Next Article in Journal
Assessing Knowledge of Sustainable Development Goals Among Diverse Students: A Case Study of Al Qasimia University
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Digital Tourism Platforms in Advancing Sustainable Development Goals in the Industry 4.0 Era
Previous Article in Journal
Restoring Soil Health with Legume-Based Integrated Farming Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Relationship Between Motivations, Satisfaction, and Loyalty: Insights from the Galápagos Islands, a World Heritage Site
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083341
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

Toward Sustainable Tourism: An Activity-Based Segmentation of the Rural Tourism Market in China

by
Lin Fu
1,*,
Junko Sanada
1 and
Wenzheng Zhang
2
1
Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
2
School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3341; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083341
Submission received: 20 November 2024 / Revised: 17 January 2025 / Accepted: 21 January 2025 / Published: 9 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Achieving Sustainability in Destination Marketing and Tourism Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Rural areas are increasingly popular tourist destinations, contributing to socioeconomic development while also posing sustainability challenges. Recent research emphasizes that the sustainability of tourist destinations largely depends on the types of visitors they attract. This study aims to conduct a segmentation analysis of tourists’ motivations and behaviors in Chinese rural tourism to gain market insights and guide destination demand management with a focus on sustainable development. Survey data were collected from 517 tourists in northern China using a self-administered questionnaire. The results identify four key tourist groups: urbanists, food and architecture enthusiasts, history lovers, and multiple experience seekers. Cluster analysis reveals that while most tourists prioritize leisure and entertainment, history lovers demonstrate a stronger interest in rural and agricultural experiences, positioning them as crucial to promoting sustainable tourism. In contrast, urbanists and food and architecture enthusiasts, though contributing economically, engage less with agricultural and environmental aspects, raising concerns about mass tourism and the erosion of rural authenticity. This research contributes to the expanding literature on rural tourism in China, providing insights into market segmentation as a tool for fostering sustainable development. It also offers practical implications for policymakers and destination managers to better align tourism strategies with sustainability objectives.

1. Introduction

After a series of long-term transformations, rural areas have gradually shifted into consumption sites where leisure and tourism activities have taken over the primary economic and social roles traditionally occupied by agriculture [1,2,3]. Rural regions are globally becoming popular tourist destinations. This tourism-driven rural transformation is seen as a new engine for rural socioeconomic development, with the potential to create jobs and income and generate synergies with other sectors, and is viewed as a viable alternative in the context of agricultural decline [4,5,6,7,8]. However, given the widely reported negative impacts [9,10], how to balance economic growth with the preservation of natural and cultural resources during the process of tourism development has become a central issue for scholars of rural sustainable tourism to focus on.
Sustainable tourism depends not only on how tourism providers deliver their products but also on tourist behavior on the demand side [11,12]. There is substantial evidence suggesting that the rural tourism market is heterogeneous. It is found that people’s motivations for visiting rural areas include typical rural elements like environmental features, lifestyle, agriculture, heritage, and culture [13,14,15], but also more general tourist experiences of entertainment [16]. Each of these elements presents distinct implications for the sustainability of rural tourism destinations. In order to understand and evaluate how to encourage sustainable consumption in rural areas, it is essential to differentiate between the motivations and behaviors of various rural tourist groups and assess their impacts on the environment and society.
Market segmentation is a fundamental tool for identifying homogeneous consumer groups [17]. It creates market subsets based on demographics, needs, or preferences criteria to understand the target audience. Currently, two approaches dominate the literature on rural tourism segmentation: The benefit-based segmentation focuses on explaining tourists’ intrinsic motivations for engaging in rural tourism [18], often overlooking the influence of destination attributes on their decisions. Activity-based segmentation fills this gap by revealing the rural tourism features and activities that tourists seek. Refs. [19,20] found that this method often yields more specific and clear classifications than benefit-based segmentation, offering valuable guidance for exploring the sustainability of different market segments.
Although previous studies have thoroughly examined rural tourism market segments in many countries [21,22,23,24], there remains a need to further expand this research regionally, particularly in emerging rural tourism markets in Asia, Africa, and Latin America [25,26]. China’s rural tourism market has experienced rapid growth but faces numerous sustainability challenges; however, current academic understanding of its segments is severely lacking [27]. This paper focuses on rural tourism in northern China, aiming to highlight key characteristics of rural tourists, their tourist motivations, and practices through segmentation research. By deepening the understanding of the tourism market, the result contributes to identifying potential target markets that support rural sustainable development, thereby providing decision support for sustainable destination marketing and management.
After the introduction, the study first presents a literature review on current market segmentation and the potential impact of different tourism motivations and travel patterns on rural sustainable development. Next, the methodology used for data collection and analysis is explained. Following that, the result part focuses on the outcome of the tourist cluster analysis and comparative analyses highlighting the differences between the encountered groups. Finally, the research implications on both theoretical and practical of the village destinations are discussed, respectively.

2. Theoretical Basis

2.1. Various Dimensions of Rural Tourism Activities

Rural tourism can be regarded as any form of tourism taking place in rural areas, encompassing various market segments such as farm stays, eco-tourism, and cultural heritage tourism. The benefits and experiences sought by each market are considered heterogeneous. To attract and satisfy different types of visitors, rural areas design a wide range of tourism activities with their diversified base of endogenous resources. These activities generally be categorized into five key dimensions.
The environmental assets of rural areas (clean air, natural resources, and landscapes) along with rural lifestyles are key factors that drive rural tourism [21,28,29]. These motivations are often sparked by the desire to escape urban life. People view rural spaces as ideal natural environments, seeking opportunities for temporary relief from the congestion and stress of city living through the open spaces, nature, and activities provided by rural areas [30,31]. The sense of returning to a simpler, more natural way of life in these environments forms a sharp contrast with the fast-paced urban lifestyle, offering a calm and relaxing experience.
Cultural and historical elements constitute the second major dimension driving rural tourism [23,25,32]. This dimension emphasizes the potential value of rural areas as cultural tourism destinations. Within this framework, tourists visit rural areas to explore, experience, and consume both tangible and intangible cultural products of the destination, including art and architecture, heritage, customs, traditions, and beliefs [15,33].
The third group stems from an interest in agricultural activities [16,34], which includes unique experiential activities set against the backdrop of farms and farmers (e.g., participating in farm work, interacting with farm animals, and picking one’s own). Mainstream research often defines agritourism as a subset of rural tourism [35]; however, some studies suggest that agriculture alone is not a strong enough motivator to attract rural tourists on its own [36,37]. The pursuit of experiences related to agriculture and farm life is increasingly tied to the broader trend of special-interest tourism, such as local food and drink [38], organic farming [39,40,41], and agricultural education [42].
Additionally, research has found that the growth of agritourism is closely linked to the general rise in short-stay vacations, as well as an increasing number of tourists reacting to mass tourism markets [16,22,36]. This dimension is driven more by general tourism motivations, with less focus on the unique features in rural areas. In other words, people often view rural destinations as interchangeable with any other tourist destination, prioritizing practical aspects like cost, geographical location, additional amenities, management, and services, as well as engaging in recreational activities that have little to do with rural or agriculture experience [36,43,44].

2.2. Activity-Based Segmentation in Rural Tourism

Some studies have identified rural tourism activities that are generally popular among most visitors, such as enjoying natural environments [45], shopping, tasting local delicacies, and participating in festivals [46]. However, not all tourists share the same motivations and there is an increasing consensus on the heterogeneity within the rural tourist market [21,23].
This heterogeneity is primarily based on differences among visitor groups. The findings of [44] indicate that rural tourists can be categorized according to their motivations and preferences for destination characteristics into the following groups: relaxers seeking relaxation and opportunities to recharge, nature observers focused on outdoor environments and landscapes, ruralists interested in the rural dimension, heritage and nature seekers focused on experiencing natural and cultural sites, and active visitors interested in a wide range of motivations. Some niche groups, such as urbanists driven by nightlife and entertainment, and inactive visitors who focus on family visits [21], were also identified. In these studies, socio-demographic differences were recognized as key factors determining tourists’ motivational preferences. For example, older visitors with higher socioeconomic and cultural status are more inclined toward rural culture and traditions, while families with children or younger people show greater interest in outdoor activities based on natural environments [23]. Additionally, the motivation to seek one’s roots and visit family has been acknowledged as an influential factor in rural tourism, particularly for those with ties to rural areas [47].
The segmentation of rural tourism motivations also varies geographically and evolves over time. For instance, research conducted in Scotland [21] and Israel [37] shows that only a minority of rural tourists actively seek connections to rural dimensions (such as agriculture, local people, and culture); most of them prefer to enjoy the tranquility and natural assets of the countryside for relaxation or family reunions. In contrast, studies in other countries reveal different patterns: rural tourists in Korea are more likely to be interested in the role of agriculture and related cultural elements [25], while visitors in the United States are keen on exploring rural life, including appreciating rural landscapes and interacting with locals [22].
While many scholars aim to broaden the geographic scope of rural tourism market research to better understand its diversity and complexity, most studies remain Anglo-centric [22,23,32]. There is a notable lack of research focusing on emerging economies in Asia, Latin America, or Africa [26,27,48,49], highlighting the need for further investigation in these regions. Some studies have identified rural tourism activities that are generally popular among most visitors, such as enjoying natural environments, shopping, tasting local delicacies, and participating in festivals. However, not all tourists share the same motivations and there is an increasing consensus on the heterogeneity within the rural tourist market.

2.3. Tourist Demand and Sustainability

Sustainability has long been a central issue in rural tourism research. This is not only dependent on how tourism suppliers design and offer their products, but also on the types of tourists they attract and their behaviors [12]. Some studies suggest that differences in tourist motivations and behaviors can have diverse positive and negative impacts on destinations, potentially influencing their sustainability in terms of economic, environmental, social, and cultural benefits. For example, purchasing local products is more sustainable, as these products utilize local labor and raw materials, while also ensuring the viability of local agriculture to preserve local landscape features [32]. Though less profitable, heritage preservation interests are more aligned with social and environmental sustainability. Similarly, studies have shown that engaging with local residents enhances interest in rural lifestyles and local products, bringing significant economic and socio-cultural benefits. In contrast, market segments with high demand for nightlife and entertainment (which require significant infrastructure) tend to pressure rural environments excessively. Ideally, tourist behavior in rural destinations should align with the following motivational principles: (1) social interaction with local residents; (2) preserving nature and culture; (3) appreciating local products and activities; (4) participating in natural and cultural activities; and (5) conserving resources and recycling.
China’s rural tourism market has grown rapidly, but it also faces numerous challenges related to sustainability. Existing research points out that, driven by profit and economic growth, traditional rural landscapes in some areas have been replaced by mass-market recreational landscapes [50,51,52]. This shift not only harms natural resources but also erodes the authenticity and depth of rural cultural heritage, diminishing the fundamental appeal of rural tourism. Another challenge is the tendency of rural tourism projects to imitate successful models from other regions, lacking unique local characteristics and creativity [53]. While many areas possess distinct natural landscapes and cultural resources, the limited understanding of the market often leads to repetitive tourism offerings that fail to attract long-term visitors [54]. Considering these challenges, understanding the characteristics, motivations, and travel behaviors of Chinese rural tourists is crucial. Segmenting the rural tourism market can help identify tourist groups with the potential to contribute to sustainable development, providing valuable insights for marketers and policymakers to create targeted management and marketing strategies. This approach will be essential for promoting balanced economic, environmental, and social development in these areas.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data Collection

Hebei Province has been selected as the study area for this research. In terms of the research objectives, this region exemplifies both the representativeness and typicality required to study the segmentation of China’s rural tourism market. First, Hebei offers a diverse array of rural tourism resources, including agricultural production zones and natural landscapes. These resources span multiple market segments, from agricultural tourism to ecological and cultural tourism, making it an ideal setting to study market responses to varying tourism demands. Second, with the economic advantage of its proximity to the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei urban cluster, Hebei’s rural tourism market has been expanding steadily. As of 2019, the province had 1650 villages and 5400 enterprises engaged in rural tourism, attracting 205 million annual visits. Currently, Hebei has become one of the most important rural tourism-supplying regions in northern China and even nationwide.
This study used a questionnaire survey to understand the market segmentation and characteristics of tourists in rural areas of northern China. The respondents include tourists visiting the villages during the research period. The survey was conducted from March to May and August to September 2024 in seven national key rural tourism villages in Hebei Province (Figure 1); the survey time covered the main rural tourism season in China. To avoid site-specific bias based on the location tourists visited, these village samples cover as broad a range of rural tourism products as possible, including farm tours, rural hotels and farmhouses, outdoor activities, retail businesses, and historical and cultural attractions.
The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part is designed to collect background information on the respondents’ demographics and tourism behavior. Questions cover tourists’ age, gender, income, education level, place of origin, travel budget, travel frequency, travel companions, and preferred tourism expenditure items. The second part includes 20 items measuring tourist motivations. These items are developed based on a comprehensive review of the literature on rural tourism motivations. Respondents are asked to rate the importance of these rural attraction characteristics and activities concerning their interests using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly agree). At the end of the questionnaire, researchers randomly invite respondents to provide specific opinions about their motivations to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their intrinsic driving factors. From the 530 self-administered questionnaires distributed in the villages, a total of 517 questionnaires were valid for data analysis.

3.2. Data Analysis

SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 21 was used for data analysis. Firstly, the principal components analysis (PCA), was applied to explore the tourist motivational dimensions. This methodological approach has been described in tourism literature as a standard procedure to explore motives from survey data [18,23]. To calculate the PCA, the estimation method was determined by varimax rotation, and the following criteria were used: (a) factor loadings ≥ 0.50; (b) eigenvalues ≥ 1.0; and (c) results of the factor analysis explaining at least 60% of the total variance. Next, respondents were broken down into homogeneous subgroups of tourists using cluster analysis techniques. We employed the hierarchy cluster analysis to identify the number of clusters, and the k-means cluster technique to identify the groups of tourists with similar preferences with respect to tourism activities. The differences among segments in socio-demographics and travel behavior were assessed by chi-square statistics to identify statistically significant differences.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Profile

Table 1 presents the results of the sample profile observed from the valid questionnaires. The proportions of men and women are almost equal. Most respondents are middle-aged, with the 30–45 age group accounting for 45.6% of the sample. They generally have a good education with at least a university or college degree (64.8%). Their annual income is distributed across different ranges, with respondents earning less than 100,000 RMB being predominant (53.2%). Respondents also have varied relationships with rural areas, and more than half (60.8%) have experience living or working in the countryside. By analyzing the demographic results, it can be said that the respondents parallel the general demographic characteristic of rural tourists in China provided by previous studies [55].

4.2. Tourist Motivation

The twenty rural attributes from the questionnaires were incorporated into the principal components analysis to identify the motivational dimensions underlying tourists’ choices of rural tourism. This analysis yielded a five-factor dimension with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 62.5% of the total variance. The Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin (KMO) measure was calculated to be 0.868, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed high significance (p < 0.001), both indicating high adequacy for conducting a factor analysis with the selected items.
Examining the rotated factor matrix, all items displayed factor loadings that were distinctly associated with a single factor. The values of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.597 to 0.857, which supports the summarization of all underlying sub-dimensions in terms of dimensional concepts. Based on the factor loading scores, the twenty attribute factors were grouped into five distinct motivational dimensions (Table 2).
Dimension 1 was described as the “rural experience” motives that incorporate factors representing the complex pattern of rurality (lifestyle, landscape, event, products, natural environment, and animal). This dimension accounted for 19.08% of the variance in data.
Dimension 2, labeled as the “general recreation” motive, encompasses factors not unique to rural tourism but reflective of common tourist demands, including a variety of leisure activities, hospitable service, value for money, ease of access, and excellent facilities.
Dimension 3 was identified as the “history and culture” motive, associated with the desire to learn from historical and cultural attractions in rural areas.
Dimension 4 was identified as the “agricultural experience” motive. Unlike Dimension 1, this dimension excludes some natural and cultural attributes and focuses on the farm-based aspects of rural tourism, such as contact with local people, experiencing farming, buying agricultural products, and learning agricultural knowledge. This evidence supports the notion that agricultural tourism exists as a subset of rural tourism.
The final dimension, noted as “food and architecture”, includes tourists’ motivation to enjoy local cuisines and architecture. This dimension reflects another form of rural tourism different from Dimension 1, from the passive appreciation of rural attributes to eating and living in rural houses.
The combined mean for each dimension was given to illustrate the rank ordering on the motivational scale (Table 2). The results show that the dimension of general recreation, with the highest mean value of 4.35, represents the predominant theme in tourist motivation. The agricultural experience dimension exhibited the lowest mean value of 3.30 and the attribute of contact with local people within this dimension had the lowest score among all the twenty motivational attributes, which reveals tourists’ low interest in agritourism and the hospitality of local communities. Based on this finding, researchers conducted random interviews with tourists after completing the questionnaire. The results indicated that mistrust was a dominant theme in interviewee responses, including concerns about the quality of agricultural products and social risks. Early agricultural experiences were another important reason. Interviewees of rural origin obtained fewer motives from the agricultural experience due to their frequent contact with these factors.

4.3. Segment of Tourist Cluster

In this section, a cluster analysis was applied by introducing the factor loading scores as composite variables of the five dimensions to classify tourists into mutually exclusive groups. The analysis was performed using a k-means clustering procedure. As shown in Table 3, the 517 respondents were grouped into four clusters: urbanists (n = 76/14.7%), food and architecture enthusiasts (n = 89/17.2%), history and culture lovers (n = 178/34.4%), and multiple experience seekers (n = 174/33.7%).
Statistical tests of ANOVA and discriminant analysis were carried out to test whether all motivational dimensions contribute to a statistically significant separation between segments. The results of these statistical tests indicated a high accuracy rate and suggested that the four clusters were satisfactorily classified.
To further identify the cluster’s profiles, each cluster was cross-tabulated with variables of socio-demographic data and travel behavior data. Statistically significant differences were found among the clusters regarding income, origin, travel frequency, travel companion, preferred activities, and preferred accommodation (Table 4 and Table 5). The results of the analysis showed that gender (χ2 = 2.041, p = 0.564), age (χ2 = 12.623, p = 0.397), and travel budget (χ2 = 15.423, p = 0.219) had no significant relationship with the clusters.

4.3.1. Urbanists

The cluster of urbanist visitors exhibited high motivation only, in general, recreation and showed low interest in other rural-related motivations. Most respondents in this cluster have a low to moderate income and generally have close contact with the countryside, either currently living or having lived in rural areas. Their high familiarity with agriculture and rural areas may explain their low motivation towards rural attributes. In terms of the travel behavior of this cluster, most tourists travel to rural areas moderately (2–5 times per year), with family trips being the most common. They are more likely to choose ecological and recreational activities for their travel expenditures and prefer staying in chain or star-rated hotels. This suggests that they aim to explore rural areas superficially, with limited interaction with rural characteristics such as agriculture, local cuisine, architecture, and local people.

4.3.2. Food and Architecture Enthusiasts

Cluster 2 is formed by visitors who have high motivation in rural food and architecture. Compared to passive rural visitors, this group shows some motivation for rural history and culture but remains largely uninterested in rural and agricultural experiences. Most respondents in this group have high incomes. Compared to other clusters, they generally have weaker connections to rural areas, with approximately 55% of the tourists having no experience living in the countryside. The cluster of food and architecture enthusiasts visits rural areas with moderate frequency, though 30% travel only once a year. Their main travel forms are family or friend trips. They prefer rural cuisine and accommodation experiences, with rural hotels being their preferred lodging. This type of accommodation leans more toward the style of city hotels or resorts compared to traditional farmhouses, offering professional guest services and comfortable experiences.

4.3.3. History Lovers

History lovers form the largest tourist cluster in this study. The cluster exhibited high motivation for visiting historical and cultural sites in rural areas. This group exhibits a strong enthusiasm for visiting rural historical and cultural sites and shows a certain level of interest in rural-related characteristics, such as agriculture, food and architecture, and rural experiences. Most individuals in this group have a moderate income and frequent contact with agriculture and rural areas. The travel behavior of this cluster is similar to that of passive rural visitors, with the majority incorporated by medium-frequency visitors and family travelers. They tend to choose ecological activities as their primary consumption item, followed by agricultural activities. Additionally, this cluster includes a higher proportion of respondents who prefer staying in farmhouses, reflecting their positive attitude towards interacting with local people and rural characteristics.

4.3.4. Multiple Experience Seekers

The cluster of multiple experience seekers valued all five dimensions. This is another cluster that places significant importance on agriculture and rural experiences. Similar to the group of history lovers, many of them have a moderate income and experience living in rural areas. The travel patterns of multi-experience seekers also predominantly consist of tourists of medium-frequency visits and family trips. However, compared to other clusters, their preferred activities are the most diverse. This indicates that they are likely driven by various consumption factors, increasing the unpredictability of their travel behaviors.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This study offers several theoretical contributions. The results of the factor analysis identified six basic motivational dimensions that drive tourism demand: general recreation, rural experience, agriculture experience, food and architecture, and history and culture. These factors align with those identified in previous studies [16,21,28,29,34,36,37]. Among these, the dimension of general recreation scored the highest and the rural and agricultural experience dimension scored the lowest on average, showing that the majority of tourists view rural tourism destinations with a general tourism mindset—focusing on leisure entertainment, convenience location, and amenity—rather than seeking unique rural or agricultural experiences [36,37]. This finding aligns with the research by [55] and points to a market trend that demands attention: the widespread preference for entertainment-driven motivations may result in rural landscapes being replaced by mass-consumption leisure spaces, leading to the alienation and eventual loss of authentic rural characteristics [50].
Thus, is there a segment of tourists genuinely interested in rural-related attributes and activities? Based on the results of these motivational dimensions, this study conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis to determine the number of clusters and used k-means clustering to classify the sample. Four clusters were identified: urbanists, food and architecture enthusiasts, history lovers, and multiple experience seekers. These results align with the segmentation of rural tourist groups in previous studies, particularly regarding active visitors [21,26], heritage and nature seekers [26], and urbanists [12,27,48]. Moreover, the groups interested in food and architectural experiences emerged distinctly in this study, which is a segment not commonly identified in other countries’ rural tourism studies. Although these tourists show lower interest in agricultural and environmental dimensions, they place significant value on culinary and architectural experiences, suggesting a unique position for these motivations in China’s rural tourism market. In fact, corresponding tourism products catering to these interests, such as culinary towns, have been widely developed [56,57].
After understanding the differences in motivations and behaviors among various tourism consumers, their potential to support sustainable tourism production is evaluated based on the sustainable consumption principles summarized in Section 2.3 (Table 6).
The history lover group exhibits greater interest compared with other groups in agricultural and rural experiences. Their travel patterns show a preference for participating in eco-agricultural activities and staying in rural homes, reflecting their positive attitude toward engaging with rural residents and rural features. In contrast, multiple experience seekers have more varied and uncertain preferences. Thus, this study posits that history lovers can be identified as a key target market for supporting the sustainable development of rural tourism. Their interest in ecology and agriculture activities not only stimulates local economies but also helps maintain local environments and agricultural landscapes. By staying in rural homes, they also maintain positive relationships with local people, creating multifaceted economic, social, and environmental benefits [23,28,40,58].
The urbanist group, by contrast, is only focused on the recreational aspects and facilities of the countryside, treating rural areas as generic tourist destinations without interest in the distinct characteristics of rural life. Food and architectural enthusiasts share similar preferences with them. Both groups are enthusiastic about participating in recreational activities and staying in accommodations that provide urban comforts such as chain or rural hotels, which undoubtedly generate significant economic benefits for rural areas [59]. However, their limited interaction with agriculture and local communities reduces their potential to deliver broader social benefits.
China is now undergoing a rural tourism boom with huge development practices and investments imposed into rural areas, but their sustainability remains in question. This study offers important practical contributions for policymakers and destination managers to better align tourism strategies with sustainability objectives. The diversity of rural tourist motivations leads to varied tourism models, each with different impacts on the economy, environment, and society of the destinations they visit. As such, rural destinations need to adopt tailored management and marketing strategies based on their tourism resource characteristics and development goals. For rural areas that are environmentally fragile and hold certain natural and cultural values, the history lover group should be a primary target market. To attract a larger share of this group, developing rural creative tourism projects based on local history and culture appears to be a viable strategy, such as offering village tours guided by local people, narrating local history, and inviting tourists to participate in traditional activities. These experiences, integrated with the local landscape and culture, and shared or co-created with rural residents, help enhance attachment and conservation awareness while promoting the coordinated development of the rural economy, society, and environment.
For rural areas that are less environmentally vulnerable and seek economic growth, the urbanists and food and architecture enthusiasts are undoubtedly more financially attractive target groups. However, their strong demand for general entertainment can impose significant pressure on rural environments and societies, leading to mass tourism, inauthentic experiences, and unsustainable tourism development. In such cases, it is necessary to control the development scale and adopt a gradual and organic approach to project development to minimize the negative impacts of recreational activities on the countryside.
Finally, the limitations of this study should be acknowledged. The sample size and geographical scope of this research were limited to 517 tourists in seven typical villages in northern China, and the findings need further verification of a broad sample profile in other rural areas within and beyond China. Additionally, the survey only captured motivational data from tourists during the spring and summer high seasons, leaving out important insights into the differences between high and low seasons, an issue that should be addressed in future studies. Lastly, more qualitative methods may help better understand the reasons behind specific motivations and activity preferences, assisting destination managers in anticipating future needs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.F.; methodology, L.F.; software, L.F.; validation, L.F. and W.Z.; formal analysis, L.F.; investigation, L.F. and W.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, L.F.; writing—review and editing, L.F. and J.S.; visualization, L.F.; supervision, J.S.; project administration, J.S.; funding acquisition, L.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by the China Scholarship Council under the State Scholarship Fund (grant no. 202208050048). We also would like to thank all respondents for their participation and collaboration.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Marsden, T. Rural futures: The consumption countryside and its regulation. Sociol. Rural. 1999, 39, 501–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Perkins, H.C. Commodification: Re-resourcing rural areas. In Handbook of Rural Studies; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 243–257. [Google Scholar]
  3. Holmes, J. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in the research agenda. J. Rural Stud. 2006, 22, 142–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sharpley, R. Rural Tourism: An Introduction; International Thomson Business Press: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  5. Perales, R.M.Y. Rural tourism in Spain. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 1101–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Su, B. Rural tourism in China. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1438–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fons, M.V.S.; Fierro, J.A.M.; y Patiño, M.G. Rural tourism: A sustainable alternative. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ribeiro, M.; Marques, C. Rural tourism and the development of less favoured areas—Between rhetoric and practice. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2002, 4, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dai, M.L.; Fan, D.X.; Wang, R.; Ou, Y.H.; Ma, X.L. Does rural tourism revitalize the countryside? An exploration of the spatial reconstruction through the lens of cultural connotations of rurality. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2023, 29, 100801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tosun, C. Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 231–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Welford, R.; Ytterhus, B.; Eligh, J. Tourism and sustainable development: An analysis of policy and guidelines for managing provision and consumption. Sustain. Dev. 1999, 7, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kastenholz, E. ‘Management of Demand’ as a Tool in Sustainable Tourist Destination Development. J. Sustain. Tour. 2004, 12, 388–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lane, B. What is rural tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 1994, 2, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Walmsley, D. Rural tourism: A case of lifestyle-led opportunities. Aust. Geogr. 2003, 34, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lane, B.; Weston, R.; Davies, N.J.; Kastenholz, E.; Lima, J.; Majewsjki, J. Industrial Heritage and Agri/Rural Tourism in Europe; Association for Computing Machinery (ACM): Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. Blekesaune, A.; Brandth, B.; Haugen, M.S. Visitors to farm tourism enterprises in Norway. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2010, 10, 54–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beane, T.; Ennis, D. Market segmentation: A review. Eur. J. Mark. 1987, 21, 20–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Park, D.-B.; Yoon, Y.-S. Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case study. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pesonen, J.A. Targeting rural tourists in the internet: Comparing travel motivation and activity-based segments. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2015, 32, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bel, F.; Lacroix, A.; Lyser, S.; Rambonilaza, T.; Turpin, N. Domestic demand for tourism in rural areas: Insights from summer stays in three French regions. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 562–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Frochot, I. A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural areas: A Scottish perspective. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dong, E.; Wang, Y.; Morais, D.; Brooks, D. Segmenting the rural tourism market: The case of Potter County, Pennsylvania, USA. J. Vacat. Mark. 2013, 19, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Eusébio, C.; Carneiro, M.J.; Kastenholz, E.; Figueiredo, E.; da Silva, D.S. Who is consuming the countryside? An activity-based segmentation analysis of the domestic rural tourism market in Portugal. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017, 31, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sidali, K.L.; Schulze, B. Current and future trends in consumers’ preference for farm tourism in Germany. Leisure/Loisir 2010, 34, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Park, D.B.; Lee, H.J.; Yoon, Y.S. Understanding the benefit sought by rural tourists and accommodation preferences: A South Korea case. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 16, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rid, W.; Ezeuduji, I.O.; Pröbstl-Haider, U. Segmentation by motivation for rural tourism activities in The Gambia. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wu, J.; Wang, X. An exploration of rural tourism segmentation by motivation in China: Taking Yangjiale Mouganshan as a case. J. China Tour. Res. 2020, 16, 391–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kastenholz, E.; Carneiro, M.J.; Marques, C.P.; Lima, J. Understanding and managing the rural tourism experience—The case of a historical village in Portugal. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 4, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Komppula, R. Pursuing customer value in tourism–a rural tourism case-study. J. Hosp. Tour. 2005, 3, 83–104. [Google Scholar]
  30. Marques, C.P. Seeking to escape: Sights over approach-avoidance dialectics. In Progress in Tourism Marketing; Routledge: London, UK, 2007; pp. 191–206. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pesonen, J.; Komppula, R. Rural wellbeing tourism: Motivations and expectations. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2010, 17, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kastenholz, E.; Eusébio, C.; Carneiro, M.J. Segmenting the rural tourist market by sustainable travel behaviour: Insights from village visitors in Portugal. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 10, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gocer, O.; Boyacioglu, D.; Karahan, E.E.; Shrestha, P. Cultural tourism and rural community resilience: A framework and its application. J. Rural Stud. 2024, 107, 103238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Clarke, J. Farm accommodation and the communication mix. Tour. Manag. 1996, 17, 611–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nilsson, P.Å. Staying on farms: An ideological background. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Flanigan, S.; Blackstock, K.; Hunter, C. Generating public and private benefits through understanding what drives different types of agritourism. J. Rural Stud. 2015, 41, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fleischer, A.; Tchetchik, A. Does rural tourism benefit from agriculture? Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 493–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Beer, S.; Edwards, J.; Fernandes, C.; Sampaio, F. Regional food cultures: Integral to the rural tourism product? In Tourism and Gastronomy; Routledge: London, UK, 2003; pp. 221–237. [Google Scholar]
  39. Choo, H.; Jamal, T. Tourism on organic farms in South Korea: A new form of ecotourism≟. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 431–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sidali, K.L. A sideways look at farm tourism in Germany and in Italy. In Food, Agri-Culture and Tourism: Linking Local Gastronomy and Rural Tourism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 2–24. [Google Scholar]
  41. Privitera, D. The importance of organic agriculture in tourism rural. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2010, 4, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Petroman, C.; Mirea, A.; Lozici, A.; Constantin, E.C.; Marin, D.; Merce, I. The rural educational tourism at the farm. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 39, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pesonen, J.; Komppula, R.; Kronenberg, C.; Peters, M. Understanding the relationship between push and pull motivations in rural tourism. Tour. Rev. 2011, 66, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. An, W.; Alarcón, S. From netnography to segmentation for the description of the rural tourism market based on tourist experiences in Spain. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 19, 100549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. An, W.; Alarcón, S. Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 89, 103210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ciolac, R.; Iancu, T.; Brad, I.; Popescu, G.; Marin, D.; Adamov, T. Agritourism activity—A “smart chance” for mountain rural environment’s sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rogerson, C.M. Revisiting VFR tourism in South Africa. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 2015, 97, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Deng, J.; Li, J. Segmentation of nature-based tourists in a rural area (2008–2009): A single-item approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lwoga, N.B.; Maturo, E. Motivation-based segmentation of rural tourism market in African villages. Dev. South. Afr. 2020, 37, 773–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Qun, Q.; Mitchell, C.J.; Wall, G. Creative destruction in China’s historic towns: Daxu and Yangshuo, Guangxi. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2012, 1, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fan, C.N.; Wall, G.; Mitchell, C.J. Creative destruction and the water town of Luzhi, China. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 648–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Huang, H.Y.B.; Wall, G.; Mitchell, C.J. Creative destruction Zhu Jia Jiao, China. Ann. Tour. Res. 2007, 34, 1033–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Oakes, T. The village as theme park: Mimesis and authenticity in Chinese tourism. In Translocal China; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; pp. 166–192. [Google Scholar]
  54. Yang, Q.; Li, J.; Tang, Y. The dilemma of the great development of rural tourism from the sustainable environment perspective. J. Environ. Public Health 2022, 2022, 7195813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, Y.; Yao, Z.; Guo, Z. Willingness to pay and preferences for rural tourism attributes among urban residents: A discrete choice experiment in China. Econ. Anal. Policy 2023, 77, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gao, J.; Wu, B. Revitalizing traditional villages through rural tourism: A case study of Yuanjia Village, Shaanxi Province, China. Tour. Manag. 2017, 63, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Guan, J.; Gao, J.; Zhang, C. Food heritagization and sustainable rural tourism destination: The case of China’s Yuanjia Village. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, J.; Inbakaran, R.J.; Jackson, M.S. Understanding community attitudes towards tourism and host—Guest interaction in the urban—Rural border region. Tour. Geogr. 2006, 8, 182–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Serra-Cantallops, A.; Ramon-Cardona, J. Host community resignation to nightclub tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 20, 566–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 03341 g001
Figure 1. Location of data collecting sites.
Figure 1. Location of data collecting sites.
Sustainability 17 03341 g001
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
AgeGender
Under 18 years old16 (3.1%)Male241 (46.6%)
19–29 years old121 (23.4%)Female276 (53.4%)
30–45 years old236 (45.6%)Education level
46–64 years old135 (26.1%)Junior middle school52 (10.0%)
Above 65 years old9 (1.7%)High school130 (25.2%)
Annual incomeUniversity/college275 (53.2%)
Less than ¥50,000141 (27.3%)Graduate60 (11.6%)
¥50,000–100,000134 (25.9%)Origin
¥100,000–150,00098 (19.0%)Live(d) or work(ed) in the countryside314 (60.8%)
¥150,000–200,00081 (15.7%)Relatives in the countryside87 (16.8%)
More than ¥200,00063 (12.2%)No roots in the countryside116 (22.4%)
Table 2. Factor analysis of rural tourist motivation.
Table 2. Factor analysis of rural tourist motivation.
DimensionAttributesFactor LoadingMeanS.D.Cronbach AlphaVariance Explained (%)
Rural experience (combined mean = 3.57)Appreciate rural landscapes 0.7703.891.1870.85719.076
See rural animals0.7573.341.282
Experience handicraft making0.6733.171.203
Enjoy nature0.6003.841.130
Participate in rural events0.5923.871.100
Experience rural way of life0.5053.291.289
General recreation (combined mean = 4.35)Variety of leisure activities0.6064.390.8480.7609.242
Hospitable service0.6174.360.872
Value for money0.5844.190.873
Easy to access0.5154.490.689
Excellent facilities0.6764.340.832
History and culture (combined mean = 4.07)Visit heritage sites0.8104.250.9510.82111.492
Learn local history0.7674.151.001
Experience different cultures0.6393.821.076
Agriculture experience (combined mean = 3.30)Learn agriculture knowledge0.7113.261.1600.65113.938
Contact with farmers0.6553.101.181
Farming experience0.6333.281.184
Farm and agricultural produce0.5073.571.180
Food and architecture (combined mean = 4.115)Enjoy local architecture0.7314.041.0460.5978.761
Enjoy local cuisine0.7014.190.944
Table 3. Motivational dimensions’ means among market segments.
Table 3. Motivational dimensions’ means among market segments.
DimensionUrbanist (n = 76/14.7%)Food and Architecture Enthusiast (n = 89/17.2%)History Lover (n = 178/34.4%)Multiple Experience Seeker (n = 174/33.7%)
General recreation4.074.374.144.66
Rural experience2.712.703.634.31
Agricultural experience2.342.423.394.08
Food and architecture2.874.463.764.84
History and culture2.953.724.354.67
Table 4. Demographic profile of the four tourist clusters.
Table 4. Demographic profile of the four tourist clusters.
Urbanist (n = 76/14.7%)Food and Architecture Enthusiast (n = 89/17.2%)History Lover (n = 178/34.4%)Multiple Experience Seeker (n = 174/33.7%)
Annual income (χ2 = 26.585, p = 0.009)
Up to 50,00034.2%20.2%28.1%27.0%
50,000–150,00034.2%36.0%48.9%50.0%
More than 150,00031.6%43.8%23.0%23.0%
Origin (χ2 = 17.722, p = 0.039)
Live(d) or work(ed) in the countryside61.8%45.3%62.9%61.5%
Relatives in the countryside17.1%13.3%17.4%19.0%
No roots in the countryside21.1%41.4%19.6%19.5%
Table 5. Travel pattern profile of the four tourist clusters.
Table 5. Travel pattern profile of the four tourist clusters.
Urbanist (n = 76/14.7%)Food and Architecture Enthusiast (n = 89/17.2%)History Lover (n = 178/34.4%)Multiple Experience Seeker (n = 174/33.7%)
Travel frequency p.a. (χ2 = 22.034, p = 0.001)
Once18.4%30.3%15.2%10.3%
2–5 times67.1%49.4%57.9%62.1%
More than 5 times14.5%20.2%27.0%27.6%
Travel companion (χ2 = 23.019, p = 0.028)
With family(child)53.9%37.1%54.5%55.2%
With partner17.1%24.7%20.8%16.7%
With friend22.4%32.6%23.0%24.1%
Alone0.0%0.0%0.6%2.3%
Others6.6%5.6%1.1%1.7%
Preferred activities (χ2 = 65.218, p = 0.001)
Agriculture activities7.9%18.0%28.1%23.6%
Meal and lodging10.5%50.6%24.2%27.6%
Ecological activities47.4%21.3%37.6%29.9%
Recreational activities34.2%10.1%10.1%28.0%
Preferred accommodation (χ2 = 51.155, p = 0.001)
Star/chain hotel36.5%27.3%25.3%30.6%
Rural hotel16.2%39.8%18.0%20.9%
Farmhouse9.5%10.2%28.1%21.0%
Rural camping8.1%4.5%1.7%3.4%
Not stay in any accommodation29.7%18.2%27.0%24.1%
Table 6. Comparison of sustainable consumption potential for each cluster.
Table 6. Comparison of sustainable consumption potential for each cluster.
Urbanist Food and Architecture EnthusiastHistory Lover Multiple Experience Seeker
Interaction with local people○Low motives for interaction○Low motives for interaction●High motives for interaction●High motives for interaction
Participate in nature/cultural activities●○Prefer ecological or recreational activities○Prefer meals and lodging●Prefer ecological or agricultural activities●○Uncertain
Appreciate local
products		○Low motives for purchase○Low motives for purchase●High motives for purchase●High motives for purchase
Stay in the village and live in village accommodation○Not stay or stay in the chain hotel●Stay in rural hotel●Stay in Farmhouse●○Uncertain
Note: ● and ○ represent whether the composition behavior conducted by each tourist cluster or not.
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

Fu, L.; Sanada, J.; Zhang, W. Toward Sustainable Tourism: An Activity-Based Segmentation of the Rural Tourism Market in China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083341

AMA Style

Fu L, Sanada J, Zhang W. Toward Sustainable Tourism: An Activity-Based Segmentation of the Rural Tourism Market in China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083341

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fu, Lin, Junko Sanada, and Wenzheng Zhang. 2025. "Toward Sustainable Tourism: An Activity-Based Segmentation of the Rural Tourism Market in China" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083341

APA Style

Fu, L., Sanada, J., & Zhang, W. (2025). Toward Sustainable Tourism: An Activity-Based Segmentation of the Rural Tourism Market in China. Sustainability, 17(8), 3341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083341

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