| Literature DB >> 36178957 |
Genjin Sun1, Qi Qian1, Yanxiu Liu1, Bo Pu1, Dan Wang1.
Abstract
Tourism consumption is not only an important means by which to improve residents' sense of happiness but is also the main way to promote national economic development. In a traditional relational society such as China, it remains unclear how social network affects tourism consumption by households. Here, we evaluated the impact of the social network on tourism consumption by Chinese households using the data of 3254 samples from the China Family Panel Studies. The empirical results from the ordinary least square method showed that the social network promotes tourism consumption, which can be projected to increase by about 28% for every 1% increase in social network strength. This was further confirmed using the instrumental variable method to address the issue of endogenous social network formation, as well as other robustness checks. The impact of the social network on tourism consumption was heterogeneous. Compared with other residents, there were higher positive effects for high-income families, households with a head aged 35-44 years, urban families, and households in eastern China. The quantile regression results revealed that the impact of the social network was weakened with increasing tourism consumption by households. These results are crucial for policymakers, in that they could form good habits of tourism consumption and strengthen tourism market management, especially for the management of tourism negative events in the context of new media.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36178957 PMCID: PMC9524651 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275418
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Summary statistics.
| Variable | Description | Obs. | Mean | S.D. | Min. | Max. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnftc | Logarithm of household tourism consumption. | 3254 | 7.6596 | 1.3970 | 2.1972 | 11.9184 |
| lnsn | Logarithm of gift money expenditure. | 3254 | 8.2624 | 0.9781 | 3.9120 | 11.5129 |
| Gender | Gender of household head, male = 1, female = 0. | 3254 | 0.5080 | 0.5000 | 0 | 1 |
| Age | Age of household head. | 3254 | 45.5009 | 14.7284 | 18 | 90 |
| Education | Educational background of household head. | 3254 | 3.7074 | 1.4723 | 1 | 8 |
| Martial | Marriage of household head, married = 1, others = 0. | 3254 | 0.7938 | 0.4046 | 0 | 1 |
| Employment status | Working of household head, working = 1, others = 0. | 3254 | 0.7526 | 0.4316 | 0 | 1 |
| lnthni | Logarithm of family income. | 3254 | 11.4566 | 0.9189 | 0 | 15.9197 |
| lnfa | Logarithm of family assets. | 3254 | 8.8835 | 4.3027 | 0 | 15.4250 |
| Size | Family size. | 3254 | 3.4416 | 1.7540 | 1 | 15 |
| Urban | Urban and rural classification, urban = 1, rural = 0 | 3254 | 0.7277 | 0.4452 | 0 | 1 |
| Area | Province dummy variable, east and central = 1, west = 0. | 3254 | 0.7763 | 0.4168 | 0 | 1 |
| lnhelp | Logarithm of economic help to relatives | 3254 | 3.5418 | 4.1465 | 0 | 12.2060 |
| lnpt | Logarithm of post and telecommunications fee | 3254 | 7.7789 | 1.0456 | 0 | 11.0021 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Impacts of social networks on household tourism consumption.
| Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnsn | 0.4157 | 0.3742 | 0.2718 | 0.2750 |
| (0.0250 | (0.0246) | (0.0276) | (0.0275) | |
| Gender | -0.0727 | -0.0786 | -0.0885 | |
| (0.0459) | (0.0438) | (0.0437) | ||
| Age | 0.0111 | 0.0102 | 0.0104 | |
| (0.0020) | (0.0020) | (0.0020) | ||
| Education | 0.3271 | 0.1976 | 0.2030 | |
| (0.0171) | (0.0189) | (0.0192) | ||
| Martial | 0.0557 | -0.0314 | -0.0208 | |
| (0.0600) | (0.0598) | (0.0599) | ||
| Employment status | -0.1882 | -0.1016 | -0.1059 | |
| (0.0635) | (0.0612) | (0.0612) | ||
| lnthni | 0.3999 | 0.4067 | ||
| (0.0528) | (0.0533) | |||
| lnfa | 0.0156 | 0.0168 | ||
| (0.0054) | (0.0054) | |||
| Size | -0.0292 | -0.0340 | ||
| (0.0139) | (0.0140) | |||
| Urban | 0.3632 | 0.3744 | ||
| (0.0529) | (0.0528) | |||
| Area | -0.1713 | |||
| (0.0515) | ||||
| Constant | 4.2252 | 2.9828 | -0.5137 | -0.5184 |
| (0.2080) | (0.2262) | (0.4670) | (0.4720) | |
| R2 | 0.0847 | 0.1812 | 0.2641 | 0.2665 |
| N | 3254 | 3254 | 3254 | 3254 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level
** significance at the 5% level
* significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination; N: The number of observations.
Instrumental variable regression results.
|
| |
| lnsn | 0.5429 |
| (0.2987) | |
| Control variables | YES |
| Constant | -1.6583 |
| (1.2916) | |
| R2 | 0.2351 |
| N | 3254 |
|
| |
| The coefficient of instrumental variable | 0.0181 |
| P value of instrumental variable | 0.000 |
| F statistical value | 19.61 |
| Kleibergen-Paap rk LM statistic | 19.364 |
| LM statistical value | 0.0000 |
| Kleibergen-Paap rk Wald F statistic | 19.61 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level
** significance at the 5% level
* significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination; N: The number of observations.
Regression results for the replacement of explanatory variables.
| Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnpt | 0.2649 | 0.2655 | 0.1774 | 0.1756 |
| (0.0332) | (0.0319) | (0.0402) | (0.0316) | |
| Characteristics of household head | YES | YES | YES | |
| Characteristics of family | YES | YES | ||
| Characteristics of province | YES | |||
| Constant | 5.5988 | 3.6411 | -0.1892 | -0.1624 |
| (0.2627) | (0.2842) | (0.5292) | (0.5318) | |
| R2 | 0.0393 | 0.1522 | 0.2461 | 0.2476 |
| N | 3254 | 3254 | 3254 | 3254 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level
** significance at the 5% level
* significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination; N: The number of observations.
Regression results of singular values of smoothing samples.
| Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnsn | 0.3468 | 0.3119 | 0.2215 | 0.2250 |
| (0.0264) | (0.0263) | (0.0259) | (0.0259) | |
| Characteristics of household head | YES | YES | YES | |
| Characteristics of family | YES | YES | ||
| Characteristics of province | YES | |||
| Constant | 4.7890 | 3.5395 | -2.2880 | -2.3328 |
| (0.2194) | (0.2390) | (0.4500) | (0.4460) | |
| R2 | 0.06010 | 0.1532 | 0.2360 | 0.2408 |
| N | 2928 | 2928 | 2928 | 2928 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level
** significance at the 5% level
* significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination; N: The number of observations.
Estimations of income class.
| Variable | Low-income group | High-income group |
|---|---|---|
| lnsn | 0.2674 | 0. 2725 |
| (0.0330) | (0.0392) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.1566 | 0.1938 |
| N | 1797 | 1457 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level, ** significance at the 5% level, * significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination. N: The number of observations.
Estimated results of the household life cycle.
| Variable | <25 | 25~34 | 35~44 | 45~54 | >54 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnsn | 0.2493 | 0.2411 | 0.4167 | 0.2305 | 0.2366 |
| (0.1126) | (0.0432) | (0.0608) | (0.0537) | (0.0530) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.2300 | 0.2716 | 0.3803 | 0.3000 | 0.2535 |
| N | 155 | 798 | 655 | 718 | 928 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level
** significance at the 5% level, * significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination; N: The number of observations.
Estimated results of the urban–rural differentiation.
| Variable | rural | urban |
|---|---|---|
| lnsn | 0.2248 | 0.2989 |
| (0.0521) | (0.0311) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.1529 | 0.2408 |
| N | 886 | 2368 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level, ** significance at the 5% level, * significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination; N: The number of observations.
Estimated results by subregion.
| Variable | Western region | Central region | Eastern region |
|---|---|---|---|
| lnsn | 0.2695 | 0.2321 | 0.3206 |
| (0.0650) | (0.0476) | (0.0369) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.2621 | 0.2346 | 0.2914 |
| N | 726 | 916 | 1612 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level, ** significance at the 5% level, * significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination; N: The number of observations.
Results of quantile regression.
| Variable | 10% | 30% | 50% | 70% | 90% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnsn | 0.2936 | 0.2841 | 0.2617 | 0.2525 | 0.2047 |
| (0.0404) | (0.0358) | (0.0332) | (0.0280) | (0.0467) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.1293 | 0.1282 | 0.1564 | 0.1707 | 0.1659 |
| N | 3254 | 3254 | 3254 | 3254 | 3254 |
Source: Authors’ estimation.
Note
***significance at the 1% level, ** significance at the 5% level, * significance at the 10% level; standard errors are reported in parentheses; R2: The coefficient of determination; N: The number of observations.