options are very unhappy, unhappy, neutral, happy and very happy, which are assigned values of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.

The core explanatory variable is the development of the tourism industry. Considering whether the data collection is effective, whether there are a large number of deficiencies and other factors, and combining with previous studies, the annual total income of domestic and foreign tourism at the provincial level is taken as an alternative indicator for the development of the tourism industry. The total tourism income of a country or region is composed of international tourism foreign exchange income generated by inbound tourists and domestic tourism income generated by domestic tourists, which can comprehensively represent the level of regional tourism development.

The mediator is the income gap. This study uses the Gini coefficient to measure the income gap. Methodologically, the Gini coefficient is used to measure the average degree of income distribution based on the Lorenz curve. It is expressed as the percentage of all residents’ income used in an uneven distribution. The value of the Gini coefficient is between 0 and 1. The closer the value is to 1, the greater the Gini coefficient, that is, the greater the income gap. In this study, the Gini coefficient of each province is calculated based on the total number of households and the total annual income of households. When investigating the total annual income of a family, the questionnaire asks, “What was your total income for the whole year last year?” In addition, invalid values such as “do not know”, “not applicable” and “annual total income of individuals is higher than millions” are set as missing values.

The control variables are other variables that may affect well-being, mainly including two general aspects: the individual level and the social cognitive level. The individual level includes age, gender, marital status, educational level, health status, political outlook and religious beliefs; social cognition includes judgments of social equity, social trust and social hierarchy. The measurement methods and descriptive statistics of all variables are shown in

Table 1. Variable measurement and descriptive statistics.

	Variable Measurement	Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Residents’ Well-Being	Very unhappy, unhappy, neutral, happy and very happy, with values of 1–5, respectively	3.82	\	1	5
Tourism Industry Development	Logarithm of total domestic and foreign tourism revenue	1.41	0.57	0.12	2.56
Income Gap	Gini coefficient	0.85	0.1	0.63	0.92
Gender	1 for male and 0 for female	0.48	0.49	0	1
Age	Natural logarithm of age	3.83	0.37	2.83	4.63
Marital Status	1 for married and 0 for others	0.78	0.41	0	1
Educational Level	Primary school and below, junior high school, vocational high school/ordinary high school/technical secondary school/technical school, junior college, undergraduate and above, with values of 1–5, respectively	2.24	1.25	1	5
Health Status	The value is 1–5, and the higher the value is, the healthier the individual	3.52	1.12	1	5
Political Outlook	1 for Chinese Communist Party members and 0 for others	0.11	0.32	0	1
Religious Beliefs	1 for religious belief and 0 for no religious belief	0.12	0.32	0	1
Social Equity	Very unfair, unfair, neutral, fair and very fair, with values of 1–5, respectively	3.07	1.06	1	5
Social Trust	Very distrust, distrust, neutral, trust and very trust, with values of 1–5, respectively	3.44	1.03	1	5
Social Hierarchy	Grades of 1 to 10 from low to high	4.19	1.71	1	10

.

3.2. Model Setting

This study first verifies whether the positive impact of tourism industry development on residents’ well-being is significant, and it analyzes the relationship between residents’ income gap and well-being. After studying the mediating effect of the income gap on the relationship between tourism industry development and residents’ well-being, this study discusses the impact of differences in residents’ identity on the relationship between residents’ income gap and well-being. As the explained variable, i.e., residents’ well-being, is an ordered classification variable and the explanatory variable, i.e., tourism industry development, is a continuous variable, ordered logit regression analysis is used in the main effect regression.

Based on Hypothesis 1, this study analyzes the impact of tourism industry development on residents’ well-being and constructs a benchmark model.

$$\begin{gathered} {\mathrm{wellbeing}}_{\mathrm{ij}}={\mathsf{\alpha }}_0+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_1{\mathrm{tour}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_2{\mathrm{gender}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_3{\mathrm{age}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_4{\mathrm{age}}_{\mathrm{ij}}^2+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_5{\mathrm{mar}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_6{\mathrm{edu}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_7{\mathrm{health}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_8{\mathrm{repu}}_{\mathrm{ij}} \\ +{\mathsf{\alpha }}_9{\mathrm{religion}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_{10}{\mathrm{fair}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_{11}{\mathrm{trust}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_{12}{\mathrm{level}}_{\mathrm{ij}} \end{gathered}$$

(1)

In model (1), α represents the variable coefficient; index i indicates the cross-sectional individual, and index j indicates the year; ${\mathrm{wellbeing}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$ represents residents’ well–being; ${\mathrm{tour}}_{\mathrm{ij}} \mathrm{represents}$ tourism industry development; and ${\mathrm{gender}}_{\mathrm{ij}}, {\mathrm{age}}_{\mathrm{ij}}, { \mathrm{age}}_{\mathrm{ij}}^2,{ \mathrm{mar}}_{\mathrm{ij}},{ \mathrm{edu}}_{\mathrm{ij}},{ \mathrm{health}}_{\mathrm{ij}},{ \mathrm{repu}}_{\mathrm{ij}},{ \mathrm{religion}}_{\mathrm{ij}},{ \mathrm{fair}}_{\mathrm{ij}},{ \mathrm{trust}}_{\mathrm{ij}},$ and ${\mathrm{level}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$ are control variables that represent residents’ gender, age, age squared, marital status, educational level, health level, political outlook, religious beliefs, social equity, social trust and social class, respectively.

At present, there are three ways to analyze a moderated mediating effect, namely, the piecemeal test, coefficient product test and mediating effect difference test. If the antecedent method shows that there is a significant moderated mediating effect, the result of the consequent method must be significant [36]. This study uses the piecemeal test method to test the mediating effect of residents’ income (Hypothesis 2). First, taking residents’ well-being as the explained variable and tourism industry development as the explanatory variable, this study tests the impact of tourism industry development on residents’ well-being. Second, taking the income gap as the explained variable and tourism industry development as the explanatory variable, this study tests the impact of tourism industry development on the income gap of residents. Finally, taking residents’ well-being as the explained variable and tourism industry development as the explanatory variable and controlling for residents’ income as a mediator, we test the impact of residents’ income gap on residents’ well-being [37,38]. Therefore, this study sets the mediation model shown in model (2), model (3) below and the theoretical model is shown in Figure 1.

$${\mathrm{gini}}_{\mathrm{ij}}={\mathsf{\beta }}_0+{\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathrm{tour}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_2{\mathrm{str}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_3{\mathrm{pgdp}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_4{\mathrm{finan}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_5{\mathrm{captical}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\beta }}_6{\mathrm{open}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$$

(2)

$$\begin{gathered} \mathrm{wellbeing}\_\mathrm{ij}={\mathsf{\gamma }}_0+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_1{\mathrm{tour}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_2{\mathrm{gini}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_3{\mathrm{gender}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_4{\mathrm{age}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_5{\mathrm{age}}_{\mathrm{ij}}^2+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_6{\mathrm{mar}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_7{\mathrm{edu}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_8{\mathrm{health}}_{\mathrm{ij}} \\ +{\mathsf{\gamma }}_9{\mathrm{repu}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_{10}{\mathrm{religion}}_{\mathrm{ij}}++{\mathsf{\gamma }}_{11}{\mathrm{fair}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_{12}{\mathrm{trust}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\gamma }}_{13}{\mathrm{level}}_{\mathrm{ij}} \end{gathered}$$

(3)

In model (2), ${\mathrm{str}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$ refers to the industrial structure; ${\mathrm{pgdp}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$ refers to economic development; ${\mathrm{finan}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$ refers to financial development; ${\mathrm{captical}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$ refers to human capital; and ${\mathrm{captical}}_{\mathrm{ij}}$ refers to openness to the outside world.

If ${\mathsf{\alpha }}_1$ is significant, it indicates that the prerequisite for the mediating effect test is established. If tourism industry development affects residents’ well-being by affecting the income gap, then ${\mathsf{\beta }}_1$ and ${\mathsf{\gamma }}_2$ should both be significant. If the signs of ${\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathsf{\gamma }}_2$ and ${\mathsf{\alpha }}_1$ are the same, the mediating effect of the resident income gap is $│{\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathsf{\gamma }}_2/{\mathsf{\alpha }}_1│$. If the signs of ${\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathsf{\gamma }}_2$ and ${\mathsf{\alpha }}_1$ are opposite, the masking effect of the income gap is $│{\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathsf{\gamma }}_2/{\mathsf{\alpha }}_1│$.

4. Results

4.1. Benchmark Regression

As the explained variable, i.e., residents’ well-being, is an ordered discrete variable, it is appropriate to use an ordered logit model and an ordered probit model in this study. Existing studies have pointed out that ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is convenient for analyzing the marginal effect of residents’ well-being, and there is no obvious difference between the regression results and those of an ordered logit model or an ordered probit model. Therefore, this study reports three regression results: ordered logit, ordered probit and OLS. As shown in

Table 2. Benchmark regression test.

Model
	OLS	Ordered Logit	Ordered Probit
Tourism Industry Development	−0.020 *** 1	−0.063 ***	−0.032 ***
Age	−2.414 ***	−7.247 ***	−3.99 ***
Age Squared	0.340 ***	1.017 ***	0.560 ***
Gender	−0.070 ***	−0.202 ***	−0.111 ***
Marital Status	−0.036 ***	−0.078 ***	−0.045 ***
Educational Level	0.024 ***	0.053 ***	0.031 ***
Health Status	0.150 ***	0.392 ***	0.218 ***
Political Outlook	0.095 ***	0.276 ***	0.154 ***
Religious Beliefs	0.066 ***	0.199 **	0.109 ***
Social Equity	0.170 ***	0.447 ***	0.244 ***
Social Trust	0.058 ***	0.163 ***	0.086 ***
Social Hierarchy	0.106 ***	0.276 ***	0.153 ***

¹ Notes: *** and ** represent significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.

, when considering control variables such as age, age squared, gender, educational level, marital status, social trust and social equity, tourism industry development has a significant negative correlation with residents’ well-being. That is, the development of the tourism industry will significantly reduce residents’ well-being. In addition, the regression analysis results reflect the correlation between the control variables and residents’ well-being. There is a significant positive U-shaped curve between the square term of age and residents’ well-being, indicating that residents’ well-being initially decreases with age. However, when age reaches the lowest point of the U-shaped curve, residents’ well-being starts to increase with age. There is a significant negative correlation between gender and well-being, indicating that the well-being of women is significantly higher than that of men, which is related to men’s social pressures and difficulty with emotional regulation. Women are more likely to express emotions to relieve pressure; thus, they have a higher sense of well-being than men. There is a significant negative correlation between marital status and residents’ well-being, indicating that the widowed group is the unhappiest and the unmarried state is the happiest. There is a significant positive correlation between educational level and residents’ well-being. To some extent, educational resources affect the social capital of residents. The higher the level of education of residents is, the greater the amount of social capital that residents accumulate, and the stronger the positive effect on well-being. There is a significant positive correlation between residents’ health status and well-being, indicating that a good physical condition can make residents feel happy and improve their well-being. The well-being of residents who are members of the Chinese Communist Party is higher than that of other groups, which is related to China’s political system. Being a member of the Chinese Communist Party offers unique advantages in society and improves members’ well-being. Compared with residents without religious beliefs, residents with religious beliefs have more well-being. Cognition of one’s social level is also positively correlated with residents’ well-being. The higher the sense of social justice and trust is, the higher the well-being of residents. At the same time, the higher the self-rated social level of residents is, the higher their well-being.

4.2. Robustness Test

As there are extreme values in the measurement of tourism industry development, to further verify the robustness of the previous conclusions, this study performs bilateral tail reduction at the 1% quantile of domestic and foreign tourism annual income. The regression results of the robustness test shown in

Table 3. Robustness test.

Model (1)
	OLS	Ordered Logit	Ordered Probit
Tourism Industry Development	−0.020 *** 1	−0.063 ***	−0.032 ***
Age	−2.414 ***	−7.247 ***	−3.99 ***
Age Squared	0.340 ***	1.017 ***	0.560 ***
Gender	−0.070 ***	−0.202 ***	−0.111 ***
Marital Status	−0.036 ***	−0.078 ***	−0.045 ***
Educational Level	0.024 ***	0.053 ***	0.031 ***
Health Status	0.150 ***	0.392 ***	0.218 ***
Political Outlook	0.095 ***	0.276 ***	0.154 ***
Religious Beliefs	0.066 ***	0.199 **	0.109 ***
Social Equity	0.170 ***	0.447 ***	0.244 ***
Social Trust	0.058 ***	0.163 ***	0.086 ***
Social Hierarchy	0.106 ***	0.276 ***	0.153 ***

¹ Notes: *** and ** represent significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.

suggest that after the variable tourism industry development is treated by bilateral tailing at the 1% quantile, the regression results are basically consistent with those above: tourism industry development has a negative impact on residents’ well-being, and Hypothesis 1 is verified.

4.3. The Mediating Effect of the Income Gap

Based on the mediating effect test step, the first step of the main effect analysis was verified in the above benchmark regression and passed the robustness test. The second step is to test whether the explanatory variable, i.e., tourism industry development, has a significant impact on the mediator, i.e., the income gap. From the results of Model (2) in

Table 4. Mediating effect test.

	Model (2)	Model (3)
Tourism Industry Development	−0.010 *** 1	−0.020 ***
Industrial Structure	−0.007
Economic Development	−0.000000146 ***
Financial Development	−0.018
Human Capital	0.000000011 ***
Openness to the Outside World	−0.001 ***
Income Gap		−3.126 ***
Age		−2.414 ***
Age Squared		0.340 ***
Gender		−0.070 ***
Marital Status		−0.036 ***
Educational Level		0.036 ***
Health Status		0.024 ***
Political Outlook		0.095 ***
Religious Beliefs		0.067 ***
Social Equity		0.170 ***
Social Trust		0.058 ***
Social Hierarchy		0.106 ***

¹ Notes: *** represents significance at the 1% level.

shows that tourism industry development is significantly negatively correlated with the income gap of residents (${\mathsf{\beta }}_1$ = −0.010, p < 0.01). Tourism industry development will reduce the income gap of residents; that is, the economic benefits of tourism industry development play a significant role in narrowing the income gap of residents and reducing poverty. The third step is to test whether the income gap has a mediating effect on the relationship between tourism industry development and residents’ well-being. From Model (1) to Model (3), it can be concluded that the total effect (${\mathsf{\alpha }}_1$) of tourism industry development is significantly negative, and the indirect effect (${\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathsf{\gamma }}_2$) of the income gap on the relationship between tourism industry development and residents’ well-being is significantly positive. Therefore, the masking effect of the income gap is $│{\mathsf{\beta }}_1{\mathsf{\gamma }}_2/{\mathsf{\alpha }}_1│$. Tourism industry development has restrained its negative impact on residents’ well-being to a certain extent by narrowing the income gap. Hypothesis 2 is verified.

4.4. Further Discussion

After investigating the mediating effect of the income gap, this study also explores the possible role of gender in the moderated mediating effect. In the context of Chinese society, gender differences in individuals’ identities are the main factor that divides social resources and affects income inequality. In view of this reality, the interaction term between gender and the income gap is added to model (3) to verify the moderating effect of gender on the second-half path of the mediating effect.

$$\begin{gathered} {\mathrm{wellbeing}}_{\mathrm{ij}}={\mathsf{\eta }}_0+{\mathsf{\eta }}_1{\mathrm{tour}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_2{\mathrm{gini}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_3{\mathrm{gender}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_4{\mathrm{gini}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\times {\mathrm{gender}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_5{\mathrm{age}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_6{\mathrm{age}}_{\mathrm{ij}}^2+{\mathsf{\eta }}_7{\mathrm{edu}}_{\mathrm{ij}} \\ +{\mathsf{\eta }}_8{\mathrm{mar}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_9{\mathrm{health}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_{10}{\mathrm{repu}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_{11}{\mathrm{religion}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_{12}{\mathrm{fair}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\delta }}_{13}{\mathrm{trust}}_{\mathrm{ij}}+{\mathsf{\eta }}_{14}{\mathrm{level}}_{\mathrm{ij}} \end{gathered}$$

(4)

The study adds the interaction term of gender and the income gap to Model (3), constructs Model (4), and examines the moderating effect of gender on the impact mechanism [36].

According to the piecemeal test method, if the coefficients ${ \mathsf{\beta }}_1$ and ${\mathsf{\eta }}_4$ are significant, then the mediating effect is moderated by gender. Based on Model (2) above, the regression result of tourism industry development on the income gap is significant (${\mathsf{\beta }}_1=-0.010, p<0.01$). The estimated results of Model (4) are shown in the table below. The interaction between gender and the income gap has no significant impact on residents’ well-being (${\mathsf{\eta }}_4=0.016, p>0.1$); that is, gender cannot significantly moderate the relationship between the income gap and residents’ well-being. The test power of the piecemeal test is low, and it is easy to draw nonsignificant conclusions [39,40]. Compared with the piecemeal test method, the interval test using the deviation corrected percentile bootstrap method to construct the coefficient product has higher test power [41,42,43]. Therefore, this study further uses the bootstrap method to test the moderated mediating effect and the results are shown in

Table 5. Gender moderated mechanism test.

Model (4)
Tourism Industry Development	−0.020 *** 1
Income Gap	−3.117 ***
Gender	−0.056
Income Gap × Gender	−0.016
Age	−2.414 ***
Age Squared	0.340 ***
Marital Status	−0.036 ***
Educational Level	0.024 ***
Health Status	0.150 ***
Political Outlook	0.095 ***
Religious Beliefs	0.066 ***
Social Equity	0.170 ***
Social Trust	0.058 ***
Social Hierarchy	0.106 ***

¹ Notes: *** represents significance at the 1% level.

. When gender is used as the moderator, the 95% confidence interval of the coefficient product is [0.004, 0.011], excluding 0. Therefore, the mediating effect of the income gap on the relationship between tourism industry development and residents’ well-being is moderated by gender. The mediating effect is ${\mathsf{\beta }}_1\left({\mathsf{\eta }}_2+{\mathsf{\eta }}_4{\mathrm{gender}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right)=-0.01\ast \left(-3.117-0.016{\mathrm{gender}}_{\mathrm{ij}}\right)$. In the male group, the mediating effect is 0.03133. In the female group, the mediating effect is 0.03117. Specifically, compared with its impact on the well-being of the male group, tourism industry development is less likely to increase the well-being of the female group by narrowing the income gap. Affected by the gendered division of family responsibilities and gender discrimination in the labor market, women have lower salaries than men, they obtain fewer economic resources, and there is a gender-based income gap. In the development of tourism, women enjoy fewer economic dividends than men; thus, they feel less well-being than men.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Research Conclusions

Based on the CGSS database, this study constructs mixed cross-sectional data at the provincial level to analyze the relationship between tourism industry development, the income gap and residents’ well-being.

The empirical results show that, first, there is a negative correlation between tourism industry development and residents’ well-being. Using OLS, ordered logit and ordered probit models, this study concludes that there is a significant “well-being paradox” of tourism in China and that, unchanged, tourism industry development will have a negative impact on residents’ well-being. This may be due to the alienation of the tourism industry in the development process, and the resulting social problems hinder the improvement of residents’ well-being. Currently, in the development of the tourism industry, too much attention is being paid to the economic benefits of tourism, and the social benefits are being ignored. This phenomenon will significantly weaken the positive impact of economic benefits in the development of the tourism industry and cause the “well-being paradox” of tourism, which impedes the process of tourism sustainable development seriously.

Second, the income gap has a significant masking effect. That is, tourism industry development has restrained the negative impact on residents’ well-being by narrowing the income gap. The economic advantages of tourism industry development include reducing poverty and stimulating employment. Narrowing the income gap is conducive to improving residents’ well-being.

Third, gender plays a significant role in mediating the impact of the income gap. For women, the masking effect of the income gap is significantly smaller than it is for men. Gender differences will lead to income differences, which in turn will affect the subjective well-being of different gender groups. Therefore, studying the mediating effect of the income gap and the moderating effect of gender on it holds great significance.

In conclusion, the tourism industry is closely related to residents’ well-being. This study conducts an empirical study on the transmission mechanism for tourism industry development and residents’ well-being, which helps to build a happy industry that improves the quality of people’s lives, integrates economic and social interests, and implements the principle of sustainable tourism development. This study confirms the existence of the “well-being paradox” of tourism, which indicates that there is a contradiction between tourism industry development and residents’ well-being, which is reflected in the destruction of natural ecology and living environment in order to seek short-term income increase and scale expansion. To better fulfil the role of tourism as a “happy industry”, the future development of tourism should not only emphasize the income increase in tourism enterprises, promote the income increase in employees and improve economic benefits, but also focus on the quality of tourism development, improve the quality of service. Additionally, in order to enhance well-being and stability at a society-wide level, tourism enterprises are necessary to protect the rights and interests of female workers.

5.2. Policy Implications

First, local governments in tourism destinations should balance the economic and social benefits of tourism industry development. The development of the tourism industry is closely related to well-being [44]. Promoting this happy industry is an important way to build a harmonious society. However, in practice, tourism development is subject to the economic logic of maximizing benefits and has become quietly alienated from its core goals in the course of its development, making tourism, a happy industry, unhappy. To resolve this contradiction, the government should play a leading and supervisory role. First, the sound development of the tourism industry should be promoted. As an important part of the tertiary industry, the tourism industry plays an important role in increasing economic returns and narrowing the income gap. The growth in residents’ income is the internal driving force for improving residents’ subjective well-being [45], and the government should seize the economic benefits brought by tourism to increase the per capita disposable income of residents while increasing the total accumulation of local wealth. These strategies will improve residents’ subjective well-being and enable residents to enjoy the benefits of tourism development. Second, tourism development should attach importance to increasing incomes and creating more opportunities for entrepreneurship and employment. As an important part of the modern service industry, the tourism industry, on the basis of industrial scale expansion, will expand the field of employment, increase the number of jobs, and focus on people’s well-being. Finally, the government should improve public services and create livable tourist destinations. Improving the public service system and the quality of public services not only will provide conveniences for tourists and improve the satisfaction and well-being of local residents but is also the basic requirement for building a beautiful and harmonious society.

Second, the governments of common tourism destinations should establish and improve the interest adjustment mechanism. At present, the widening income gap and wealth inequality can no longer be ignored because they prevent residents’ well-being from being improved. The government should give full play to its role as an authoritative distributor of social values, correctly guide income distribution within the tourism industry, share the development dividends, and encourage those from low-income backgrounds to actively participate in the upsurge of tourism development so that everyone benefits from development and leads a happier life. At the same time, we should improve the compensation system for residents impacted by the interests of tourism development to prevent illegal development from infringing on the rights and interests of residents and damaging their well-being.

Third, social tourism enterprises should improve social welfare to protect women’s rights and interests. There is significant gender segregation in the labor market. Gender discrimination is the main cause of the wage gap between men and women and has a negative impact on women’s well-being. Therefore, tourism enterprises need to pay attention to gender position inequality and “equal pay for equal work”. Tourism enterprises should actively undertake social responsibilities, call for an industrial management system for gender equality, take the initiative to eliminate gender stereotypes, play a leading role in promoting gender equality in the recruitment, promotion and evaluation of professional and technical titles, create a harmonious and friendly atmosphere in the workplace, and improve the average well-being of society.