Journal of Resources and Ecology >
A View of Ethnic Communities’ Tourism Participation from the Perspective of Environmental Justice
Received date: 2024-05-10
Accepted date: 2024-09-10
Online published: 2025-01-21
Supported by
Chengdu Science and Technology Bureau Project(SCWL2022-15B-002)
National Social Science Foundation Project(19XTY001)
Sichuan Provincial Federation of Social Sciences Research Base Project(WRF202401)
Against the backdrop of rapid tourism development, the imbalanced distribution of conflicting interests among community residents in tourist destinations has become a focus of attention. As core stakeholders of tourist destinations, community residents play an indispensable role in creating a “hospitable atmosphere”. Community residents’ participation in tourism development is vital for promoting sustainable development. Environmental justice theory emphasizes the fairness of resource allocation and participation in negotiations, and it has developed into an essential issue for the sustainable development of tourist destinations. This study took Skula Town in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture as a case study to explore the participation behavior of residents in ethnic tourism communities in the development of tourist destinations. Based on grounded theory and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), a complex causal model of high participation behavior of the residents in ethnic tourism communities was constructed to reveal the multiple influencing factors and their interrelationships from the environmental justice perspective. Nineteen complex combination paths were identified that can promote the high participation behavior of community residents, which verified the diversity and complexity of the conditions behind the high participation behavior of residents in ethnic tourism communities. The results show that fair resource allocation, effective environmental protection measures, and residents’ recognition of tourism development are the key factors driving high participation behavior. This study reveals the complex relationships between multiple factors that influence participation behavior from the perspective of environmental justice, with the aim of deepening our understanding of residents in ethnic tourism communities’ participation in tourism development and providing a reference for the sustainable development of local tourism and the stable development of society.
LIU Yong , LI Dan , GUO Zhaofeng , ZHOU Jiayang , ZHANG Weizhong , DONG Erwei . A View of Ethnic Communities’ Tourism Participation from the Perspective of Environmental Justice[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2025 , 16(1) : 206 -218 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.01.019
Table 1 Example of open encoding |
Primary data collection | Initial category |
---|---|
DJ1 We have five villages here because the tourism development of the five villages is in an unbalanced state according to the geographical location | Differences in geographical distribution lead to unbalanced development |
The uneven distribution of tourism resources causes a feeling of powerlessness | |
PJ3 In the past, many villagers cheated tourists for economic benefits, and the government was not good at regulating them, which not only damaged the rights and interests of other villagers but also affected the overall impression of tourists on Skula Mountain | The government’s restraint policies on residents should be better |
PJ4 Many people in our village no longer live on Skula Mountain, but their household registration is still here, and they receive tourism dividends every year | The household registration system is imperfect, making other villagers feel that it is unfair |
WP4 The Skula Mountain outdoor tour is unique... In 1980, many foreigners came to climb the mountains | Local villagers are very much identified with their hometown, and even proud |
RD5: For the sake of tourists, we don't speak our native language. The children speak Mandarin from the beginning of kindergarten and have forgotten the Tibetan language so that they can only understand half a sentence | The cultural customs gradually disappear with tourism involvement |
RD6 In the past, the relationship between neighbors was very good, and they helped each other, but now the relationship is not as good as before and they even fight to rob guests | The most basic neighborhood relationship connecting community groups is gradually diluted and has even gone to the edge of contradiction and disintegration |
RD7 To highlight the landscape with national characteristics, the government has modified the style of our former house. Now, the villagers live with the tourists; with the villagers themselves on the first floor, and the tourists live on the other floors | The traditional “production-life” space exclusively enjoyed by residents has been transformed into a mixed residential and tourist space shared by “host and guest”. The originally private space of residents has been endowed with specific public attributes |
Table 2 Conceptualization and categorization processes |
Main category | Corresponding category | Relevant concepts |
---|---|---|
Distributive justice | Benefit distribution | Employment opportunities, tourism revenue, ticket revenue, catering and accommodation revenue, and handicraft sales revenue |
Resource allocation | Number of horses, tourist reception, and opportunities to participate in decision-making | |
Environmental burden | Environmental pollution, ecological damage, resource pressure | |
Procedural justice | Compensatory measures are unbalanced | Compensatory measures may cause dissatisfaction in society, especially in those groups that believe they have not received adequate compensation, and this may feel unfair, thus exacerbating social divisions; resource reallocation, which may lead to the diversion of resources from other areas with equal needs, creating more unfairness |
Policy oversight | The household registration system is imperfect, residents raise business prices privately, and policies are not implemented consistently and fairly | |
Management mode | Outdated management, unfair resource management, depriving villagers of their means of income (horses) | |
Participation | Community residents lack the right to participate and have a say in tourism and lack fair opportunities to express their needs and demands. Often, only a few community elites or specific groups can participate while most residents are excluded | |
Corrective justice | Government constraint | Prohibit residents and villagers from building indiscriminately, overgrazing, littering, and going up the mountain to collect herbs, and strengthen residents' environmental responsibility |
Punishment mechanism | Fines, suspension of business, blacklisting, criticism and education, formulation of laws and regulations to protect residents engaged in tourism business activities, and standardization of business service quality | |
Increase education and capacity building | Provide education and training opportunities to empower community members to participate in tourism development | |
Willingness to participate | Protection of resource rights | Protect the rights of community residents to local culture and natural resources, prevent unfair development and utilization by external interest groups, and ensure that community residents can benefit from tourism development |
Emotional attachment | Love outdoor work and realize self-worth, a sense of accomplishment, and a sense of honor | |
Identity recognition | Pride in being a Skula native, and residents' perception of the community's geographical environment and spatial changes, including recognition of natural and cultural landscapes | |
Relative deprivation | Economic benefits | Gaining income, improving quality of life |
Horizontal deprivation | Income disparities, geographical location, uneven distribution of tourism resources, differences in opportunities for residents to participate in the tourism industry | |
Vertical deprivation | Cultural changes, social relations changes, and environmental changes before and after tourism development | |
Participative behavior | Environmental protection | Proactively picking up garbage generated by tourists, reducing the need to bring disposable items up the mountain, and reduced harvesting of herbs and plants |
Infrastructure construction | Road construction, housing construction, living facility construction, and scenic area construction | |
Tourism | Scenic area staff, sightseeing bus drivers, sanitation workers, and operators | |
Cultural propaganda | Historical culture, festival culture, and ethnic culture |
Figure 1 Mechanism of tourism participation behavior formation in ethnic communities |
Figure 2 Construction of the complexity model of ethnic community tourism participation behavior |
Table 3 Measurement dimensions and measurement items |
Measurement dimension | Item | Factor load capacity | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Distributive justice | Q5 Equal opportunities for community residents to participate in tourism development | 0.882 | 0.868 | 0.910 | 0.717 |
Q6 Equal income for community residents participating in tourism work | 0.867 | ||||
Q7 Equal sharing of environmental risks brought about by tourism development among community residents | 0.878 | ||||
Q8 Equal access to tourism resources for community residents | 0.752 | ||||
Procedural justice | Q9 Resource allocation considers the interests of all members of the community | 0.925 | 0.921 | 0.950 | 0.863 |
Q10 There is no bias in the allocation process | 0.944 | ||||
Q11 The allocation process has consistency among residents of different communities | 0.919 | ||||
Q12 The government’s resource allocation policy is sound | 0.758 | 0.893 | |||
Corrective justice | Q13 Enhancing the moral literacy of community correction objects | 0.918 | 0.926 | ||
Q14 Creating a good environmental atmosphere in tourism development | 0.935 | 0.759 | |||
Q15 The government has introduced relevant reward and punishment mechanisms to correct unfair phenomena | 0.863 | ||||
Relative deprivation | D1 Others earn a higher income in the tourism industry than the surveyed individual | 0.917 | 0.894 | 0.922 | 0.703 |
D2 The tourism income of other villages is higher than that of one’s own village | 0.799 | ||||
D3 The living standards are better than before the development of tourism | 0.827 | ||||
D4 The current ecological environment is not as good as before the development of tourism | 0.822 | ||||
D5 Neighborhood relationships are not as harmonious as before | 0.821 | ||||
Willingness to participate | C1 Engaging in tourism related work can enhance personal confidence | 0.879 | 0.888 | 0.922 | 0.748 |
C2 Participating in tourism development can lead to stable employment | 0.853 | ||||
C3 Participating in the development of tourism industry can improve quality of life and increase economic income | 0.896 | ||||
C4 Proud of being a villager of Mount Skula | 0.830 | ||||
Participative behavior | E1 Villagers actively participate in protecting natural resources and the environment | 0.844 | 0.924 | 0.943 | 0.767 |
E2 Villagers actively participate in the tourism policy formulation and decision-ma- king processes | 0.913 | ||||
E3 Villagers participate in tourism education and training | 0.844 | ||||
E4 Villagers actively participate in cultural activities (program performances, festival activities) | 0.875 | ||||
E5 Various self-operated tourism projects (homestays, catering, selling specialty products) | 0.900 |
Table 4 Latent variable coefficient and model test |
Research variable | Procedural justice | Distributive justice | Corrective justice | Relative deprivation | Participative behavior | Willingness to participate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Procedural justice | 0.929 | |||||
Distributive justice | 0.357 | 0.847 | ||||
Corrective justice | 0.338 | 0.363 | 0.871 | |||
Relative deprivation | 0.330 | 0.480 | 0.397 | 0.838 | ||
Participative behavior | 0.245 | 0.570 | 0.408 | 0.517 | 0.876 | |
Willingness to participate | 0.359 | 0.394 | 0.416 | 0.386 | 0.363 | 0.865 |
Note: Below the diagonal are the correlation coefficients between the latent variables, on the diagonal are the square root of the AVE values. |
Table 5 Cross contingency table |
Distributive justice | Participation behavior | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly agree | Total | ||
Strongly disagree | Count | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 |
Percent l (%) | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 2.70 | 0.00 | 4.50 | |
Disagree | Count | 13 | 8 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 35 |
Percent (%) | 11.70 | 7.20 | 0.90 | 9.00 | 2.70 | 31.50 | |
Neutral | Count | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 10 |
Percent (%) | 0.00 | 0.90 | 1.80 | 6.30 | 0.00 | 9.00 | |
Agree | Count | 1 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 4 | 41 |
Percent (%) | 0.90 | 3.60 | 1.80 | 27.00 | 3.60 | 36.90 | |
Strongly agree | Count | 0 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 20 |
Percent (%) | 0.00 | 1.80 | 2.70 | 10.80 | 2.70 | 18.00 | |
Total | Count | 15 | 16 | 8 | 62 | 10 | 111 |
Percent (%) | 13.50 | 14.40 | 7.20 | 55.90 | 9.00 | 100.00 |
Table 6 Variable assignments |
Research variable | Anchor point | Research variable | Anchor point | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full membership | Intersection | Completely unaffiliated | Full membership | Intersection | Completely unaffiliated | ||
Gender | 1.00 | 0 | 2.00 | Procedural justice | 4.67 | 3.33 | 1.00 |
Age | 4.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | Corrective justice | 4.88 | 4.00 | 1.38 |
Education | 4.00 | 3.00 | 1.00 | Relative deprivation | 4.40 | 3.80 | 1.40 |
Income | 5.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | Willingness to participate | 4.75 | 3.75 | 1.25 |
Distributive justice | 4.75 | 3.50 | 1.50 | Participative behavior | 4.60 | 4.00 | 1.40 |
Table 7 Consistency and coverage of individual factors |
Conditional variable | Consistency | Coverage |
---|---|---|
Gender | 0.437201 | 0.575244 |
~Gender | 0.649447 | 0.605850 |
Age | 0.630137 | 0.677190 |
~Age | 0.556197 | 0.616990 |
Education | 0.508334 | 0.643678 |
~Education | 0.740881 | 0.710847 |
Income | 0.737580 | 0.730587 |
~Income | 0.489190 | 0.594822 |
Distributive justice | 0.777555 | 0.726522 |
~Distributive justice | 0.475821 | 0.554103 |
Procedural justice | 0.530120 | 0.615443 |
~Procedural justice | 0.641690 | 0.661112 |
Corrective justice | 0.662485 | 0.723504 |
~Corrective justice | 0.550751 | 0.601045 |
Relative Deprivation | 0.572702 | 0.686177 |
~Relative Deprivation | 0.614128 | 0.615754 |
Willingness to participate | 0.665621 | 0.715071 |
~Willingness to participate | 0.538042 | 0.597070 |
Note: The “~” denotes a “not” or “complex negation” set relation. |
Table 8 Results of the qualitative analysis of fuzzy sets |
Model | Community participation behavior prediction | Original coverage | Unique coverage | Consistency |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | participative behavior=ƒ(gen, age, income, edu) | |||
~gen*~age*~edu*income | ||||
A-1 | age*income | 0.5002 | 0.2246 | 0.8104 |
A-2 | edu*income | 0.4402 | 0.1497 | 0.7780 |
A-3 | gen*~age*~edu*~income | 0.1707 | 0.0398 | 0.8226 |
Coverage of solutions | 0.7067 | |||
Consistency of solutions | 0.7766 | |||
B | participative behavior=ƒ(distributive justice, procedural justice, corrective justice, sense of relative deprivation, participation willingness) | |||
B-1 | distributive justice*~procedural justice*corrective justice | 0.3535 | 0.0168 | 0.9273 |
B-2 | distributive justice*~procedural justice*participation willingness | 0.3804 | 0.0593 | 0.9374 |
B-3 | distributive justice*sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.3786 | 0.0886 | 0.8557 |
B-4 | ~procedural justice*corrective justice*sense of relative deprivation*~participation willingness | 0.2007 | 0.0172 | 0.9361 |
B-5 | distributive justice*procedural justice*~corrective justice*Sense of relative deprivation | 0.2302 | 0.0147 | 0.9344 |
B-6 | ~distributive justice*procedural justice*corrective justice*~sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.1636 | 0.0183 | 0.9556 |
Coverage of solutions | 0.6460 | |||
Consistency of solutions | 0.8634 | |||
C | participative behavior=ƒ(gen, age, income, edu) (distributive justice, procedural justice, corrective justice, sense of relative deprivation, participation willingness) | |||
C-1 | ~gender*age*~education*income*distributive justice*~procedural justice*~sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.2324 | 0.0493 | 0.9591 |
C-2 | ~gender*age*~education*distributive justice*~procedural justice*corrective justice*~sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.2000 | 0.0087 | 0.9966 |
C-3 | gender*age*~education*income*~distributive justice*~procedural justice*~corrective justice*~sense of relative deprivation*~participation willingness | 0.1216 | 0.0378 | 0.9099 |
C-4 | ~gender*~age*~education*~income*distributive justice*procedural justice*~corrective justice*~sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.1129 | 0.0114 | 0.9813 |
C-5 | ~gender*age*~education*~income*distributive justice*procedural justice*corrective justice*~sense of relative deprivation*~participation willingness | 0.1164 | 0.0206 | 0.9792 |
C-6 | ~gender*~age*education*~income*~distributive justice*procedural justice*corrective justice*~sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.1200 | 0.0208 | 0.9719 |
C-7 | gender*age*~education*~income*distributive justice*~procedural justice*~corrective justice*sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.1099 | 0.0130 | 0.9867 |
C-8 | gender*~age*~education*~income*~distributive justice*procedural justice*corrective justice*sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.1140 | 0.0191 | 0.9611 |
C-9 | gender*age*~education*~income*distributive justice*procedural justice*corrective justice*sense of relative deprivation*~participation willingness | 0.1104 | 0.0102 | 0.9867 |
C-10 | gender*age*~education*income*distributive justice*procedural justice*corrective justice*sense of relative deprivation*participation willingness | 0.1220 | 0.0205 | 0.9960 |
Coverage of solutions | 0.4321 | |||
Consistency of solutions | 0.9297 |
Note: In Boolean algebraic logic, “*” is used to denote the set relation of “and”, and “~” is used to denote the set relation of “not” or “complex negation”, For example, A*B means that the condition variables A and B occur simultaneously, while ~A indicates that condition variable A does not occur or does not appear. |
Figure 3 Plot diagram of the causal algorithm |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |