| Literature DB >> 31212766 |
Sifeng Nian1, Jie Zhang2, Honglei Zhang2, Jinhe Zhang3, Donghe Li4, Ke Wu5, Xue Chen6, Lingling Yang7.
Abstract
This study investigates the attitudes and behavioural intentions of community crisis response and tourism community participation in tourist destinations after the occurrence of a disaster. Further, we built a conceptual model of perceived community participation benefit, community attachment, community resilience, and crisis response and community participation intention and measured it using 556 samples surveyed after the Wenchuan earthquake, China. The results indicated that benefit perception, community attachment, and community resilience have a positive effect on crisis response and community participation. The study further reveals that the local tourism community gradually transforms the negative aspects of terrible disasters into development opportunities. Our case study particularly focuses on the initiative shown by and positive participation of the tourist community in the aforementioned transformation. The study proposes the Attachment, Benefit, and Capability framework of tourist community participation based on the crisis response perspective and expands the boundaries of tourist community participation research. The study has theoretical and practical significance, puts forward relevant countermeasures, and has significant implications.Entities:
Keywords: China; community participation; community resilience; crisis response; post-disaster environment; the Wenchuan earthquake
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31212766 PMCID: PMC6617544 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16122073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The theoretical model proposed by the study.
Figure 2Study area, seismic intensity and panorama.
Sample characteristics.
| Items | % | Items | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 39.9 | Tourism revenues accounted for total household income | ≤20% | 28.3 |
| Female | 60.1 | 21–40% | 22.6 | ||
| Nationality | Han | 61.9 | 41–60% | 22.6 | |
| Zang | 19.8 | ≥61% | 26.5 | ||
| Qiang | 15.3 | Profession | Civil servants, managers | 10.1 | |
| Other | 3.0 | Service trade personnel | 46.3 | ||
| Age group | ≤20 | 15.6 | Workers, farmers, | 14.0 | |
| 21–30 | 36.0 | Students | 7.9 | ||
| 31–40 | 29.5 | Other | 21.7 | ||
| 41–50 | 15.4 | Education | Primary school and below | 9.0 | |
| ≥51 | 3.5 | Middle school | 37.6 | ||
| Income (RMB /month) | ≤1000 | 22.9 | High school | 34.1 | |
| 1001–2500 | 58.1 | College graduate and above | 19.3 | ||
| 2501–4000 | 10.8 | ||||
| 4001–6500 | 4.8 | ||||
| ≥6501 | 3.4 | ||||
Reliability, correlation coefficients, and average variance extracted (AVE) results.
| Construct | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE | CA | CR | CPB | CRA | CPA | CPI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA | 0.855 | 0.860 | 0.56 |
| |||||
| CR | 0.763 | 0.777 | 0.54 | 0.39 |
| ||||
| CPB | 0.888 | 0.887 | 0.61 | 0.24 | 0.63 |
| |||
| CRA | 0.862 | 0.869 | 0.69 | 0.39 | 0.69 | 0.55 |
| ||
| CPA | 0.848 | 0.837 | 0.56 | 0.49 |
| 0.61 | 0.62 |
| |
| CPI | 0.819 | 0.809 | 0.51 | 0.47 |
| 0.60 |
|
|
|
Notes: a The main diagonal shows the square root of the averaged variance extracted (AVE);. b Significance, at p < 0.05 level is shown in main diagonal, and value in bold is more than 0.70 require further testing for discriminant validity;.c CA, community attachment; CR, community resilience; CPB, community participation benefit; CRA, crisis response attitude; CPA, community participation attitude; and CPI, community participation intention.
Chi-square difference value testing.
| Latent Variables | χ2 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Constrained Model | The Unconstrained Model | (df = 1, | |
| Cov (CR, CPA) | 192.497 (df = 14) | 99.802 (df = 13) | 92.695 |
| Cov (CR, CPI) | 270.628 (df = 14) | 157.897 (df = 13) | 112.731 |
| Cov (CRA, CPI) | 334.737 (df = 14) | 195.034 (df = 13) | 139.703 |
| Cov (CPA, CPI) | 230.511 (df = 20). | 182.144 (df = 19) | 48.367 |
Construct dimensions and analysis.
| Variables | Mean | SD | Factor Loading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community participation benefit (CPB) | |||
| X1 Tourism employment opportunities have increased. | 3.62 | 0.92 | 0.73 |
| X2 Tourism vocational skills training opportunities have increased. | 3.56 | 0.93 | 0.83 |
| X3 Tourism management opportunities have increased. | 3.40 | 1.00 | 0.86 |
| X4 Tourism development decision-making opportunities have increased. | 3.37 | 1.01 | 0.78 |
| X5 Tourism revenues have increased. | 3.38 | 1.03 | 0.71 |
| Community attachment (CA) | |||
| X6 I pay more attention to local development. | 4.25 | 0.68 | 0.53 |
| X7 I am already accustomed to living here. | 4.18 | 0.79 | 0.83 |
| X8 I would like to live here for a long time. | 4.29 | 0.78 | 0.83 |
| X9 I have a deep affection for this place. | 4.29 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| X10 I feel better here than elsewhere. | 4.09 | 0.90 | 0.75 |
| Community resilience (CR) | |||
| X11 I have improved my capability of coping with tourism crisis | 3.83 | 0.83 | 0.82 |
| X12 I have improved my capacity to respond to risk changes. | 3.76 | 0.82 | 0.76 |
| X13 I have improved my adaptability to disaster relief. | 3.65 | 1.06 | 0.61 |
| Community participation attitude (CPA) | |||
| Y1 I more actively offered bits of advice for tourism development. | 3.78 | 0.88 | 0.73 |
| Y2 I more actively mobilized friends and relatives to tourism participation. | 3.76 | 0.84 | 0.81 |
| Y3 I was more concerned about local tourism development. | 4.09 | 0.77 | 0.73 |
| Y4 I was proud to participate in tourism activities and construct our home. | 4.13 | 0.80 | 0.73 |
| Crisis response attitude (CRA) | |||
| Y5 My willingness to cherish and protect local tourism resources has been enhanced. | 4.04 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| Y6 My willingness to restore and protect natural environment has been enhanced. | 4.10 | 0.75 | 0.89 |
| Y7 My willingness to rescue and inherit local cultures has been enhanced. | 4.09 | 0.72 | 0.84 |
| Community participation intention (CPI) | |||
| Y8 My intention to participate in tourism decision-making has been strengthened. | 3.67 | 0.87 | 0.72 |
| Y9 My intention to engage in tourism-related industries has been strengthened. | 3.75 | 0.84 | 0.74 |
| Y10 My intention to communicate with visitors has been strengthened. | 4.00 | 0.74 | 0.69 |
| Y11 My intention to cater to the tourists’ needs has been strengthened. | 3.98 | 0.78 | 0.72 |
Goodness-of-fit indices.
| Model-Fit Index | Absolute Index | Comparative Index | Parsimony Index | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMIN/DF | GFI | RMR | AGFI | RMSEA | IFI | TLI | CFI | PGFI | PNFI | PCFI | ||
| Threshold value | 2–5 | >0.90 | <0.05 | >0.90 | <0.08 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.50 | >0.50 | >0.50 | |
| Theoretical model | 4.0 | 0.869 | 0.049 | 0.837 | 0.074 | 0.908 | 0.894 | 0.907 | 0.698 | 0.769 | 0.792 | |
| Structural model | 3.7 | 0.884 | 0.049 | 0.853 | 0.069 | 0.920 | 0.907 | 0.920 | 0.701 | 0.770 | 0.793 | |
Figure 3Results of structural model testing. *** Significance at the 0.001 level; * significance at the 0.01 level.
Summary of hypotheses testing results.
| Hypotheses | SRW | C.R. | Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Community participation attitude | <--- | Community participation benefit | 0.16 * | 2.97 | Accepted |
| H2 | Crisis response attitude | <--- | Community participation benefit | 0.20 *** | 3.51 | Accepted |
| H3 | Community participation attitude | <--- | Community attachment | 0.18 *** | 4.59 | Accepted |
| H4 | Crisis response attitude | <--- | Community attachment | 0.15 *** | 3.41 | Accepted |
| H5 | Community participation attitude | <--- | Community resilience | 0.68 *** | 9.81 | Accepted |
| H6 | Crisis response attitude | <--- | Community resilience | 0.50 *** | 7.47 | Accepted |
| H7 | Community participation intention | <--- | Community participation attitude | 0.68 *** | 11.25 | Accepted |
| H8 | Community participation intention | <--- | Crisis response attitude | 0.36 *** | 7.21 | Accepted |
Note. *** Significance at the 0.001 level; * significance at the 0.01 level.
Figure 4Tourist community participation ABC framework based on crisis response.