The Effects of Migratory Village Residents’ Social Identity on Community Participation in Tourism

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model.

Figure 2. The location of simatai new village.

Table 1. Results of exploratory factor analysis.

Measurement indicators	Factor load	Extraction of Common Factors	Rotation variance loading
CP1: Actively participate in tourism-related activities	0.844	Community participation	19.035%
CP2: Understand tourism planning and policies related to the village	0.776
CP3: The government consults residents on a regular basis	0.805
CP4: Participate in decision-making on tourism related to the village	0.792
CP5: Participated in tourism-related training	0.759
TS1: Support local tourism development	0.805	Tourism support	15.939%
TS2: Tourism plays an important role in local economic development	0.815
TS3: Tourism promotes better local development	0.829
TS4: Tourists are very welcome to come here	0.807
CI1: It is convenient to live now	0.786	Community identity	14.451%
CI2: I’m satisfied with the village now	0.821
CI3: I get along well with my neighbors	0.793
CI4: I care about things in my village	0.766
OI1: I am satisfied with the income of my current job	0.868	Occupational identity	13.258%
OI2: I want to work in my current job for a long time	0.874
OI3: I will spend my personal time to learn knowledge or skills related to my current job	0.871
RI 1: I think this is my home	0.851	Regional identity	9.336%
RI 2: I want to live here for a long time in the future	0.906

Table 2. ANOVA for comparison of social identity and community participation for residents with different levels of education.

variables	Mean					F	Sig.
	Primary and below	Junior high school	High school (including secondary school)	Tertiary (including vocational and technical schools)	Undergraduate and above
Community identity	3.876	3.450	3.901	4.035	4.034	3.507	0.008
Regional identity	3.494	3.632	3.546	3.952	3.700	2.420	0.048

Table 3. ANOVA for comparison of social identity and community participation for different kinds of residents.

variables	Mean			F	Sig.
	Relocated residents	Residents who have moved back	Foreign residents
Community identity	3.952	3.963	3.522	10.924	0.000
Occupational identity	3.594	3.336	3.570	6.042	0.003
Regional identity	3.580	3.686	3.261	4.573	0.011

Table 4. ANOVA for comparison of social identity and community participation for residents of different occupations before relocation.

	Mean
variables	Operating households	Local specialty processing and marketing	Country tour	Working in a travel company		Agricultural cultivation	Civil Service	Other	F	Sig.
Community participation	3.800	3.428	3.429		3.338	2.956	3.170	3.139	2.681	0.010
Tourism support	4.066	3.845	3.886		3.964	3.200	3.367	3.000	2.975	0.019
Occupational identity	4.250	3.875	3.734		3.687	3.242	3.618	3.220	2.868	0.023

Table 5. The results of the validation factor analysis.

Potential variables	Cronbach’α	CR	AVE
Community participation	0.881	0.896	0.633
Tourism support	0.865	0.887	0.663
Community identity	0.807	0.870	0.627
Regional identity	0.830	0.872	0.773
Occupational identity	0.858	0.904	0.759

Table 6. Results of structural equation model analysis.

Assumption	Content	Standardized path coefficients	T value	Conclusion
H1a	Community identity has a positive impact on tourism support	0.12	1.961**	Support
H1b	Community identity has a positive impact on community participation	0.12	2.074*	Support
H2a	Regional identity has a positive effect on tourism support	0.25	4.141***	Support
H2b	Regional identity has a positive impact on community participation	0.18	3.335***	Support
H3a	Occupational identity has a positive effect on tourism support	0.14	2.875**	Support
H3b	Positive impact of occupational identity on community participation	0.11	2.016**	Support
H4	Tourism support has a positive impact on community participation	0.52	7.009***	Support

Note: *indicates p < 0 .1; **indicates significant at p < 0.05 level;*** indicates significant at p < 0.001 level.

Table 7. Results of SEM analysis on mediating effect.

Path	Indirect effects of standardization	Average indirect effects	95% confidence intervals
			Lower limit	Upper limit
Community identity → tourism support → community participation	0.12*0.52=0.062	0.069	0.001	0.131
Regional identity → tourism support → community participation	0.25*0.52=0.130	0.137	0.032	0.166
Occupational identity → tourism support → community participation	0.14*0.52=0.073	0.086	0.018	0.132