| Literature DB >> 34886457 |
Rui Guo1, Xiaoying Liu2, Hakjun Song3.
Abstract
It seems that people's quality of life can be positively influenced through bicycle tourism. Bicycle tourism can be an effective measure to enhance serious leisure, tourism satisfaction, and quality of life. To verify this empirically, a survey was conducted of bicycle tourists who visited Qinghai Lake in China during an international road bike race. The purpose of the present research is to prove the association between latent variables related to bicycle tourism through statistical analysis. For this, hypothetical relationships based on tourism motivation, serious leisure, tourism satisfaction, and quality of life were presented as research models. As a result of empirical analysis, it was analyzed that friends and nature had an effect on serious leisure among the motivation of bicycle tourism. In addition, it was found that the level of serious leisure for bicycle tourism exerted a positive influence on the satisfaction and quality of life. This suggests that bicycle tourism can improve the quality of life during travel to Qinghai lake by bicycle and revealed the crucial role in relationships is serious leisure.Entities:
Keywords: China; Qinghai Lake; bicycle tourism; motivation; quality of life; satisfaction; serious leisure; structural equation modeling
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34886457 PMCID: PMC8656678 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Measurement Items.
| Measurement Items | Specific Content | Related Literature |
|---|---|---|
| FRI 1 | To get along with the people you prefer | [ |
| FRI 2 | To meet new people | |
| FRI 3 | To deepen friendship with friends and colleagues | |
| DVE 1 | To relieve stress | |
| DVE 2 | To make a difference in everyday life | |
| DVE 3 | For a refreshment | |
| NAT 1 | To appreciate the beauty of nature | |
| NAT 2 | To feel close to nature | |
| NAT 3 | To enjoy leisure facilities in a specific season | |
| SL 1 | When introducing myself to the people around me, I cannot miss out on mentioning bicycle tourism | [ |
| SL 2 | I have similar beliefs as those who participate in bicycle tourism | |
| SL 3 | Bicycle tourism gives me a sense of accomplishment | |
| SL 4 | I have expertise in tourism | |
| SL 5 | I participate without giving up even when difficult things arise when traveling by bicycle tourism | |
| SAT 1 | Bicycle tourism helps maintain physical vitality | [ |
| SAT 2 | Bicycle tourism makes me meet good friends | |
| SAT 3 | The bicycle tourism area was well decorated | |
| SAT 4 | Bicycle tourism helps maintain physical vitality | |
| QoL 1 | I stayed healthy by bicycle tourism | [ |
| QoL 2 | I felt a sense of accomplishment through my bicycle tourism | |
| QoL 3 | I became more involved in social activities through bicycle tourism |
Figure 1Proposed conceptual model. Notes: FRI = friends, DEV = deviance, NAT = nature, SL = serious leisure, SAT = satisfaction, QoL = quality of life.
Respondents’ demographic characteristics (n = 300).
| Feature | |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Man | 219 (73%) |
| Woman | 81 (27%) |
| Educational background | |
| Lower than upper secondary education | 72 (24%) |
| Junior colleges | 101 (33.7%) |
| Universities/colleges | 105 (35%) |
| Graduate schools | 22 (7.3%) |
| Profession | |
| Student | 67 (22.3%) |
| Staff employee | 93 (31%) |
| Worker | 26 (8.7%) |
| Civil servant | 17 (5.7%) |
| Self-employed | 34 (11.3%) |
| Researcher | 18 (6%) |
| Education employee | 17 (5.7%) |
| Other | 28 (9.3%) |
| Marital status | |
| Not married | 143 (47.7%) |
| Married | 143 (47.7%) |
| Others | 14 (4.6%) |
| Monthly income level | |
| Less than 3000 ¥ | 91 (30.3%) |
| 3000–4999 ¥ | 84 (28%) |
| 5000–6999 ¥ | 79 (26.3) |
| 7000–8999 ¥ | 18 (6%) |
| 9000 ¥ or more | 28 (9.4) |
| Residence | |
| Beijing | 104 (21.2) |
| Shanghai | 122 (24.9) |
| Guangzhou | 134 (27.4) |
| Shenzhen | 130 (26.5) |
| Age | |
| Less than 20 | 40 (13.3%) |
| 20–29 | 129 (43%) |
| 30–39 | 40 (13.3) |
| 40–49 | 61 (20.4) |
| Over 50 | 30 (10%) |
Results of measurement model.
| Constructs | FRI | DVE | NAT | SL | SAT | QoL | Items | Standardized |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Friends: (FRI) |
| FRI 1 | 0.836 | |||||
| FRI 2 | 0.784 | |||||||
| FRI 3 | 0.798 | |||||||
| Deviance: (DVE) | 0.629 |
| DVE 1 | 0.807 | ||||
| DVE 2 | 0.834 | |||||||
| DVE 3 | 0.872 | |||||||
| Nature: (NAT) | 0.58 | 0.744 |
| NAT 1 | 0.885 | |||
| NAT 2 | 0.851 | |||||||
| NAT 3 | 0.807 | |||||||
| Serious Leisure: (SL) | 0.636 | 0.364 | 0.428 |
| SL 1 | 0.770 | ||
| SL 2 | 0.776 | |||||||
| SL 3 | 0.702 | |||||||
| SL 4 | 0.782 | |||||||
| SL 5 | 0.705 | |||||||
| Satisfaction: (SAT) | 0.644 | 0.482 | 0.501 | 0.78 |
| SAT 1 | 0.863 | |
| SAT 2 | 0.858 | |||||||
| SAT 3 | 0.725 | |||||||
| Quality of Life: (QoL) | 0.791 * | 0.626 | 0.605 | 0.731 | 0.675 |
| QoL 1 | 0.860 |
| QoL 2 | 0.842 | |||||||
| QoL 3 | 0.872 | |||||||
| CR | 0.842 | 0.876 | 0.885 | 0.864 | 0.858 | 0.893 | Model fit | |
Notes: All factor loadings have significance when p < 0.001; The entire bold-faced diagonal elements that appear in the correlation of the construct’s matrix denote the square roots of AVEs. *: The highest value of related variables among latent variables.
Normalized parametric estimation of structure model.
| Assumptions | Coefficients | t-Value | Testing of Assumptions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | FRI → SL | 0.748 *** | 8.333 | Accepted |
| H2 | DEV → SL | −0.103 | −0.948 | Rejected |
| H3 | NAT → SL | 0.263 ** | 2.673 | Accepted |
| H4 | SL → SAT | 0.992 *** | 82.654 | Accepted |
| H5 | SAT → QoL | 0.909 *** | 45.098 | Accepted |
Notes: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Structural model results. Notes 1: fitting accuracy statistic results: = χ2 = 373.301, df = 162, χ2/df = 2.304, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.937, NFI = 0.895, TLI = 0.926, RMSEA = 0.066. Notes 2: FRI = friends, DEV = deviance, NAT = nature, SL = serious leisure, SAT = satisfaction, QoL = quality of life. Notes 3: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.