Urban–Rural Integration Empowers High-Quality Development of Tourism Economy: Mechanism and Empirical Evidence

Abstract

Urban–rural integration has become an effective way to promote the high-quality development of the tourism economy in China’s policy evolution. Based on provincial panel data for China for the last ten years, this paper measured the high-quality-development level of the tourism economy based on multi-dimensional indicators, including by empirically analyzing the influence mechanisms in urban–rural integration. We found that urban–rural integration has a positive empowering effect on the high-quality development of the tourism economy as a whole, with the integration of urban and rural areas in the central and eastern regions playing a considerable role; however, its role in the western region is not obvious. This was shown through an analysis of the mediating effect by which urban–rural integration empowers the high-quality development of the tourism economy by improving residents’ income levels. However, urban–rural integration does not empower the high-quality development of the tourism economy through technological innovation, which instead has a covering effect. This paper makes suggestions on three levels: country, region, and enterprise. Firstly, at the national level, we suggest strengthening the overall planning for the high-quality development of the tourism economy, as well as improving its construction system. Secondly, at the regional level, governments at all levels should emphasize the functional differences between urban and rural areas and regional characteristics. Finally, at the enterprise level, enterprises in the western region should seize the opportunities provided by urban–rural integration.

1. Introduction

With the vigorous development of global service trade, tourism, as an important part of the service industry, is facing obstacles in many countries, including the lack of an intensive growth momentum [1], monotonous tourism products, the slow upgrading of the tourism industry [2], and the destruction of tourism ecology [3]. In this context, in the report of the 14th Five-Year Plan for Culture and Tourism Development, China proposed investing in the high-quality development of tourism. This plan aimed to encourage the routine service industry to achieve higher quality and diversification, and to protect the ecological environment [4].

In 2017, in the report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, “high-quality development” was proposed for the first time. It was emphasized that economic vitality, innovation, and competitiveness are closely linked with green development, which is a requirement for maintaining sustainable economic development. Government departments at all levels in China have actively implemented this plan. Since 2018, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Chinese Government has issued specific construction plans for the high-quality development of the tourism economy, such as the management of tourist resorts, the construction of credit systems, the quality of tourism supply, and the online tourism market.

The high-quality development of the tourism economy involves all regions, and governments at all levels in China have formulated a series of regional tourism economic development plans. Academics have also paid increasing attention to this issue, mainly focusing on studying provinces or cities in this area [5,6]. In addition, the high-quality development of the tourism economy has multidimensional connotations [6], including innovation, coordination, greenness, openness, sharing, and other characteristics [7]. However, there have been few studies at the provincial level in China. In addition, the construction of indicators from multiple dimensions and the performance of quantitative research on tourism in this way are also rare.

In 2017, in the report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, “urban–rural integration” was proposed. Urban–rural integration refers to the integration relationship between cities and villages, which is a social and economic concept with the goal of achieving common prosperity. Over the next five years, the Chinese government issued a series of policies to promote it [8]. Building a sustainable relationship between urban and rural areas is helpful for the construction and protection of natural landscapes, intangible cultural heritage, the ecological environment, and so on. There is concern in China regarding the social impact of urban–rural integration, especially in the field of tourism. There has been little research on this issue. Few studies have explored the relationship between and influence mechanism underlying urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy, although this is now becoming a topic of interest in academic circles [9].

Based on the above, this study aimed to explore the influence mechanism of urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy. In addition, this study provides further clarification of the relationship between urban–rural integration, residents’ incomes, technological innovation, and the high-quality development of the tourism economy. Firstly, this study selected data from 30 provincial regions in China from 2010 to 2019 and established an evaluation index system. Secondly, based on the entropy method and fixed-effect-panel model, combined with data from the China National Bureau of Statistics, a comprehensive score for the high-quality development of the tourism economy was calculated. Finally, the relationship between the variables was discussed, and the main influencing mechanism was identified through the intermediary effect model, giving us an understanding of the influence mechanism of urban–rural integration on the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

The contributions of this paper are as follows. Firstly, we studied the effects on the high-quality development of the tourism economy from the new perspective of urban–rural integration, enriching the research in this area and extending the research scope of urban–rural relations. Secondly, previous research mainly focused on the development level of the tourism economy based on data from cities, villages, or individual provinces and counties; this study focused on provincial-level data to measure the high-quality development of the tourism economy, and then considered the impact of urban–rural integration and tested the impact of regional heterogeneity. Thirdly, based on the influence mechanism of “urban–rural integration—residents’ income/technological innovation—high-quality development of the tourism economy”, in this study, we constructed a theoretical connection channel between urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy and used the mediating-effect model for empirical testing, allowing us to develop a comprehensive understanding of the mechanism by which urban–rural integration has an impact on the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review. Section 3 presents the theoretical analysis and puts forward the research hypotheses. Section 4 describes the materials and methods. Section 5 presents the empirical test and analysis results. Finally, Section 6 describes the conclusions of the study and a discussion.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Urban–Rural Integration

Engels first put forward the concept of “urban–rural integration” in the Principles of Communism [10]. Western developed countries began the beneficial practice of urban– rural-integration development in the mid-20th century and experienced specific developments, such as the “garden city”, production–city integration, and urban–rural-market integration [11]. A concept emerged in which cities and townships cannot be completely separated, that they are equally important, and that they should be organically combined [12]. Under the influence of China’s socialist economic development and policy, China has opened up a unique road of urban–rural integration. The relationship between urban and rural areas in China was further emphasized from the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China [13]. This reflects the continuous succession of China’s urban and rural development strategies and the deepening of the understanding of urban–rural relations.

Urban–rural integration promotes the realization of Chinese modernization in various specific fields [14]. Urban–rural integration has caused the transformation of the rural human capital structure, from focusing on quantity to valuing quality, efficiency, and ability enhancement [15]. Urban–rural integration is a comprehensive process of reshaping the spatial system and functional value of the urban–rural regional system, which is helpful for optimizing and adjusting the relationship between urban and rural people and land [16]. It urges us to renew our attention to life and labor on the land, or what we call the field of Critical Agrarian Studies [17]. Urban–rural integration has expanded the multiple -functions of agriculture and made rural areas more livable and suitable for industry, avoiding the problems of agricultural withering, rural decline, and poverty among farmers faced by some countries in the process of urbanization [18]. This is conducive to the construction of “smart villages” and the realization of the strategy of “farm to fork” [19]. Urban–rural integration realizes the sustainable development of culture and ecological environment in suburban areas and traditional ancient villages [20], supports the participation of the whole people, and protects intangible forms of cultural heritage, such as urban and rural cultural relics and historical and cultural cities [21].Urban–rural integration promotes the inheritance and innovation of traditional rural cultural resources [22], releasing the development impetus of natural resources in urban areas [23]. Finally, in the cultural context of urban–rural integration, “surreal” rural space is reproduced with daily and entertaining content bias and “de-subjectivization” [24]. Network platforms and short videos can transform rural customs into tangible cultural assets [25].

In reviewing the literature, we found that the existing research on urban–rural integration and tourism economic development focuses on single-factor analyses and is lacking multi-dimensional analyses. There is a research gap in the area of urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

2.2. Residents’ Incomes

In 2013, the National Bureau of Statistics of China carried out a reform of urban and rural household surveys to include income indicators [26]. This showed that there are four sources of resident income: workers’ receipt of remuneration, operating surpluses, net income from property, and net income from current transfer [27].

Stimulating domestic demand and promoting consumption are important research directions related to residents’ incomes. For example, the demand for service products is flexible, so an increase in residents’ incomes will accelerate the demand for service products [28]. The income level of residents is one of the main factors affecting the growth of the tourism economy. There is a close relationship between resident income and tourism consumption [29]. An income-consumption curve has shown the relationship between changes in income and changes in the demand for goods and services [30].

There are still some shortcomings in the study of resident income: there has been little concern regarding the driving factors that improve residents’ income levels, and few cross-disciplinary studies.

2.3. Technical Innovation

The theory of technological innovation was first put forward in Joseph A. Schumpeter’s theory of economic development. However, the definition of the concept of “technological innovation” in academic circles remains inconclusive [31]. According to the definitions of the knowledge-production function, human capital function, and technological progress dynamics provided by Romer [32] and Lucas [33], technological innovation is defined as the increase in the number of intermediate products. Technological innovation is also defined as original innovation, subversive technological innovation, key core technological innovation, and key common technological innovation [34].

Technological innovation is having an increasing impact on national economic growth and industrial upgrading. The influence of technological innovation on the tourism economy has also begun to attract academic attention. Some researchers believe that the relationship between technological innovation and the tourism economy is mutually beneficial and synergistic, and there are examples of innovation in providing tourism products and services, environmental protection, and human-resource development [35]. Technological innovation empowers all aspects of tourism-product production and improves the total factor productivity of tourism [36]. Some scholars have also considered the perspectives of tourism specialization [37], inbound tourism [38], and the interaction between tourism and technological innovation [39].

In general, the research on technological innovation and the tourism economy has mainly focused on tourism-industry innovation, putting forward suggestions for product, service, and efficiency optimization. However, the influence mechanism of technological innovation on the high-quality development of the tourism economy remains to be elucidated.

2.4. High-Quality Development of the Tourism Economy

The high-quality development of the tourism economy is necessary to maintain the sustainable development of tourism. Attention should be paid to the local economy [40], historical environment [41], landscape culture, historical sites [41], opening to the outside world [42], the potential for degrowth [43], and ecosystem services [44].

In 2021, the Chinese government decided that specific efforts should be made to achieve the high-quality development of tourism. According to the new economic growth theory [45], the high-quality development of the tourism economy will be a comprehensive process of improving the development efficiency of the tourism industry, enhancing the quality of tourism products, improving the ability of tourism to open up, and improving tourism’s ecological environment, with the support of the institutional environment and factor endowment [3].

The research on the high-quality development of the tourism economy has mainly been carried out from three perspectives: the urban–rural relationship, residents’ income, and technological innovation. Some scholars have discussed the relationship between urbanization [46], urban and rural planning [47], rural–urban integration [48], urban–rural integration development [49], and the development of the regional rural tourism economy. Some scholars have also found that the increase in urban residents’ income promotes an increase in the domestic travel rate [50]. Technological innovation is important to improve the public service system in tourist areas and to improve the quality of tourism services [51].

The existing research does not adequately discuss the influence mechanism of the high-quality development of the tourism economy. Moreover, there is little research on the relationship between urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

3. Theoretical Analysis

3.1. Analytical Framework

Based on the theory of urban–rural integration, income growth, technological innovation, economic growth, and sustainable development, this study constructed a logical framework of these factors.

Specifically, this study holds that urban–rural integration is a policy innovation of urban–rural relations in China. It has broken the institutional barriers to the circulation of urban and rural factors, thus promoting urban–rural communication, the rational allocation of resources, and smooth cultural exchanges. Urban–rural integration improves resident income and narrows the gap between the rich and the poor in urban and rural areas. Consumption is closely related to income, and a higher income level increases residents’ tourism consumption [52]. This expands the transmission channels of rural culture and intangible cultural heritage, enhances the development efficiency of the tourism industry, and increases opening up. Urban–rural integration enhances industrial technological innovation [53], which can effectively widen the diversity of the tourism-industry supply by eliminating the homogenization of tourism resources and mismatch between tourism products [54]. Therefore, combined with the existing theoretical research, this paper summarizes the main influence mechanisms of urban–rural integration on the promotion of the high-quality development of the tourism economy, including two significant mediating factors: increasing resident income and promoting technological innovation. The logical relationship underlying the research is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Influence of Urban–Rural Integration on the High-Quality Development of the Tourism Economy

Urban–rural integration emphasizes the integration of urban and rural functions and promotes the free flow of populations, capital, management, ideas, culture, and other elements in cities and villages [55]. It provides a good institutional environment and factor support for the high-quality development of the tourism economy, and it is key to promoting the high-quality development of the tourism economy [1].

Urban–rural integration breaks down the institutional barriers of urban–rural-factor flow and promotes the development of new rural economic formats based on multi-functional agriculture, such as rural tourism and rural health care [56]. Urban–rural integration can rationally allocate resources, promote cooperation between low-carbon environmental-protection industries with regional characteristics, such as health preservation, cultural inheritance, and ecological conservation and tourism, and gives full play to the scale effect of the tourism industry [1]. The scale effect of the tourism industry improves the efficiency of the industry via the regional concentration of development factors, such as tourism talent and capital. The integration of urban and rural areas overcomes the limitation of regional space, which is conducive to improving tourism’s ecological environment [57], improving the high-standard opening-up of tourism [58], providing a high-quality tourism environment, and enhancing the quality of tourism services [59] and tourism experiences [60]. It satisfies the preference of tourists for green tourism, low-carbon tourism, healthy tourism, global tourism, and other tourism modes.

Based on the above analysis, this study puts forward the following hypothesis:

H1. 

Urban–rural integration has a positive impact on promoting the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

3.3. Regional Heterogeneity

Urban–rural integration promotes the full flow of urban–rural factors, which bring about the expansion of the tourism scale and the overload of the ecological environment’s carrying capacity. When there is an imbalance in the carrying capacity of regional tourism’s economic development [61], urban–rural integration leads to an imbalance in the economic-development quality of tourism in the spatial dimension. There are regional differences in the factor-agglomeration effect of urban–rural-integration development [62], which makes the allocation of labor, capital, technology, and other factors that match the development of regional tourist economies unbalanced. Based on the above analysis, this study puts forward the following hypothesis:

H2. 

Urban–rural integration has regional heterogeneity in promoting the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

3.4. Analysis of the Influence Mechanism of Urban–Rural Integration on the High-Quality Development of the Tourism Economy

Urban–rural integration promotes the continuous growth of resident income [8]. Increasing resident income can affect residents’ willingness to engage in tourism and the scale of tourism, and it can promote the sustainable development of the tourism economy [53]. Urban–rural integration provides a friendly environment for the accumulation of rural social capital, promotes the sustained improvement of resident income [63], and applies more knowledge, skills, and experience to innovation in the rural-tourism model. Urban–rural integration realizes the diversified growth of rural residents’ incomes, which encourages more residents to participate in the construction of regional tourist economies and creates momentum in the endogenous development of these regional tourism economies. Based on the above, the following research hypothesis was put forward:

H3. 

Urban–rural integration can affect the high-quality development of the tourism economy through residents’ incomes.

Urban–rural integration urges entrepreneurs to return home to start businesses, and it ensures a talent supply for the economic development of regional tourism, which guides enterprises, farmers, and others to innovate [64]. Urban–rural integration effectively broadens capital sources and enhances the technological-innovation level of enterprises [65], thus promoting the “quantity” growth of the tourism economy, solving the structural problem of the imbalance between supply and demand in the process of the economic development of tourism, as well as realizing “quality” growth. Urban–rural integration impels the full flow of innovation elements. However, the inefficiency of innovation networks in rural areas leads to a lack of regional scientific and technological innovation ability, and even reduces the influence of scientific and technological innovation in tourism [66], which leads to the inconspicuous growth of tourist economies. Based on the above, the following research hypothesis was put forward:

H4. 

Urban–rural integration can affect the high-quality development of the tourism economy through technological innovation.

The research framework and assumptions of this study are shown in Figure 2.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Data Sources

Since 2010, China’s tourism industry has gradually recovered from the impact of the international financial crisis. Since 2020, it has been affected by COVID-19, and the economic tourism data of various provinces are missing. In view of data availability and comparability, in this paper, we selected the panel data of 30 provincial administrative regions (except Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and Tibet) from 2010 to 2019 and collected 300 observed values.

The original data for the total tourism revenue, GDP, gross product of tertiary industry, forest-coverage rate, green park area, domestic garbage-disposal rate, number of inbound tourists, amount of foreign capital utilized, foreign exchange income from international tourism, total highway mileage, and urban and rural community expenditure were taken from the China Statistical Yearbook. The data for the number of tourism employees, travel agencies, and scenic spots above Grade A were from the China Tourism Statistics Yearbook. The original data for the urban population, total population at the end of the year, provincial per capita GDP, R&D funds, and local government budgets were from provincial statistical yearbooks and provincial statistical websites.

4.2. Model Construction

In order to research the influence of urban–rural integration on the quality development of the tourism economy, a benchmark-regression econometric model was constructed:

$${\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}={\mathsf{\alpha }}_0+{\mathsf{\alpha }}_1\ln {\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+\mathsf{\beta }\ln {\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\mu }}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\mathsf{\delta }}_{\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}$$

(1)

where $i$ and $t$ are the region and time, respectively, ${\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$ is the tourism-economic-development level of the $\mathrm{i}$ province at the $\mathrm{t}$th year, ${\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$ is the integration of urban and rural areas, ${\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$ is the control variable, including the regional transportation service capacity (${\mathrm{T}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}}_{i,t}$), government financial support (${\mathrm{F}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{F}}_{i,t}$), and industrial structure level (${\mathrm{I}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{L}}_{i,t}$), ${\mu }_i$ is the regional fixed effect, where region $i$ does not change with time, ${\delta }_t$ is the time fixed effect, and ${\epsilon }_{i,t}$ is the random interference term.

Considering the previous theoretical analysis of the mediating effect, according to the possible influence mechanism of urban–rural integration on the quality of the economic development of tourism, referring to Baron and Kenny’s step-by-step method of testing the mediating effect [67], the following mediating-effect model was constructed for testing:

$$\ln {\mathrm{P}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}=b_0+{\mathrm{b}}_1\ln {\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{j}}\ln {\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\mu }}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\mathsf{\delta }}_{\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}$$

(2)

$${\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}={\mathrm{c}}_0+{\mathrm{c}}_1\ln {\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{c}}_2\ln {\mathrm{P}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{c}}_{\mathrm{j}}\ln {\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\mu }}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\mathsf{\delta }}_{\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}$$

(3)

$$\ln {\mathrm{R}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}=d_0+{\mathrm{d}}_1\ln {\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{j}}\ln {\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\mu }}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\mathsf{\delta }}_{\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}$$

(4)

$${\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}={\mathrm{e}}_0+{\mathrm{e}}_1\ln {\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{e}}_2\ln {\mathrm{R}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}\ln {\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\mu }}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\mathsf{\delta }}_{\mathrm{t}}+{\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}$$

(5)

where ${\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$ is the explained variable and ${\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$ is the explanatory variable. The provincial per capita GDP and R&D expenditure in all regions were used as indicators for resident income (${\mathrm{P}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$) and technological innovation (${\mathrm{R}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{t}}$). Using the mediating-effect test, the regression coefficients of the main variables of each equation were tested. When the coefficients ${\mathsf{\alpha }}_1$ were significant, if the coefficients ${\mathrm{b}}_1,{\mathrm{c}}_2({\mathrm{d}}_1$,${\mathrm{e}}_2$) were significant, there was an indirect mediating effect. If ${\mathrm{c}}_1({\mathrm{e}}_1$) was not significant, there was a complete mediating effect. If ${\mathrm{c}}_1({\mathrm{e}}_1$) was significant, when ${\mathrm{b}}_1$,${\mathrm{c}}_2$ and ${\mathrm{c}}_1({\mathrm{d}}_1,{\mathrm{e}}_2$ and ${\mathrm{e}}_1$) had the same sign, there was a partial mediating effect, and when ${\mathrm{b}}_1$,${\mathrm{c}}_2$ and ${\mathrm{c}}_1({\mathrm{d}}_1,{\mathrm{e}}_2$ and ${\mathrm{e}}_1$) had different signs, there was a masking effect.

4.3. Selection and Explanation of Variables

China’s economy has entered a “high-quality development stage”. High-quality development is sustainable development with good economic and social benefits, high resource-allocation efficiency, low environmental protection costs, and full flow of production factors [68]. The high-quality development of the tourism economy must include innovation, coordination, greenness, openness, and shared development. Therefore, when measuring the quality of the regional economic development of tourism, it is necessary to measure it from the perspective of multiple dimensions, focusing not only on economic development and environmental protection, but also on green development and open development [69]. It is difficult to express the comprehensive level of tourism economic development with a single factor and single indicator [3,70]. This paper comprehensively evaluates the quality of the economic development of tourism based on four dimensions: the development efficiency of the tourism industry, the ecological environment of tourism, the quality of tourism products, and the level of opening of tourism to the outside world.

The main feature of urban–rural integration is the accelerated free flow of the population between urban and rural areas [71]. It was said by the National Development and Reform Commission in the “Key Tasks of New Urbanization and Urban–Rural Integration Development in 2022” that China should focus on improving the integration level of agricultural-population transfer into cities. According to neoclassical economic theory [72], improvement in the marginal productivity of the labor force is an important source of economic growth. In 2020, 10.1 million entrepreneurs return to their hometowns, up 19% compared with the previous year, forming an entrepreneurial team composed of migrant workers, college students, and retired soldiers. At this point, more than 19 million people who had returned to their hometowns had achieved local employment, highlighting the role of urban–rural integration as a “reservoir” for rural employment and its positive role in promoting the development of the tourism industry and increasing employment. From the perspective of the urban–rural-population relationship, urban–rural integration should be people-oriented, and population urbanization is key to this [73]. Therefore, the proportion of the urban population to the total population was chosen as the measurement index of urban–rural integration.

Resident income was a mediating variable in this study. In the income structure of residents, per capita disposable income constitutes their direct purchasing power [74]. In order to objectively reflect the income level of regional residents [75], the provincial per capita GDP was selected as the proxy variable for income level. For technological innovation, given its dependence on R&D investment, R&D expenditure is an important measurement index of national technological-innovation activities and scales, which reflects the technological innovation level of a region [76]. This paper took the R&D expenditure of each province as an agent variable to measure the regional technological-innovation level.

The control variables for this study included the following.

Industrial structure level: The high-quality development of tourism requires the continuous optimization of the industrial structure and improvements in industrial efficiency. For this paper, we chose the proportion of tertiary industries in the GDP as the proxy variable to measure the industrial structure [77]. Traffic-service capacity: An ideal traffic-service environment and scientific traffic management can guarantee the development of the regional tourism economy. For this paper, we chose the total mileage (km) of highway as the proxy variable of transportation-service capacity [78]. Fiscal expenditure level: Urban and rural community management expenditure [79] is important to achieve the high-quality development of the tourism economy. For his paper, we chose urban and rural community expenditure (CNY 100 million) as the proxy variable to measure the level of fiscal expenditure.

The variables are summarized in

Table 1. Main variables.

Symbol	Variable	Index	Unit
QTE	High-quality development of the tourism economy	Calculation of comprehensive index by using the entropy method	%
URI	Urban–rural integration	Urban population/total population at the end of the year	%
PGDP	Resident income	Provincial per capita GDP	CNY
RDE	Technical innovation	R&D expenditure	ten thousand
TSC	Traffic-service capacity	Total highway mileage	kilometers
ISL	Industrial structure level	Gross output value of tertiary industry/GDP	%
FEF	Fiscal expenditure level	Urban and rural community expenditure	CNY hundred million

.

4.4. Research Methods

In this paper, the entropy method was used for the indexes of the comprehensive evaluation system of the economic development quality of tourism, as shown in

Table 2. Indicator system of the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

Target Layer	Element Layer	Index Layer	Unit	Weight
	Development efficiency of the tourism industry	Proportion of total tourism revenue to GDP	%	9.05%
		Number of tourism employees	person	9.39%
		Tourism economic growth rate	%	9.18%
		Number of travel agencies	one	9.54%
	Tourism product quality	Forest-coverage rate	%	9.58%
		Number of tourist attractions above level A	one	9.53%
Tourism economic development quality	Tourism ecological environment	Green park area	hectare	9.31%
		Domestic waste treatment rate	%	9.35%
	Level of tourism opening to the outside world	Inbound tourists	ten thousand people	9.02%
		Utilization of foreign capital	USD 100 million	7.8%
		Foreign exchange income from international tourism	millions of dollars	8.26%

Note: Avoiding logarithm is meaningless when seeking entropy. We added 0.0001 to variables if the data could not be calculated with the range-normalization method.

.

The original index was non-dimensionless and non-negative. The symbol $x_{ij}$ is the original value of the ith object on the jth evaluation indicators. The calculation formula was as follows:

$$\begin{gathered} \mathrm{Positive} \mathrm{indicator} x_{ij}\prime =\frac{x_{ij}-min{x}_{ij}}{max{x}_{ij}-min{x}_{ij}} \\ \mathrm{Negative} \mathrm{indicator} x_{ij}\prime =\frac{max{x}_{ij}-x_{ij}}{max{x}_{ij}-min{x}_{ij}} \end{gathered}$$

We used the formula to calculate the proportion of the ith object on the jth evaluation indicators.

$$p_{ij} =\frac{x_{ij}\prime }{\sum _{i=1}^n{x}_{ij}\prime }(\mathrm{i}=1,2,3,\cdots ,\mathrm{n})$$

We calculated the entropy value of the jth evaluation indicators:

$$e_j =-\frac{1}{\ln \mathrm{n}}{\displaystyle {\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}}{p}_{ij}\ln \left(p_{ij}\right)$$

where 0 ≤ $e_j$ ≤ 1

We calculated the information-entropy redundancy:

$$g_j=1-e_j$$

For the jth evaluation indicator, the difference ${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}\prime$ was smaller, the ${\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ was greater, and the ${\mathrm{g}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ was smaller. When the difference ${\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}\prime$ was greater, the ${\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ was smaller and the ${\mathrm{g}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ was greater. It should be noted that the role of this index was important in the comprehensive index-evaluation system.

We calculated the indicator weight:

$$w_j=\frac{g_i}{\sum _{j=1}^m{g}_i},(\mathrm{j}=1,2,3,\cdots ,\mathrm{m})$$

We calculated the evaluation indicator:

$$s_j=w_j \times x_{ij}\prime$$

We calculated the comprehensive evaluation value of the evaluated object:

$$y_j={\sum }_{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}{w}_j{x}_{ij}\prime$$

5. Empirical Test and Analysis Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistical results of the main variables are shown in

Table 3. Descriptive statistical results of the main variables.

Symbols	Variable Name	Obs.	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max	Skewness	Kurtosis
QTE	High-quality development of the of tourism economy	300	0.203	0.093	0.012	0.449	0.324	2.689
lnURI	Urban–rural integration	300	−0.548	0.2	−1.049	−0.11	0.263	2.905
lnPGDP	Regional income level	300	1.556	0.459	0.271	2.803	0.204	2.844
lnRDE	Scientific and technological innovation levels	300	5.096	1.048	1.988	7.514	−0.103	2.789
lnTSC	Industrial structure level	300	2.446	0.847	0.18	3.518	−0.038	2.444
lnISL	Traffic-service capacity	300	−0.802	0.17	−1.252	−0.378	0.1004	2.523
lnFEF	Fiscal expenditure level	300	5.861	0.868	3.331	7.789	−0.316	2.706

. The high-quality development of the tourism economy was comprehensively measured considering four dimensions, with a minimum value of 0.012 and a maximum value of 0.449, which showed that there were differences in the development level of the tourism economy, the degree of environmental protection, and the level of opening to the outside world among provinces. This directly reflected the gap in the development quality of the tourism economy among the provinces. The minimum logarithm of urban–rural integration was −1.049, and the maximum logarithm was −0.11, which showed that there were long-term imbalances of the economy, society, and urban–rural integration in various provinces, and that there were wide gaps between different regions. The skewness of the main variables was near 0 and the kurtosis was near 3, which shows that the variables conformed to a normal distribution. On the White test of the regression model, the p value was less than 0.05, and the test results rejected the original hypothesis of the homoscedasticity. The results showed that heteroscedasticity existed and was solved by the robust standard error. The BG test of the regression model showed that the p value was less than 0.05, which rejects the original hypothesis that there would be no autocorrelation in the error-term sequence. It showed that there was autocorrelation, which was solved by the robust standard error.

The correlation test of the main variables is shown in

Table 4. Pairwise correlations.

Variables	QTE	lnURI	lnPGDP	lnRDE	lnTSC	lnFEF	lnISL
QTE	1.000
lnURI	0.349 ***	1.000
lnPGDP	0.473 ***	0.912 ***	1.000
lnRDE	0.755 ***	0.484 ***	0.598 ***	1.000
lnTSC	0.305 ***	-0.563 ***	-0.403 ***	0.250 ***	1.000
lnFEF	0.687 ***	0.637 ***	0.765 ***	0.855 ***	0.088	1.000
lnISL	0.316 ***	0.694 ***	0.653 ***	0.227 ***	−0.486 ***	0.457 ***	1.000

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

. Urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy passed the significance test of 99%, and the absolute value of the correlation coefficient was 0.349, which shows that they are significantly related. The significance test of urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy with residents’ income and technological innovation, respectively, was p < 0.01, and the absolute value of the correlation coefficient was greater than 0.4, which shows that they were closely related.

5.2. Total Regression Analysis

This paper used the fixed-effect model and the random-effect model to research the impact of urban–rural integration on the high-quality development of the tourism economy. The results are shown in

Table 5. Results of the overall regression analysis.

	High-Quality Development of the Tourism Economy
	Fixed Effect	Random Effect
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$	0.939 *** (0.197)	0.989 *** (0.177)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}$	0.313 * (0.170)	0.346 *** (0.073)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{F}$	0.095 *** (0.349)	0.128 *** (0.034)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{L}$	−0.207 (0.144)	−0.087 (0.142)
cons	−2.798 *** (0.496)	−2.897 *** (0.275)
$\mathrm{H}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}$ test	p = 0.0002
Time effect	fixed	Without
Individual effect	fixed	Random
N	300	300
R-sq	0.78	0.778

Note: The figures in brackets are robust standard errors; *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

. Among them, R-squared was 0.78 and 0.778, which shows that the model had a strong goodness of fit. After the Hausman testing, the p value was 0.0002, which rejected the original hypothesis of a random effect and indicated that it was more appropriate to use the fixed-effect model. The coefficient of lnURI, the core explanatory variable of urban–rural integration, was 0.939, which passed the significance level of 1%. This means that urban–rural integration has a positive impact on the high-quality development of the tourism economy. Urban–rural integration further narrowed the gap between urban and rural areas, and the equal exchange and two-way flow of urban and rural elements promoted the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

In summary, the empirical results verified Hypothesis 1 (H1) of this study.

The research results extended the breadth and depth of the understanding of the relationship between urban–rural relations and the economic development of tourism. They also broadened the research scope of the Chinese urban–rural relationship system.

Regarding the control variables, the transportation-service capacity and government expenditure had a significant positive impact on the high-quality development of the tourism economy, indicating that the more developed regional transportation becomes, the stronger the government’s support for tourism, and the more the high-quality development of the tourism economy is promoted. However, the level of industrial structure has no effects on the development of the tourism economy, which shows that the development of the tourism economy in China is competitive with the development of other tertiary industries in talent, capital, and technology, and that domestic tourism in China has entered a new stage.

5.3. Regional Heterogeneity Analysis

In order to comprehensively analyze the differences in terms of the impact of urban–rural integration on the high-quality development of the regional tourism economy, considering the obvious differences among regions in China, this paper divided the samples into the eastern, central, and western regions for OLS-grouping-regression estimation.

Table 6. Regression-analysis results by region.

	High-Quality Development of the Tourism Economy
	East Region	Midland	Western Region
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$	0.384 * (0.229)	3.350 *** (0.364)	0.462 (0.349)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}$	−0.082 (0.135)	0.346 ** (0.134)	0.871 ** (0.394)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{F}$	0.153 *** (0.018)	−0.107 *** (0.039)	0.351 *** (0.072)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{L}$	0.810 *** (0.110)	−0.274 ** (0.109)	0.087 (0.239)
cons	−1.482 (0.332)	−0.279 (0.531)	−5.724 *** (1.192)
Time effect	fixed	fixed	fixed
Individual effect	fixed	fixed	fixed
N	110	90	100
R-sq	0.889	0.916	0.779

Note: The figures in brackets are robust standard error, *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

outlines the regression results in the eastern, middle, and western regions. The regression coefficient of the core explanatory variable of urban–rural integration in the eastern region $\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$ for the high-quality development of the tourism economy $\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{E}$ was 0.384, which was significant at the level of 10%, and that in the central region was 3.350, which was significant at the level of 1%, indicating that urban–rural integration had an obvious increasing effect on the high-quality development of the tourism economy in the eastern and central regions. However, the regression coefficient in the western region was not significant, indicating that the influence of urban–rural integration on the high-quality development of the tourism economy in the western region has not yet been leveraged. The regional system of urban–rural integration is an open and dynamic system, and the level of urban–rural integration has significant heterogeneity. The geographical and environmental conditions and the social and economic development levels of the eastern and central regions are better than those of the western regions. The favorable internal and external environments of the regions can effectively support factor flow and information exchange, ensuring that the level of urban–rural integration is higher. However, although the impact of urban–rural integration in the western regions has begun to appear, it is not yet significant. Due to the obvious regional characteristics of urban–rural-integration development, the promotion mechanisms of urban–rural integration in the eastern and central regions and of the digital economy’s empowerment of urban–rural integration are superior to those in the western regions. Therefore, there are significant regional differences in the impact of urban–rural integration on the high-quality development of the tourism economy. These results expand the research on the influencing factors in differences between the levels of the regional economic development of tourism.

In summary, the empirical results supported Hypothesis 2 (H2) of this study.

This study enriches the research on the regional factors in the relationship between urban–rural integration and the tourism industry and expands the scope of research on regional differentiation.

5.4. Mediation Effect Analysis

Referring to the research by Baron and Kenny [67],

Table 7. Mediation-effect test.

Dependent Variable	Resident Income	High-Quality Development of the Tourism Economy	Technological Innovation	High-Quality Development of the Tourism Economy
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}$		0.209 ** (0.092)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{E}$				−0.0888 ** (0.035)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$	0.460 *** (0.102)	0.868 *** (0.157)	1.150 *** (0.267)	1.066 *** (0.156)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}$	0.236 *** (0.086)	0.149 (0.128)	0.592 *** (0.223)	0.251 * (0.128)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{F}$	0.175 *** (0.018)	0.0139 (0.031)	0.270 *** (0.047)	0.0745 *** (0.028)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{L}$	−0.590 *** (0.074)	−0.171 (0.123)	−0.882 *** (0.193)	−0.373 *** (0.114)
cons	−2.735 *** (1.017)	−3.602 ** (1.520)	−4.051 (2.648)	−4.534 *** (1.506)
Time effect	fixed	fixed	fixed	fixed
Individual effect	fixed	fixed	fixed	fixed
R-sq	0.942	0.853	0.846	0.854
Proportion of intermediary effect		10.25%		10.89%

Note: The figures in brackets are robust standard errors; *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

verifies that urban–rural integration has a positive enabling effect on the high-quality development of the tourism economy, indicating that the total effect ${\mathsf{\alpha }}_1$ in Formula (1) was positive and significant. Therefore, we focused on testing the significance of resident income ($\mathrm{b}1,\mathrm{c}2$), according to Formulas (2) and (3), and technological innovation ($\mathrm{d}1$,$\mathrm{e}2$), according to Formulas (4) and (5).

Mechanism and empirical evidence. In Table 7 (1), it can be seen that the regression coefficient of the core explanatory variable of urban–rural integration in the intermediary variable of regional income was significantly positive at the level of 1%, indicating that urban–rural integration has a significant increase effect on regional income. In Table 7 (2), the regression coefficients c1 and c2 of the core explanatory variable of urban–rural integration and the intermediary variable of regional income in the high-quality development of the tourism economy are 0.868 and 0.209, respectively, which are significantly positive at the levels of 1% and 5%. The regression coefficient B1 of urban–rural integration in regional income, the regression coefficient c2 of the high-quality development of the tourism economy in regional income, and the regression coefficient c1 of high-quality development of the tourism economy in urban–rural integration have the same sign, indicating that there is a partial intermediary effect between resident income and the high-quality development of the tourism economy empowered by urban–rural integration.

In summary, the empirical results support Hypothesis 3 (H3) of this study.

This means the integration of urban and rural areas is conducive to optimizing the urban–rural structure and improving the living standards of rural residents [68], which could be leveraged to increase the incomes of low-income groups [56]. Affected by the income levels of residents, residents’ tourism-consumption demand leads to the upgrading of tourism-product supply and empowers the high-quality development of the tourism economy [69].

Mechanism and empirical evidence. In Table 7 (3), it can be seen that the regression coefficient $\mathrm{d}1$ of the core explanatory variable of urban–rural integration in the mediating variable of technological innovation is significantly positive at the level of 1%, which shows that urban–rural integration has an obvious increase effect on regional technological innovation. In Table 7 (4), the regression coefficients $\mathrm{e}1$,$\mathrm{e}2$ of the core explanatory variable of urban–rural integration and the intermediary variable of technological innovation in the explained variables are significant at the level of 1% and 5%, respectively. The regression coefficient $\mathrm{d}1$ of urban–rural integration in technological innovation, the regression coefficient $\mathrm{e}2$ of the high-quality development of the tourism economy in technological innovation, and the regression coefficient $\mathrm{e}1$ of the high-quality development of the tourism economy in urban–rural integration have different signs. This showed that regional technological innovation has a masking effect between urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

In summary, the empirical results verified Hypothesis 4 (H4).

The reason for this is that urban–rural integration accelerates technological innovation. However, because the main bodies responsible for technological innovation are more willing to invest in R&D in areas with higher network efficiency [80], at present, the efficiency of the innovation network in most parts of China, especially in rural areas, is not high [81]. Therefore, technological innovation has a masking effect on the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

5.5. Endogenous Test

In order to lessen the endogenous problems caused by missing variables and reverse causality, the system generalized matrix method (GMM) and tool-variable method (2SLS) were used to test the endogeneity. The results are shown in

Table 8. Endogenous verification results.

$\mathbf{Variable}$	GMM	2SLS Instrumental Variable 1		2SLS Instrumental Variable 2
$\mathrm{L}.\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{E}$	0.761 *** (0.049)
$\mathrm{L}.\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$		0.875 *** (0.067)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}$				−0.111 *** (0.034)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$	0.325 ** (0.164)		1.088 *** (0.269)		1.920 ** (0.777)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}$	0.0662 (0.123)	0.024 (0.025)	0.172 (0.187)	0.205 *** (0.051)	0.607 *** (0.102)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{F}$	0.0449 ** (0.022)	0.002 (0.003)	0.0827 * (0.044)	0.027 *** (0.009)	0.128 (0.124)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{L}$	0.00197 (0.099)	0.014 (0.018)	−0.155 (0.189)	0.107 * (0.057)	0.886 *** (0.214)
cons		−0.255 (0.255)	−3.431 * (1.949)	−2.195 *** (0.490)	−7.578 *** (0.460)
First stage	f value	7743.23		514.89
	$p$ value	0.0000		0.0000
$\mathrm{S}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}$ test	139.39 (0.213)
AR(2) test	0.594
Wald-χ2 Statistic			33,709.06 (0.0000)		238.08 (0.0000)
R-sq			0.966		0.578

Note: The figures in brackets are robust standard errors; *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

.

Referring to Liu Yingji and others [3], the first-order lag term of tourism-economic-development quality was included as an explanatory variable in the econometric model. The control variables were regarded as exogenous variables, and the urban–rural integration, per capita GDP, and R&D expenditure were regarded as endogenous variables. The result of the Sargan test was 139.39, which showed that the tool-variable selection was effective. The result of the AR (2) test was 0.594, which showed that there were no sequence-correlation problems in the model-error term. The first-order regression coefficient of the lag in the high-quality development of the tourism economy was 0.761, which was significant at the level of 1%, indicating that the high-quality development of the tourism economy is “sustainable” over time. The significance level of the urban–rural integration was consistent with previous results, indicating that urban–rural integration has a positive role in promoting the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

Furthermore, this paper used the instrumental-variable method to verify the core explanatory variables by delaying one period and replacing the core explanatory variables. First, the core explanatory-variable lag phase was selected as the tool variable, as shown in 2SLS tool variable 1 in Table 8. According to the test results for the first stage, the regression coefficient $\mathrm{L}.\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$ was 0.875, which was significant at the level of 1%, indicating that the first-order lag term of the urban–rural integration had a positive effect on the current urban–rural integration. The F-test value was far greater than 10, indicating that the tool variable $\mathrm{L}.\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$ strongly rejected the original hypothesis of unrecognizable and weak tool variables, and the regression result was valid. The regression results for the second stage showed that the regression coefficient of the urban–rural integration in the high-quality development of the tourism economy was 1.088, which was slightly higher than the results of the fixed-effect model and significant at the level of 1%; that is, urban–rural integration can promote the high-quality development of the tourism economy, which is consistent with the original results and can reduce the impact of endogenous problems. Secondly, the urban–rural gap (lnSCF) was selected as the tool variable, and it was measured by the ratio of the difference between urban residents’ per capita disposable income and rural residents’ per capita disposable income, as shown in 2SLS tool variable 2 in Table 8. According to the test results of the first stage, the regression coefficient $\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}$ was 0.111, which was significantly negatively correlated at the level of 1%, indicating that the narrowing of the urban–rural gap can promote urban–rural integration. The F-test value was far greater than 10, indicating that there were no problems of insufficient identification or weak tool variables. In the estimation results of the second-stage model, the regression coefficient of the urban–rural integration in the high-quality development of the tourism economy was significantly positive at the level of 1%, which was consistent with the original results and, again, supported Hypothesis 1 (H1).

5.6. Robustness Test

Alternative explanatory-variable-model estimation. In April 2021, the government of China noted that urban and rural community governance is related to the interests of urban and rural residents and the harmony and stability of the urban and rural grassroots. The governance level of urban and rural communities is the direct embodiment of urban–rural integration. Therefore, the proportion of urban and rural communities’ expenditure to $\mathrm{G}\mathrm{D}\mathrm{P}$ ($\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{M}$) was chosen as an index to measure urban–rural integration. The estimation results were consistent with the original estimation results, which showed that the original conclusion was robust. The results are shown in

Table 9. Robustness-verification results.

	High-Quality Development of the Tourism Economy
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{M}$	0.138 *** (0.040)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}$		0.864 ** (0.389)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}$	0.779 *** (0.157)	0.656 ** (0.302)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{F}$	0.201 *** (0.027)	0.303 *** (0.062)
$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{L}$	0.210 * (0.113)	−0.398 * (0.206)
cons	−11.219 *** (1.827)	−10.910 *** (3.577)
Time effect	fixed	fixed
Individual effect	fixed	fixed
N	300	180
R-sq	0.745	0.698

Note: The figures in brackets are robust standard errors; *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

.

Sample subinterval-model estimation. Since 2015, the State Council has successively issued “Opinions on Supporting Migrant Workers and Other Personnel to Return Home to Start Businesses” and “Opinions on Supporting Entrepreneurial Innovation of Returned Rural Personnel to Promote the Integration and Development of Rural Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Industries”. Therefore, the estimation effect of the model after 2015 was investigated. The results showed that the estimation results were consistent with the original estimation results, which indicated that the original research conclusions were robust. The results are shown in Table 9.

6. Conclusions

Based on the panel data from 30 provincial administrative regions in China from 2010 to 2019, this study considered the influence of urban–rural integration on the high-quality development of the tourism economy, as well as the influence mechanism of resident income and technological innovation. The conclusions are as follows.

Firstly, urban–rural integration has a positive impact on the high-quality development of the tourism economy. This finding enriches the research on the high-quality development of the tourism economy, and it expands the scope of the research on the relationship between urban–rural integration and the development of the tourism economy.

Secondly, there are regional differences in the impact of urban–rural integration on the high-quality development of the tourism economy, which has been significantly increased in the eastern and central regions, but has not yet been leveraged in the western region.

Thirdly, the test of the influence mechanism showed that there is a partial mediating effect between residents’ incomes, the high-quality development of urban–rural integration, and the empowerment of the tourism economy. There is a masking effect between technological innovation, the high-quality development of urban–rural integration, and the empowerment of the tourism economy.

The high-quality development of the tourism economy is key to solving the problems of insufficient intensive growth momentum, the slow upgrading of the tourism industry, and ecological destruction related to tourism. A scientific and effective index system for measuring the high-quality development of the tourism economy would provide a guarantee that these issues can be resolved. In this study, we constructed such an index system and discussed the relationship between and the influence mechanism underlying urban–rural integration and the high-quality development of the tourism economy, providing the following information relevant to policy development.

First, at the national level, the strengthening of overall planning and improving the development and construction system of the tourism economy will be important. China lacks a unified spatial strategic planning system and advanced laws in this area, resulting in unbalanced regional development [81]. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a targeted strategic deployment according to the development level of the regional tourism economy. The development of the eastern, central, and western regions means that differentiated and phased high-quality development goals for the tourism economy should be formulated. The government of China should formulate criteria for the identification of rural heritage, so that the manmade and natural elements of the rural landscape together constitute rural heritage [82,83]. Governments should support all regions to strengthen cooperation and expand tourism borders. In addition, the Chinese government should broaden the channels for increasing residents’ incomes, improve the efficiency of the tourism regional network, and promote the high-quality development of the tourism economy through urban–rural integration.

Second, at the regional level, governments at all levels should emphasize the functional differences between urban and rural areas and regional characteristics. Based on local urban–rural integration, residents’ income and technological innovation, a high-quality development plan for tourism economy should be formulated. In the eastern region, governments should make full use of the comparative advantages of urban and rural areas. We will build an evaluation system for the urban and rural tourism factors, public services, infrastructure, and the ecological environment. The management, supervision, and evaluation of urban–rural-integration development should be deepened. In the central region, regional conditions, traffic conditions, and production conditions should be considered. The government should release various forms of natural resources and human resources to promote the high-quality development of the tourism economy. In the western region, local governments should increase financial support for the tourism industry, focus on the comprehensive value of urban–rural-integration space [84], and combine material and intangible cultural forms of heritage, such as historical sites, rural tribal landscapes, characteristic residential architectural landscapes, and characteristic ethnic folk cultural landscapes, within tourism.

Finally, at the enterprise level, enterprises in the western region should seize the opportunity for development. Enterprises should fully utilize the regional natural, cultural, historical, folk, and other characteristic resources, promote the integration of the tourism industry with industries such as leisure and old-age care, culture and education, and agricultural product sales [85], and enhance the resilience of the supply chains in the urban- and rural-tourism-economy industries. Enterprises should provide innovation through the regional-tourism business model, as well as providing dynamic, participatory, and consumable tourism-appreciation services, such as live broadcasts, online commentary, and offline experiences, to meet the needs of different types of tourists, such as individuals and families. In addition, enterprises should have a sense of responsibility to rationally develop tourism resources, protect the green ecological environment, and maintain traditional ethnic features. Enterprises should attach importance to the development of local smart tourism and green tourism, as well as promoting the increase in residents’ incomes and the high-quality development of the tourism economy.

This research should be expanded in the following areas. First, since, in this paper, we selected provincial panel data from the macro level, and the county is the natural carrier connecting cities and serving villages and is the key support for promoting the integration of urban and rural areas, future research could consider the micro, county level to explore the relationship between urban and rural integration and empowering the high-quality development of the tourism economy. Secondly, urban–rural integration involves urban–rural-factor integration, economic integration, environmental integration, and other aspects. This paper focused on urban–rural integration from the perspective of the urban–rural-population relationship, which could be comprehensively measured from multiple dimensions in the future.