Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Management of Pollutant Transport in Defective Composite Liners of Landfills: A Semi-Analytical Model
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability of Nuclear Energy—A Critical Review from a UK Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tourists’ Perception of Tourist Destinations: The Case Study of Nazaré (Portugal)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 24
10.3390/su162410953
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Attitudes of Xizang Residents Toward Tourism Development Based on Structural Equation Modeling

by
Junzhe Teng
1,2,†,
Jihang Li
1,†,
Lin Yuan
3,
Junmeng Zhao
4,* and
Xinyan Wang
2,3,*
1
School of Ecology and Environment, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China
2
Traffic Engineering Laboratory, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China
3
School of Engineering, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China
4
College of Science, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 10953; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410953
Submission received: 4 November 2024 / Revised: 2 December 2024 / Accepted: 11 December 2024 / Published: 13 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Advances in Marketing and Managing Tourism Destinations)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the rapid development of tourism, it has not only injected new vitality into Tibet’s economy but also had a profound impact on the lifestyle, cultural heritage, and social environment of its residents. While the prosperity of tourism brings economic opportunities, it also poses challenges to Tibet’s unique culture and ecological environment. In this research, we focus on Lhasa and Nyingchi as the study areas, analyzing the impact of tourism development on the economy, social culture, and environment from the perspective of the local residents’ perception and the residents’ willingness to participate in tourism. By constructing a structural equation model of local residents in Tibet with a total of 37 items in five dimensions, including economic perception, socio-cultural perception, environmental perception, tourism development attitude, and participation intention, perception characteristics were described based on a total of 677 questionnaires in Nyingchi City and Lhasa City. The economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimension indicators were determined in positive and negative ways, and the characteristics and development trends of tourism in Tibet were discussed in depth. Positive economic, socio-cultural, environmental, and environmental perceptions display a significant positive correlation with tourism participation intention, and negative economic perception has a negative correlation with tourism participation intention. At the same time, we found that economic perception had the most significant impact on the residents in Tibet, and we put forward corresponding suggestions according to the current problems facing current tourism development. This study is of great value for the development of the tourism industry in Tibet.

1. Introduction

Presently, with the disappearance of the epidemic and the rapid development of the global tourism market, the growth of the tourism industry is affecting local economies, social cultures, and the environment [1,2]. Residents have different views on the tourism industry. Some residents believe that tourism can drive economic development, allowing the world to better understand their local culture while increasing local employment opportunities and attracting foreign investment [3]. Conversely, another group of residents believe that the tourism industry may further increase the local income gap, raise the cost of living for local residents, elevate the number of permanent residents, damage the environment, and increase garbage production [4,5,6,7]. These will change residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, thereby changing their behavior. The specific impact will vary based on time and place, and multiple factors need to be analyzed. At the same time, scholars have analyzed the integration of tourism economic benefits into residents’ attitudes, local government tourism policy and tourism industry, tourism planning and management, and tourism industry benefit acquisition [8,9,10,11]. The related role of tourism development and the contradiction between tourism development and ecological environment protection have been a particular point of emphasis [12,13]. In addition, ethnic regions have unique characteristics [14]. Tourists can affect the development of tourism in certain aspects, while foreign tourists can affect the social and cultural aspects of the destination. Not only can they subtly change the folk customs, cultural customs, and lifestyle of the destination, but they can also effectively promote and protect some intangible cultural heritage, advancing communication and interaction between various ethnic cultures. From a sociological perspective, the development of tourism will inevitably lead to changes in the social characteristics of destinations and that whether these changes are positive or negative will depend on the carrying capacity of the destination relative to the volume of tourist activities. Meanwhile, different ethnic groups have different living customs. However, with the rapid development of the tourism industry, many cultures with unique ethnic customs and a traditional culture are being commercialized and reduced.
Studying residents’ views on the impact of tourism development can provide impetus for the development of the tourism industry. Only when residents of tourist destinations perceive that the positive impact of tourism development outweighs the negative effects will they show increased enthusiasm for participating in tourism development and enable the local tourism industry to achieve comprehensive and healthy development [15]. In rural areas of the Czech Republic, Ivica Linderová found that tourism development brought economic growth, new job opportunities, and business prospects to local residents while also causing environmental pollution and inappropriate behavior from tourists [16]. On the other hand, more than two-thirds of the residents expressed support for tourism development. Pazhuhan, M. analyzed the relationship between residents’ perceptions and their level of participation in sustainable tourism development in Iranian tourist cities. The results indicated that local support for tourism development outweighed negative sentiments. Residents’ perceptions of place image influenced their views on tourism impacts, which in turn affected their support for tourism development [17]. Stylidis, Dimitrios examined the perceptions of Kavala residents in Greece regarding the impacts of tourism development, finding that economic impacts were the strongest, followed by sociocultural impacts, while environmental impacts had the least influence on residents’ support for tourism development [18]. In China, Yang, Jingjing analyzed the impacts of tourism development in areas inhabited by Tuva and Kazakh people in Kanas, Xinjiang, revealing that tourism has caused cultural disruptions and transformed ethnic cultures into standardized and modernized resources for commercialization [19]. Zheng, Jing examined the attitudes of local residents in western Sichuan toward tourism development, showing that residents who possess greater adaptability and advantages within the market economy tend to prefer strategies aimed at tourism expansion [20]. Shui, Wei employed logistic regression to evaluate household participation in tourism in Jiajuzang Village, finding that household livelihood capital plays a crucial role in enhancing tourism participation in the village [21]. Although the existing literature has extensively focused on residents’ attitudes toward tourism, comprehensive studies on residents’ attitudes within the context of plateau ecology and Tibetan culture remain relatively scarce.
The main analysis methods currently used include the [22] multiple linear regression method, multi-dimensional time-series method [23], and two-step covariance structural equation [24]. The structural equation model integrates variance analysis, regression analysis, path analysis, and factor analysis, making up for the shortcomings of traditional factor analysis and regression analysis. Recent research has increasingly adopted structural equation modeling to conduct in-depth analyses of the multidimensional factors influencing residents’ willingness.
To sum up, this paper selects Xizang, a region with ethnic characteristics, to establish a model that can describe the views of tourism development held by residents in ethnic areas. It aims to understand the perspectives of residents in ethnic tourism areas on the economic, cultural, and environmental aspects of tourism development, validate existing research theories, and provide empirical evidence for the interrelationships among ecological environmental protection, traditional ethnic culture, economic growth, attitudes toward tourism development, and willingness to participate. This methodology is applied in Tibet for the first time, allowing for a more accurate evaluation and supporting tailored policy recommendations for the cultural and tourism sectors in Tibet. It serves as a reference for more scientific and precise tourism development in ethnic regions.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypothesis

Residents play a crucial role in the development of tourist destinations, serving as key participants in tourism development. Local ethnic culture, tourism products, and regional recognition act as attractions for visitors. Residents’ attitudes toward tourism significantly influence its development, with economic factors being the primary drivers of their participation in tourism activities. These economic factors include residents’ perceptions of the economic impacts of tourism development, their reliance on material benefits brought by tourists, and their corresponding attitudes and supportive behaviors [25]. Scholars such as Rong Wang et al. [26] have explored the relationship between tourism development and community well-being. Gaunette Sinclair-Maragh [27], using a survey-based analysis, examined tourism development and resident participation in Jamaica. The study found that residents who support tourism development are often aged between 18 and 25 years and are predominantly Black, providing valuable insights for tourism planners in making strategic and business decisions. Thus, the impacts of tourism development on local residents are multifaceted. This study primarily focuses on examining the economic, cultural, and environmental impacts, as well as the attitudes and willingness of local residents to participate in tourism development.

2.1. The Economic Impacts of Tourism Development

Economic growth serves as a key channel for fostering public support for tourism development [28]. Chi-Ok Oh employed the Engel and Granger two-step approach along with a bivariate vector autoregression (VAR) model to explore the causal relationship between tourism growth and economic expansion in South Korea [29]. His findings revealed that residents of tourist destinations can provide services such as accommodation and dining, which in turn contribute to local economic development.
Kahyalar, Neslihan, using time-series analysis and data from Turkey spanning 1960–2018, demonstrated that tourism development can act as a tool for economic modernization [30]. Nunkoo, Robin analyzed community support within Mauritius’ island economy and identified economic factors as the most significant influence on residents’ attitudes toward tourism development [31]. Similarly, Diedrich, Amy found that tourism development can lead to increased employment opportunities [32]. However, the economic impacts of tourism are not entirely positive. It can lead to adverse effects such as rising property prices [33], seasonal unemployment, and an increase in the cost of living [34]. In China, Tong, Yun analyzed data from 284 cities and concluded that tourism development significantly contributes to economic growth [35]. Zhang, Jiekuan discovered that while tourism boosts visitor numbers and revenue, it can also negatively affect nighttime economic activities [36]. Furthermore, Li, Ranran [37] found a strong correlation between urban economic growth and tourism development in Shandong Province, with an overall upward trend.

2.2. The Culture Impacts of Tourism Development on Local Socio-Cultural Aspects

Tourism development significantly influences local socio-cultural dynamics. In Thailand, the increasing number of tourists has introduced foreign cultures to local communities. Soontayatron, Somruthai explored psychological coping mechanisms in Thailand and how these communities address the socio-cultural impacts of tourism [38]. Lee, Chien-Chiang, using data from 101 countries, investigated whether the cultural characteristics of a destination influence tourism development. Their findings indicate a nonlinear relationship between ethnic culture and tourism development [39]. Tourism development also facilitates cultural integration and promotes the destination’s culture. For example, Xi’an, an international tourist city with two UNESCO World Heritage Sites (the Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor and the Terracotta Warriors), has benefited from a personalized cultural tourism evaluation system established by Zhang et al. [40]. This system has fostered the synergy between local culture and tourism, deepening tourists’ understanding of the culture, enhancing their cultural knowledge, and increasing their sense of happiness [41]. In regions with advanced tourism economies, the cultural tourism industry often exhibits a high degree of digitalization and prosperity [42]. However, excessive tourism development can also negatively impact local cultures. In Kinmen, Taiwan, Wang, Yiping noted that an overdevelopment of tourism could harm local cultural integrity [43]. Research highlights both the positive and negative effects of tourism. On the positive side, tourism introduces new leisure activities [44], enhances cultural identity and pride, and increases cultural value [45]. On the negative side, it may lead to increased criminal behavior [46], the commercialization of unique cultural elements [47], and lifestyle changes [48]. How to protect the local cultural authenticity while promoting the development of cultural tourism is an important challenge for the sustainable development of tourism in many destinations.

2.3. The Environment Impacts of Tourism Development

Tourism development brings significant changes to the local environment, often resulting in both positive and negative outcomes. On the positive side, tourism can help protect unique environmental resources by incentivizing conservation efforts. The growth of tourism has led to improvements in local recreational facilities [49], the preservation and restoration of historical sites and artifacts, and enhanced overall environmental quality in certain regions [50]. However, tourism development can also have adverse environmental effects. Increased tourism activities often result in pollution issues [51], with the rising volume of waste left behind by tourists placing additional pressure on local waste management systems [52]. In popular destinations, higher visitor traffic can lead to congestion [53]. Moreover, the overexploitation of natural resources and inappropriate activities, such as off-road driving or uncontrolled hiking, can damage the ecosystem of tourist destinations, leading to “land-use changes and atmospheric degradation” [54]. Tourism-economy–ecology coupling models demonstrate that while tourism generates economic benefits, it also causes ecological damage [55,56]. Therefore, achieving sustainable tourism development relies heavily on gaining local residents’ support, raising environmental awareness among them, and strengthening their social connection to the living environment.

2.4. Research Hypothesis

Based on the literature review in the above sections, research on the economic, social, cultural, and ecological impacts of tourism is extensive and continually improving. Tourism development typically involves both positive and negative impacts, as well as the establishment of various evaluation indicators. Considering the practical circumstances of residents in Tibet, such as low levels of education, the lack of understanding of tourism, and limited interest, the following hypotheses are proposed:
  • H1: Residents’ perception of tourism has a significant positive impact on tourism development attitude;
  • H2: Residents’ social and cultural perception of tourism has a significant positive impact on tourism development attitude;
  • H3: Residents’ perception of the tourism environment has a significant positive impact on tourism development attitude;
  • H4: Residents’ perception of tourism economy has a significant positive impact on tourism participation intention;
  • H5: Residents’ socio-cultural perception of tourism has a significant positive impact on tourism participation intention;
  • H6: Residents’ perception of tourism environment has a significant positive impact on tourism participation intention.
  • H7: Tourism development attitude has a significant positive impact on tourism behavior.
Considering that the economic and cultural environments in society are not independent, but mutually influential, we try to link the relationship between the three:
  • H8–H10: Economic, socio-cultural, and environmental interactions.
Based on the research hypotheses (H1~H10), we constructed a relationship model of tourism economic, socio-cultural and environmental perception, participation willingness, and the tourism impact of the behavior of residents in ethnic minority areas on tourism development (Figure 1).

3. Research Methods

3.1. Study Area

This paper takes the main urban areas of Nyingchi and Lhasa in the Xizang Autonomous Region as the research objects. Tibet boasts unique natural scenery and religious culture, offering abundant tourism resources [57]. The purpose of using case studies is to explain some phenomena through the reasoning of several representative case places, and the selection of representative case places should reflect general laws and typical characteristics. In order to explore the perception of tourism development in Xizang, the capital cities of Lhasa and Nyingchi were selected as case studies (Figure 2). Lhasa and Nyingchi are the cities in the Tibet region with the richest tourism resources. Their tourism development is characterized by unique ethnic features, with relatively rapid progress in resource development, including offerings and promotional efforts in rural tourism, eco-tourism, red tourism, and educational tourism. During the seven-day National Day holiday in 2023 alone, the Potala Palace received over 530,000 visitors, and the Basum Lake Scenic Area received over 28,000 visitors. Against the backdrop of various forms of tourism contributing to Tibet’s overall development, the residents of these tourist destinations are increasingly impacted by cultural, economic, and environmental influences brought by tourists. Therefore, this study examines the impact mechanisms of tourism development on residents in Lhasa and Nyingchi, providing conclusions and insights.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

According to the relevant literature and research hypothesis, the questionnaire designed six parts (Table 1).

3.3. Questionnaire Distribution and Data Collection

In this study, residents who have lived in Milin City of Nyingchi City or Chengguan District of Lhasa City for more than two years were surveyed. Using the random sampling method, data collection was conducted through a combination of online and offline methods. Electronic questionnaires were distributed online through the Questionnaire Star mini program, while offline questionnaires were manually distributed. Both electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires were distributed simultaneously.
A total of 700 questionnaires were distributed, with 350 in Nyingchi City and 350 in Lhasa City, among which 341 were recovered in Nyingchi City and 336 in Lhasa City, both meeting less than 5% of the requirements [58].

3.4. Structural Equation Model Analysis

After preliminary data screening (missing values and normality) and the use of descriptive statistics, we performed the sample reliability test and validity test, and then exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to detect the dimensional structure of the scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to analyze the fitting of the factor model, including a CFA of residents’ perception of positive and negative tourism impacts.
KMO and Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were used to analyze the validity of the questionnaires. The KMO value ranges from 0 to 1, and it is generally believed that the closer the KMO value is to 1, the more desirable it is. A value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation between variables, making it more suitable for factor analysis. A KMO value greater than or equal to 0.7 is considered reasonable.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the sample data, and principal component analysis was used to extract the factors via the maximum variance rotation method (Varimax). A structural equation model of the influencing factors of tourism development was established. According to the relevant indicators, the fit evaluation was carried out. CMIN/DF values should be less than 3. GFI and AGFI between 0.7 and 0.9 indicate that the model is acceptable [59]. An RMSEA below 0.1 indicates a good fit [60], and a value below 0.05 indicates a very good fit. Dimensionality reduction was evaluated using eigenvalues of 1 or greater according to residents’ perception of economic impact, socio-cultural impact perception, environmental impact perception, attitude toward tourism development, and willingness to participate in tourism [61].
The structural equation model is mainly divided into two parts: the measurement model and the structural model. In the structural equation measurement model, the standardization coefficient is greater than 0.5, the CR must be greater than 0.7, and the AVE must be greater than 0.5. First of all, the alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the degree of the internal consistency of the sample. In general, the minimum acceptable value of coefficient α for Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.6. When α > 0.7, it indicates a higher degree of reliability of the scale. Subsequently, the sample data from the pre-trial were used for CITC (project overall correlation coefficient) analysis. The article first conducted a reliability analysis on the overall perception scale of the economy, social culture, and environment. Then, we carried out reliability analyses of positive and negative perception, respectively, as mediating variables. Finally, reliability analysis was conducted from the perspectives of positive and negative economic impact perception, positive and negative social and cultural impact perception, and positive and negative environmental impact perception. The data analysis and plotting of this study were completed using AMOS 26 software, and the confidence level of the statistical test was set to p < 0.05.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

As shown in Table 2, the distribution of male and female respondents in the sample is nearly equal. In terms of age, the largest groups are residents aged 30–34 and 18–24, followed by those aged 35–39 and 25–29. Ethnically, the population is primarily Han Chinese, followed by Tibetan residents. Regarding education, the majority have a high school equivalent education, followed by bachelor’s degrees. In terms of income, the largest income group is those earning CN¥ 4000–5999 (as of 12 October 2024, 1 USD ≈ CN¥ 7.0669).

4.2. Principal Component Analysis

The overall reliability and validity test of 677 questionnaires showed that the Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.899, which was very reliable. The validity value was 0.861 in the validity test, and the validity was very good, with a significance of 0.000, i.e., less than 0.05 and, therefore, suitable for factor analysis.
The third component of social and cultural impact in the table is 1.074 (Table 3), which is close to 1, and the third component of environmental impact is 1, which is not significant. Factor loads higher than 0.5 were selected [62], and finally the principal components were extracted according to the factor loading factor before and after rotation (Table 4 and Table 5).
The fitting indexes of the structural equation model constructed in this paper show (Figure 3) that the CMIN/DF value is 2.937, the GFI and AGFI are 0.884 and 0.863, and the RMSEA is 0.054, which is close to 0.05, and so the model has a good fit.

4.3. Model Results and Corrections

The results of the structural equation measurement model (Table 6) constructed in this paper show that the D9 item does not meet the requirements, and the D9 item is removed and its tests re-run. The D8 item does not meet the requirements, and the results of the structural equation measurement model are met after its removal (Table 7).
In terms of a structural model, in the path coefficient and significance results of the model of influencing factors of tourism structure (Table 8), the p-value should be less than or equal to 0.05, the critical ratio (CR) should be greater than 1.96, and the negative economic, socio-cultural, and environmental perception of the attitude toward tourism development and the positive economic perception of the participation intention in the path did not pass the test.
Based on the results of the structural equation measurement model and the structural model calculation, this article has made modifications to the proposed model, deleting the assumptions that failed the test and rebuilding the structural equation model as shown in Figure 4. The CMIN/DF of the modified structural equation model was 2.679, GFI was 0.901, AGFI was 0.883, and RMSEA was 0.050, all of which met the evaluation criteria, and the model had a good fitting performance. Table 9 shows the calculation results of the coefficient values of each path in the modified structural model. CR and significance evaluation met the evaluation criteria.
Based on the revised structural equation model (Figure 4), the final calculated path coefficients are presented in Table 8 and Table 9. In general, for the results to be statistically significant, the p-value should be less than 0.05. Regarding standardized path coefficients, values greater than 0.67 indicate a strong effect, 0.33–0.67 indicate a moderate effect, and 0.19–0.32 indicate a weak effect.
In this study, the following is observed: Positive socio-cultural perceptions have a significant moderate positive effect on tourism development (H2). Positive environmental perceptions have a significant weak effect on attitudes toward tourism development (H3). Positive cultural perceptions have a significant weak positive effect on willingness to participate (H5). Positive environmental perceptions have a significant weak effect on willingness to participate (H6). Attitudes toward tourism development have a significant moderate effect on willingness to participate (H7).
Regarding the relationships within economic, cultural, and environmental perceptions, the following is observed: Positive economic perceptions have a moderate effect on both positive environmental perceptions and positive cultural perceptions. Positive environmental perceptions have a moderate effect on positive socio-cultural perceptions. The three negative dimensions (economic, environmental, and socio-cultural perceptions) also have moderate effects on each other.
Therefore, the research hypotheses H2, H3, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, and H10 are supported, while H1 and H4 are not supported.

4.4. Development Attitude and Participation Intention Score

According to the equation, the scores of tourism development attitude and tourism participation are calculated (Table 10). The overall score of tourism development attitude is 83.0 points, and the participation willingness is 75.7 points. It can be seen that the current attitude of Xizang residents toward tourism development is supportive and that the participation willingness is positive.

5. Discussion

5.1. The Relationship Between Residents’ Perception of Tourism Impact and Their Development Attitude

The path analysis indicates that positive socio-cultural perceptions have a significant moderate positive impact on tourism development (H2), while positive environmental perceptions have a significant weak impact on attitudes toward tourism development (H3). This suggests that with the growth of socio-cultural diversity and the increasing convenience of the local environment in recent years, residents hold positive attitudes toward the development of tourism. These findings are consistent with other related studies in China [56]. Relevant news reports also support this view, highlighting the promotion of unique Tibetan culture, such as the popularity of Tibetan clothing, Tibetan Buddhist artifacts, and photography services at Potala Palace Square. These examples demonstrate that residents are more willing to share their regional culture and support the growth of the tourism industry [63].
In related studies, economic indicators often have the most significant impact on attitudes toward tourism development. However, in this study, the economic indicators did not pass the significance test, indicating no strong relationship between economic growth and support for tourism. A possible explanation for this phenomenon is the already favorable economic conditions in the region. Lhasa’s per capita GDP is RMB 96,000, while Nyingchi’s per capita GDP is RMB 98,000, leading residents to perceive limited economic benefits from tourism development.
Negative economic, socio-cultural, and environmental perceptions were found to have no significant impact on attitudes toward tourism development. This result contrasts with the findings of most scholars [64,65]. A possible reason lies in Tibet’s geographical and cultural context. Most local residents have a strong awareness of the benefits of tourism development and improvements to their living environment, such as the addition of shopping centers and recreational tourism facilities. Additionally, the development of tourism in Tibet has emphasized the preservation of local socio-cultural heritage and the unique ecology of the Tibetan Plateau. Consequently, negative perceptions are minimal, and residents’ positive attitudes toward tourism development remain largely unaffected by potential adverse impacts.

5.2. The Relationship Between Residents’ Perception of Tourism Impact and Their Willingness to Participate

Based on the analysis results in the previous chapter, positive socio-cultural perceptions have a significant weak positive impact on the willingness to participate in tourism (H5), and positive environmental perceptions also have a significant weak positive impact on the willingness to participate (H6). These conclusions align with the findings of most scholars [66,67]. With a participation willingness score of 75.7, local residents exhibit a strong willingness to engage in tourism activities. Tibet is one of China’s major tourism provinces, with tourism revenue accounting for over 30% of the region’s total income. As the tourism industry continues to develop, more residents are expected to participate in tourism, providing them with additional sources of income and employment opportunities.
Negative socio-cultural perceptions and negative economic perceptions show no correlation with the willingness to participate in tourism. While negative environmental perceptions have a weak negative impact on participation willingness, the values are not statistically significant. This indicates that negative perceptions do not have a meaningful statistical association with tourism participation willingness. However, certain negative perceptions of tourism in Tibet do exist, such as traffic congestion during peak seasons [68] and inadequate supporting tourism infrastructure [69]. Seasonal challenges also affect tourism participation willingness. During the winter in Tibet, issues such as low oxygen levels, dryness, cold weather, and withered vegetation lead to a decline in tourist numbers, which in turn results in reduced income for residents involved in tourism.

5.3. The Relationship Between Residents’ Attitude Toward Tourism Development and Willingness to Participate

According to the results of structural equation modeling, attitudes toward tourism development have a significant moderate effect on willingness to participate (H7), which is consistent with the conclusions of most scholars [70,71,72]. When residents have a positive attitude toward tourism development, they will actively participate in or participate in the tourism industry at a deeper level. Conversely, when residents have a negative attitude toward tourism development, they will be reluctant to participate in or withdraw from the tourism industry to varying degrees.

5.4. Managerial Implication

It is necessary to supervise the market for the prices of commodities in tourist destinations, ensure market supply, actively strive for the supply of goods, broaden purchase channels, improve logistical efficiency, and intensify the investigation and punishment of unqualified businesses and monopoly phenomena in tourist destinations. The green development of the tourism economy also requires tourism enterprises and tourists to respect the environment, adopt sustainable tourism methods, and avoid negative impacts on the natural environment and ecosystems [73,74,75].
Local governments should formulate reasonable non-peak tourism policies to alleviate tourism congestion and traffic congestion and limit some key attractions to ensure that the number of tourists is within a controllable range. Visitors must book tickets or a visiting time within a specified period of time and enter within the booking time. The government has adopted a number of tourism incentive policies [76,77], such as the policy of visiting Tibet in winter, free access to all A-level attractions (except temples), three-star hotels, and the implementation of off-season prices. At the same time, it balances the relationship between tourism development and the protection of traditional culture and protects the uniqueness of the cultural environment in the region. This includes limiting the trend of commercialization and encouraging the true display and dissemination of traditional culture [78].
With the development of the Internet, the tourism industry is also developing rapidly, with support given to understand the needs of users by using network marketing strategies, exploring tourism destination resources in depth [79], integrating various resources into the development of tourism characteristics, and using social media, new media, search engine optimization, and other efforts for promotion.

6. Conclusions and Limitations

6.1. Research Summary

This study employs a structural equation model (SEM) using survey data collected from Bayi District in Nyingchi City and Chengguan District in Lhasa City, Tibet, to explore the relationships between residents’ positive economic perceptions, positive socio-cultural perceptions, positive environmental perceptions, negative economic perceptions, negative socio-cultural perceptions, and negative environmental perceptions and their attitudes toward tourism development and willingness to participate. By analyzing the path coefficient values among these dimensions, the study identifies and examines the relationships between Tibetan residents’ perceptions, development attitudes, and willingness to participate.
The results indicate that positive socio-cultural perceptions and positive environmental perceptions have a positive impact on attitudes toward tourism development and willingness to participate, respectively. Additionally, attitudes toward tourism development have a positive impact on willingness to participate. These findings have practical implications for local governments in policy-making and for tourism-related enterprises in planning. Developing well-informed policies can promote further growth in the tourism industry while addressing the negative perceptions associated with tourism development.

6.2. Theoretical Contribution

In previous studies on the impact of tourism development, there are few studies on Tibet. This study takes Lhasa and Linzhi as the research area to explore the attitude of residents in Tibetan ethnic areas to tourism development, which provides a very special perspective. By obtaining the positive impact, negative impact, development attitude, and participation willingness of local residents on tourism development and comparing with relevant studies in other regions, the research results are not exactly the same as those of other related studies, which provides some suggestions for the future tourism development direction of Tibet. Finally, this study can provide reference for researchers to improve similar research on the development of Tibet’s tourism industry.

6.3. Limitations

The limitations of this study are mainly reflected in the following two aspects:
(1)
The case study only selected the representative cities of Lhasa and Nyingchi, while ignoring other cities in Xizang, and did not carry out the analysis of the multi-group structural equation model. In the future, we will further distribute and collect questionnaires in all cities in Xizang and establish a multi-group structural equation model for research.
(2)
The impact of local residents on tourism development is only divided into two dimensions: positive and negative, and a more comprehensive dimension evaluation and classification method should be used to describe the specific antecedents of local residents and tourism development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.T. and L.Y.; Data Curation, J.T.; Formal Analysis, J.T.; Funding Acquisition, L.Y. and J.L.; Investigation, J.L.; Methodology, J.Z. and J.T.; Project Administration, J.T. and L.Y.; Resources, J.T.; Supervision, J.T. and J.L.; Validation, X.W.; Visualization, X.W. and L.Y.; Writing—Original Draft, J.T.; Writing—Review and Editing, L.Y. and J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The National Natural Science Foundation of China: Formation Mechanism of the Jiashi Strong Earthquake Swarm and Subsequent Earthquake Early Warning, grant number 42230307.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study has been approved by the Life Science Ethics Committee of the Tibet University.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jiayi Lin, Chun Lang Fan Yue of Traffic Engineering Laboratory. Also, we thank Changxia Liu for his help in the translation of the thesis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Li, K.X.; Jin, M.; Shi, W.M. Tourism as an important impetus to promoting economic growth: A critical review. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 26, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Blancas, F.J.; Lozano-Oyola, M. Sustainable tourism evaluation using a composite indicator with different compensatory levels. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 93, 106733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kronenberg, K.; Fuchs, M. Aligning tourism’s socio-economic impact with the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 39, 100831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, Y.Y.; Bai, H.R. The impact and regional heterogeneity analysis of tourism development on urban-rural income gap. Econ. Anal. Policy 2023, 80, 1539–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Blake, A.; Arbache, J.S.; Sinclair, M.T.; Teles, V. Tourism and poverty relief. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, S.J.; Mu, Y.Q.; Zhang, X.Y.; Xie, J. Polar tourism and environment change: Opportunity, impact and adaptation. Polar Sci. 2020, 25, 100544. [Google Scholar]
  7. Diaz-Farina, E.; Díaz-Hernández, J.J.; Padrón-Fumero, N. The contribution of tourism to municipal solid waste generation: A mixed demand-supply approach on the island of Tenerife. Waste Manag. 2020, 102, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Huo, T.T.; Yuan, F.; Huo, M.M.; Shao, Y.H.; Li, S.J.; Li, Z.Y. Residents? participation in rural tourism and interpersonal trust in tourists: The mediating role of residents? perceptions of tourism impacts. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 54, 457–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gemar, G.; Soler, I.P.; Moniche, L. Exploring the impacts of local development initiatives on tourism: A case study analysis. Heliyon 2023, 9, e19924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ren, L.; Li, J.; Li, C.; Dang, P. Can ecotourism contribute to ecosystem? Evidence from local residents’ ecological behaviors. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 757, 143814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Su, M.M.; Wall, G. Community involvement at Great Wall World Heritage sites, Beijing, China. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 18, 137–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ramkissoon, H.; Nunkoo, R. City Image and Perceived Tourism Impact: Evidence from Port Louis, Mauritius. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2011, 12, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Budeanu, A. Impacts and responsibilities for sustainable tourism: A tour operator’s perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Smith, V. ; Hosts and Guests; University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dolnicar, S.; Lazarevski, K.; Yanamandram, V. Quality-of-Life and Travel Motivations: Integrating the Two Concepts in the Grevillea Model. In Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 293–308. [Google Scholar]
  16. Linderová, I.; Scholz, P.; Almeida, N. Attitudes of Local Population Towards the Impacts of Tourism Development: Evidence From Czechia. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 684773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pazhuhan, M.; Moradpour, N.; Beishami, B.; Vaernik, R.; Parra-Acosta, Y.K.; Skominas, R.; Pour, M.; Azadi, H. Do Inhabitants’ Perceptions Support Tourism Sustainability? The Case of Khorramabad in Iran. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stylidis, D.; Biran, A.; Sit, J.; Szivas, E.M. Residents’ support for tourism development: The role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tour. Manag. 2014, 45, 260–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yang, J.J.; Ryan, C.; Zhang, L.Y. Social conflict in communities impacted by tourism. Tour. Manag. 2013, 35, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jing, Z.; Yu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Su, X.; Qiu, X.; Yang, X.; Xu, Y. Study on the mechanism of livelihood behavior decision of rural residents in ethnic tourism villages in Western Sichuan. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 166, 112250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shui, W.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Wang, X.G.; Liu, Y.M.; Wang, Q.F.; Duan, F.; Wu, C.W.; Shui, W.Y. Does Tibetan Household Livelihood Capital Enhance Tourism Participation Sustainability? Evidence from China’s Jiaju Tibetan Village. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tu, J.; Zhang, D. Does tourism promote economic growth in Chinese ethnic minority areas? A nonlinear perspective. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 18, 100473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brida, J.G.; Matesanz Gómez, D.; Segarra, V. On the empirical relationship between tourism and economic growth. Tour. Manag. 2020, 81, 104131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Woosnam, K.M.; Sharma, S.; Stylidis, D.; Singh, G. Understanding Fijian residents’ opposition to tourism post-pandemic. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2023, 48, 101162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Y.; Shen, H.; Ye, S.; Zhou, L. Being rational and emotional: An integrated model of residents’ support of ethnic tourism development. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 44, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, R.; Dai, M.; Ou, Y.; Ma, X. Residents’ happiness of life in rural tourism development. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 20, 100612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sinclair-Maragh, G. Demographic analysis of residents’ support for tourism development in Jamaica. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Croes, R.; Ridderstaat, J.; Bąk, M.; Zientara, P. Tourism specialization, economic growth, human development and transition economies: The case of Poland. Tour. Manag. 2021, 20, 104181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oh, C.-O. The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kahyalar, N.; Seetaram, N.; Fethi, S. Tourism and the shadow economy: Long-run and short-run implications for resource allocation. Tour. Econ. 2024, 30, 749–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nunkoo, R.; Gursoy, D. Residents’ support for tourism: An Identity Perspective. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 243–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Diedrich, A.; García-Buades, E. Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, J.S. An Investigation of Urban Residents’ Loyalty to Tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2000, 24, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bestard, A.B.; Nadal, J.R. Modelling environmental attitudes toward tourism. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 688–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tong, Y.; Zhang, R. Investigating the multiple mechanisms of tourism economy affecting sustainable urban development of Chinese cities: Based on multi-source data. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 1781–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, J.K.; Zhang, Y. Does tourism contribute to the nighttime economy? Evidence from China. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023, 26, 1295–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, R.R.; Ding, Z.Y.; An, Y. Examination and Forecast of Relationship among Tourism, Environment, and Economy: A Case Study in Shandong Province, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Soontayatron, S. Thais’ Coping with Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism Development. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 19, 1228–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lee, C.C.; Chen, M.P.; Xing, W.W. Do national cultures matter for tourism development? Some international evidence. Econ. Anal. Policy 2022, 74, 666–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, S.; Lin, J.; Feng, Z.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Liu, S.; Ren, Y.; Li, H. Construction of cultural heritage evaluation system and personalized cultural tourism path decision model: An international historical and cultural city. J. Urban Manag. 2023, 12, 96–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sanagustín-Fons, M.V.; Tobar-Pesántez, L.B.; Ravina-Ripoll, R. Happiness and Cultural Tourism: The Perspective of Civil Participation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhao, X.; Xie, C.; Huang, L.; Wang, Y.; Han, T. How digitalization promotes the sustainable integration of culture and tourism for economic recovery. Econ. Anal. Policy 2023, 77, 988–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Y.P. A Study on Kinmen Resident’s Perception of Tourism Development and Culture Heritage Impact. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2016, 12, 2909–2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Andereck, K.L.; Nyaupane, G.P. Exploring the Nature of Tourism and Quality of Life Perceptions among Residents. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Knopf, R.C.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 1056–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Haralambopoulos, N.; Pizam, A. Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of samos. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 503–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liu, L.Y.; Yang, J.; Shi, Y.K.; Wang, G.T. How to Commercialize Shaolin Culture Outside China: A Discussion Within the Framework of Bourdieu’s Cultural Capital. Sage Open 2022, 12, 21582440221140845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nelson, K.; Black, R.; Bamberry, L. Second life: Liminal tourism spaces as sites for lifestyle migration, an exploration of Niseko, Japan. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 47, 294–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mason, P.; Cheyne, J. Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 391–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Oviedo-Garcia, M.A.; Castellanos-Verdugo, M.; Martin-Ruiz, D. Gaining Residents’ Support for Tourism and Planning. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 10, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yoon, Y.; Gursoy, D.; Chen, J.S. Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. McGehee, N.G.; Andereck, K.L. Factors Predicting Rural Residents’ Support of Tourism. J. Travel Res. 2004, 43, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Palmer-Tous, T.; Riera-Font, A.; Rosselló-Nadal, J. Taxing tourism: The case of rental cars in Mallorca. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Day, J.; Cai, L. Environmental and energy-related challenges to sustainable tourism in the United States and China. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012, 19, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Meng, G.; Wang, K.; Wang, F.; Dong, Y. Analysis of the tourism-economy-ecology coupling coordination and high-quality development path in karst Guizhou Province, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, S.J.; Hu, Y.O. How do residents respond to negative environmental impacts from tourism? The role of community participation in empowering residents’ environmentally responsible behavior. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 23, 1099–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tu, Q.; Bulte, E.; Tan, S. Religiosity and economic performance: Micro-econometric evidence from Tibetan area. China Econ. Rev. 2011, 22, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pinilla Domínguez, J. Futuro incierto de la profesión de dentista en España. Gac. Sanit. 2012, 26, 495–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Joreskog, K.G.; Sorbom, D. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language; Scientific Software International: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  60. Steiger, J.H. Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1990, 25, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Kaiser, H.F. The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hair, J.; Alamer, A. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guidelines using an applied example. Res. Methods Appl. Linguist. 2022, 1, 100027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fan, L.N.; Wu, M.Y.; Wall, G.; Zhou, Y.G. Community support for tourism in China’s Dong ethnic villages. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2021, 19, 362–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alamineh, G.A.; Hussein, J.W.; Endaweke, Y.; Taddesse, B. The local communities’ perceptions on the social impact of tourism and its implication for sustainable development in Amhara regional state. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17088. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yuxi, Z.; Filimonau, V.; Ling-en, W.; Linsheng, Z. The impact of tourism on municipal solid waste generation in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 427, 139255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shafieisabet, N.; Haratifard, S. The empowerment of local tourism stakeholders and their perceived environmental effects for participation in sustainable development of tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 486–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Jaafar, M.; Ramayah, T. Urban vs. rural destinations: Residents’ perceptions, community participation and support for tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, J.Y.; Yi, L.; Chen, L.L.; Hou, Y.B.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, X.M. Coupling and Coordination between Tourism, the Environment and Carbon Emissions in the Tibetan Plateau. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hu, L.; Xu, J.; Bao, C.; Pei, T. Influential Factor Detection for Tourism on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Based on Social Media Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ribeiro, M.A.; Pinto, P.; Silva, J.A.; Woosnam, K.M. Residents’ attitudes and the adoption of pro-tourism behaviours: The case of developing island countries. Tour. Manag. 2017, 61, 523–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. López, M.F.B.; Virto, N.R.; Manzano, J.A.; Miranda, J.G.-M. Residents’ attitude as determinant of tourism sustainability: The case of Trujillo. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 35, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Moghavvemi, S.; Woosnam, K.M.; Paramanathan, T.; Musa, G.; Hamzah, A. The effect of residents’ personality, emotional solidarity, and community commitment on support for tourism development. Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Misso, R.; Andreopoulou, Z.; Cesaretti, G.P.; Hanna, S.S.; Tzoulis, I. Sustainable development and green tourism: New practices for excellence in the digital era. J. Int. Bus. Entrep. Dev. 2018, 11, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ibnou-Laaroussi, S.; Rjoub, H.; Wong, W.-K. Sustainability of Green Tourism among International Tourists and Its Influence on the Achievement of Green Environment: Evidence from North Cyprus. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tao, Y.; Wang, R.; Ling, H.; Chu, J.; Ji, H. Implementing for innovative management of green tourism and leisure agriculture in Taiwan. Int. J. Organ. Innov. (Online) 2021, 13, 210–219. [Google Scholar]
  76. Shafer, E.L.; Choi, Y. Forging nature-based tourism policy issues: A case study in Pennsylvania. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 615–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rahmadian, E.; Feitosa, D.; Zwitter, A. A systematic literature review on the use of big data for sustainable tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 1711–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Atterton, J.; Thompson, N. University Engagement in Rural Development: A Case Study of the Northern Rural Network. J. Rural. Community Dev. 2010, 5, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
  79. Gurung, D.B.; Seeland, K. Ecotourism in Bhutan: Extending its Benefits to Rural Communities. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 489–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 10953 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 16 10953 g001
Sustainability 16 10953 g002
Figure 2. Study area.
Figure 2. Study area.
Sustainability 16 10953 g002
Sustainability 16 10953 g003
Figure 3. Structural equation model of influencing factors of tourism development.
Figure 3. Structural equation model of influencing factors of tourism development.
Sustainability 16 10953 g003
Sustainability 16 10953 g004
Figure 4. Modified structural equation model.
Figure 4. Modified structural equation model.
Sustainability 16 10953 g004
Table 1. Measurement scale.
Table 1. Measurement scale.
VariableMeasure Item
Perception of the impact of tourism on residentsC1: Perception of the impact of tourism on residents
C2: Tourism increases income for local residents
C3: Tourism improves the living standards of local residents
C4. Tourism attracts foreign investment and enhances local asset returns
C5. Tourism development leads to local land and housing price increases
C6: The seasonal nature of tourism leads to unstable employment patterns
C7: Tourism enhances the consumption level of local residents.
C8: Tourism widens the wealth gap among local residents
C9: Tourism development drives up the local price levels
Perception of the impact of tourism on social cultural aspectsD1: Tourism promotes the learning of local languages such as Mandarin Chinese and English
D2: Tourism encourages the renewal and openness of ideas and beliefs
D3: Tourism enhances a sense of identity and pride in local traditional culture
D4: Tourism facilitates the preservation and protection of local cultural resources (art, folklore, heritage, etc.)
D5: Tourism expands social interactions for local residents
D6: Tourism contributes to enhancing the local reputation and visibility
D7: Tourism development has an impact on social security
D8: Tourism improves the lifestyle and living habits of local people
D9: Tourism has changed the local religious and cultural atmosphere
D10: Tourism leads to the commercialization of traditional cultural resources
D11: Tourism causes changes and decreases in the use of local dialects by local people
Perception of environmental impactE1: Tourism improves the local infrastructure (water, electricity, transportation, communication, etc.)
E2: Tourism enhances the quality of local living environment (green areas, community cleanliness, etc.)
E3: Tourism increases the availability of entertainment, leisure, dining, and shopping facilities
E4: Tourism facilitates the conservation and restoration of local cultural heritage sites
E5: Influx of tourists disrupts the peaceful living atmosphere locally
E6: Tourism leads to excessive development of natural resources and cultural heritage sites
E7: Tourism contributes to an increase in unauthorized construction
E8: Tourism results in an increase in local waste generation
E9: Tourism causes traffic congestion and overcrowding
E10: Tourism damages the local natural environment
Attitude toward tourism developmentF1: I support local tourism development
F2: I believe that local tourism development contributes significantly to the local economy
F3: I welcome tourists to visit the local area
Survey on willingness to engage in tourismG1: I would recommend others to engage in the tourism industry in Lhasa
G2: I have considered or have a desire to further engage in the tourism industry in Lhasa
G3: I am actively planning to engage or further immerse myself in the tourism development of Lhasa
G4: I am willing to spread positive information about the tourism development in Lhasa
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of Xizang.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of Xizang.
DemographicDemographic (n = 677)
GroupQuantityAgeQuantity
GenderMale334
Female343
Age group0–17040–4472
18–2414545–4941
25–2911650–5418
30–3415055–5913
35–3911860 and above4
EthnicityTibetan220Have395
Other62
Standard of cultureJunior high school and below110College for professional training152
High school equivalent240Bachelor degree and above175
Monthly income (CN¥)2000 and below942000–399990
4000–59991996000–7999163
8000–99996910,000 and above61
Table 3. Total variance breakdown table.
Table 3. Total variance breakdown table.
DimensionPrincipal ComponentInitial EigenvaluesSum of Squares of Rotational Loads
TotalVariance PercentageCumulative %TotalVariance PercentageCumulative %
Economic impact13.11734.62934.6292.87631.95131.951
22.31825.75460.3832.55928.43260.383
Socio-cultural impact13.92035.63835.6383.92034.08134.081
21.63514.86550.5031.63516.42250.503
31.0749.76660.269
Environmental impact13.58732.61332.6133.51531.95631.956
22.32721.15353.7672.39921.81153.767
31.0009.08662.853
Attitude toward tourism development12.22474.13974.139
Willingness to participate12.48862.19862.198
Table 4. Economic, socio-cultural, and environmental principal component extraction table.
Table 4. Economic, socio-cultural, and environmental principal component extraction table.
DimensionFactor TermsFactor Load Factor After Rotation
Positive economic impactC30.811
C20.8
C10.797
C70.628
Negative economic impactsC50.864
C60.818
C40.814
C80.805
Positive socio-cultural impactD30.801
D20.788
D40.762
D10.752
D50.735
D80.63
D90.545
Negative socio-cultural influencesD100.803
D110.732
D70.687
Positive environmental impactE30.804
E10.788
E40.754
E20.616
Negative environmental impactsE100.846
E90.829
E60.82
E70.802
E50.778
Table 5. Extraction table of principal components of tourism development attitude and willingness to participate.
Table 5. Extraction table of principal components of tourism development attitude and willingness to participate.
DimensionFactor TermsFactor Load FactorDimensionFactor TermsFactor Load Factor
Attitude toward tourism developmentF30.876Willingness to participateG2 0.83
F2 0.875G10.80
F10.832G40.771
G30.75
Table 6. Structural equation measurement models.
Table 6. Structural equation measurement models.
ItemPathNormalization FactorEstimateHEt-ValuepSMCCRBIRD
F1Attitude toward tourism development0.7221 0.8140.8280.617
F20.8161.2080.06518.445***0.814
F3 0.8141.1660.06318.516***0.814
G1 Willingness to participate0.7481 0.56
G20.7381.0650.06217.312***0.5450.80.501
G30.6230.8760.0614.478***0.388
G40.7150.930.05716.459***0.511
C1Positive economic perception0.7391.0690.06516.465***0.546
C20.7581.0330.06316.522***0.5750.7950.564
C3 0.7561 0.572
C4 Negative economic perception0.7581.1090.05918.852***0.575
C5 0.8051.1530.05819.933***0.6480.8540.593
C6 0.761.0380.05419.239***0.578
C80.7571 0.573
D1Positive socio-cultural perception0.7281.0570.06416.545***0.53
D2 0.7681.130.06617.22***0.59
D3 0.7771.1410.06517.506***0.604
D4 0.7281.0810.06516.549***0.530.8480.452
D5 0.6761 0.457
D8 0.5150.8040.06612.189***0.265
D9 0.4320.7140.06910.298***0.187
D7 Negative socio-cultural perception0.5350.7840.07610.313***0.286
D10 0.6981.0890.09511.455***0.4870.6660.402
D11 0.6571 0.432
E1 Positive environmental awareness0.7291 0.531
E2 0.7551.0520.05917.794***0.570.8160.526
E3 0.7430.9980.05917.024***0.552
E4 0.670.9510.06115.646***0.449
E5 Negative environmental awareness0.7181 0.516
E6 0.7751.1270.05918.949***0.601
E7 0.7541.1180.06118.487***0.5690.8780.591
E9 0.7741.1670.06318.63***0.599
E100.821.2620.06319.927***0.672
Note: *** is p < 0.001.
Table 7. Modified structural equation measurement model.
Table 7. Modified structural equation measurement model.
ItemPathNormalization FactorEstimateHEt-ValuepSMCCRBIRD
F1 Attitude toward tourism development0.723 1.000 0.523 0.828 0.618
F2 0.817 1.209 0.066 18.447 ***0.667
F3 0.814 1.165 0.063 18.525 ***0.663
G1 Willingness to participate0.749 1.000 0.561
G2 0.737 1.063 0.061 17.291 ***0.543 0.800 0.501
G3 0.621 0.871 0.060 14.426 ***0.386
G4 0.717 0.931 0.057 16.466 ***0.514
C1Positive economic perception0.739 1.070 0.065 16.475 ***0.546
C2 0.759 1.036 0.063 16.517 ***0.576 0.795 0.564
C3 0.755 1.000 0.570
C4Negative economic perception0.758 1.109 0.059 18.849 ***0.575
C5 0.805 1.153 0.058 19.932 ***0.648 0.854 0.594
C6 0.761 1.038 0.054 19.242 ***0.579
C8 0.757 1.000 0.573
D1Positive socio-cultural perception0.734 1.087 0.067 16.262 ***0.539
D2 0.776 1.164 0.069 16.895 ***0.602
D3 0.789 1.181 0.069 17.228 ***0.623 0.857 0.547
D4 0.728 1.104 0.068 16.178 ***0.530
D5 0.663 1.000 0.440
D7 Negative socio-cultural perception0.535 0.783 0.076 10.309 ***0.286 0.666 0.402
D10 0.698 1.088 0.095 11.451 ***0.487
D11 0.657 1.000 0.432
E1 Positive environmental awareness0.729 1.000 0.531
E2 0.755 1.051 0.059 17.796 ***0.570 0.816 0.526
E3 0.744 0.998 0.059 17.031 ***0.554
E4 0.669 0.947 0.061 15.622 ***0.448
E5Negative environmental awareness0.718 1.000 0.516
E6 0.775 1.128 0.059 18.952 ***0.601
E7 0.754 1.118 0.060 18.487 ***0.569 0.878 0.591
E9 0.774 1.167 0.063 18.631 ***0.599
E10 0.820 1.262 0.063 19.928 ***0.672
Note: *** is p < 0.001.
Table 8. Path coefficients and significance of the structural equation model of tourism development.
Table 8. Path coefficients and significance of the structural equation model of tourism development.
PathEstimateHECRpOutcome
Positive economic perception → attitude toward tourism development0.1350.0512.570.01Passing
Positive environmental perception → attitude toward tourism development0.2820.0594.499***Passing
Positive socio-cultural perception → attitude toward tourism development0.3220.0625.145***Passing
Negative environmental perception → attitude toward tourism development0.0430.0510.7010.483Unqualified
Negative socio-cultural perception → attitude toward tourism development0.0230.0640.320.749Unqualified
Negative economic perception → attitude toward tourism development0.0140.0490.2150.83Unqualified
Positive economic perception → willingness to participate0.0630.0531.2960.195Unqualified
Positive contextual perception → willingness to participate0.2580.0644.263***Passing
Positive socio-cultural perception → willingness to participate0.2570.0674.244***Passing
Negative economic perception → willingness to participate−0.1250.052−2.0210.043Passing
Tourism development attitude → willingness to participate0.3150.0586.01***Passing
Negative socio-cultural perception → willingness to participate0.0440.0660.6420.521Unqualified
Negative environmental perception → willingness to participate−0.0060.054−0.1090.913Unqualified
Note: *** is p < 0.001.
Table 9. Path coefficients and significance of the modified tourism development structure equation model.
Table 9. Path coefficients and significance of the modified tourism development structure equation model.
PathEstimateHECRp
Positive economic perception → attitude toward tourism development0.1360.0482.7170.007
Positive environmental perception → attitude toward tourism development0.2740.0554.678***
Positive socio-cultural perception → attitude toward tourism development0.3270.0575.77***
Positive contextual perception → willingness to participate0.2850.0585.155***
Positive socio-cultural perception → willingness to participate0.2540.064.663***
Negative economic perception → willingness to participate−0.1080.03−2.9380.003
Tourism development attitude → willingness to participate0.3280.0586.313***
Note: *** is p < 0.001.
Table 10. Weights of tourism development attitude and willingness to participate in tourism.
Table 10. Weights of tourism development attitude and willingness to participate in tourism.
Latent VariablesMeasure VariablesRating Average ANormalization Factor ENormalized Weight WScore GA Score of G on a 100-Point Scale
Attitude toward tourism developmentF14.2290.7230.3074.15283.0
F24.0530.8170.347
F34.1830.8140.346
Willingness to participateG13.8790.7490.2653.78475.7
G23.6030.7370.261
G33.5540.6210.220
G44.0690.7170.254
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Teng, J.; Li, J.; Yuan, L.; Zhao, J.; Wang, X. The Attitudes of Xizang Residents Toward Tourism Development Based on Structural Equation Modeling. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410953

AMA Style

Teng J, Li J, Yuan L, Zhao J, Wang X. The Attitudes of Xizang Residents Toward Tourism Development Based on Structural Equation Modeling. Sustainability. 2024; 16(24):10953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410953

Chicago/Turabian Style

Teng, Junzhe, Jihang Li, Lin Yuan, Junmeng Zhao, and Xinyan Wang. 2024. "The Attitudes of Xizang Residents Toward Tourism Development Based on Structural Equation Modeling" Sustainability 16, no. 24: 10953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410953

APA Style

Teng, J., Li, J., Yuan, L., Zhao, J., & Wang, X. (2024). The Attitudes of Xizang Residents Toward Tourism Development Based on Structural Equation Modeling. Sustainability, 16(24), 10953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410953

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop