EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2025 , Vol. 16 >Issue 1: 219 - 232

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.01.020

Ecotourism

Does Entrepreneurial Motivation Affect Rural Homestay Entrepreneurs’ Continuous Operation Intention? The Serial Mediation Effects of Community Relations and Entrepreneurial Performance Perception

  • WU Wenzhi , 1 ,
  • ZHANG Juanjuan 2, 3 ,
  • TANG Pei , 4, * ,
  • WU Lin 5
Expand
  • 1. School of Economics and Management, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
  • 2. College of Business, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 200433, China
  • 3. College of Tourism, Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy, Zhengzhou 450046, China
  • 4. School of Management, Shanghai University of Engineering Science, Shanghai 201620, China
  • 5. China Tourism News, Beijing 100740, China
*TANG Pei, E-mail:

WU Wenzhi, E-mail:

Received date: 2024-06-04

  Accepted date: 2024-09-02

  Online published: 2025-01-21

Supported by

Humanities and Social Sciences Planning Project of the Ministry of Education(23YJA790084)

National Social Science Foundation of China(23FGLB039)

Fold

Abstract

Developing the rural homestay industry is beneficial for poverty reduction in rural areas and its sustainable development is closely related to the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs. Based on a first-hand questionnaire survey data for 368 rural homestay entrepreneurs, methods such as factor analysis, multiple regression analysis and the mediation effect test were used to explore the impact of entrepreneurial motivation on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs and its internal mechanism. The results indicate that entrepreneurial motivation has a significant positive impact on rural homestay entrepreneurs’ continuous operation intention. Community relations and entrepreneurial performance perception not only have simple mediating effects, but they also play a serial role in mediating the above relationship. This study provides a systematic theoretical framework for understanding and improving the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs, which can assist in ending the poverty dimension of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to some extent.

Key words： rural homestay entrepreneurs; continuous operation intention; entrepreneurial motivation; community relations; entrepreneurial performance

Cite this article

WU Wenzhi , ZHANG Juanjuan , TANG Pei , WU Lin . Does Entrepreneurial Motivation Affect Rural Homestay Entrepreneurs’ Continuous Operation Intention? The Serial Mediation Effects of Community Relations and Entrepreneurial Performance Perception[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2025 , 16(1) : 219 -232 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.01.020

1 Introduction

The rural revitalization strategy has been the guiding principle for China’s development since 2017. On October 18, 2017, the Chinese leader first proposed the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy, which provided guidance for adhering to the prioritized development of agriculture and rural areas for excellence in the work of “agriculture, rural areas, and farmers”. On February 21, 2021, the “Opin-ions on Comprehensively Promoting Rural Revitalization and Accelerating Agricultural and Rural Modernization” issued by the Chinese government further proposed the general goal of comprehensively promoting rural revitalization and accelerating agricultural and rural modernization. This report of the Chinese government once again emphasized the need to “comprehensively promote rural revitalization” by “accelerating the construction of a new development pattern and focusing on promoting high-quality development.” Among the various promotion modes of rural development, self-employment involving rural tourism has positive significance in promoting the flow of various production factors, including urban and rural immigrants (Paniagua, 2002), and it has become an important pathway for rural revitalization. Rural homestays are small-scale accommodation facilities that allow tourists to experience the local nature, culture, modes of production, and lifestyle by using idle resources in rural areas (Wu et al., 2020). They have attracted many urban and rural elite entrepreneurs to invest in and operate them, and they have become a preferred entrepreneurship option for people who return or go to the countryside.
In recent years, owing to strong support at the national policy level, the rural homestay industry in China has developed rapidly. Nevertheless, many rural homestays also face the prominent problem of poor sustainability. Specifically, many current rural homestays lack the breath of life and warmth of the hosts, so they are caught in a pure “business” dilemma: hotel-like development, competition for prices and materials, blindly emphasizing branding and chaining, and even the pursuit of star ratings. This situation has turned the originally beautiful life-sharing economy into a simple service consumption economy. In fact, the market competitiveness and vitality of rural homestays, which are excessively profit-oriented, are also extremely weak. Once they encounter market risks, economic crises or other issues such as the novel coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), the continuous operation intention of these rural homestay entrepreneurs may be adversely affected, and they may even close their business and exit the market. Figuring out how the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs can be improved by establishing the correct entrepreneurial motivation will serve the national strategy of rural revitalization. Therefore, this dilemma is worthy of research.
However, there is still a lack of literature on the impact of entrepreneurial motivation on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs. On the one hand, representative research in China on rural homestay focuses on the sources of competitive advantages of rural homestay (Hu, 2007), the factors influencing tourists’ choice intentions (Long and Zhu, 2020), spatial cluster phenomena (Chen et al., 2018; Long et al., 2019; Li et al., 2024), and power games (Liu et al., 2019). Only a small number of studies have preliminarily addressed entrepreneurial motivation (Xu et al., 2023), entrepreneurial performance perception and their correlation from the perspective of the micro-subject: rural homestay entrepreneurs (Wu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2024). On the other hand, international research on the rural homestay sector has always attracted considerable attention. From the flow of the entrepreneurial population (Iversen and Jacobsen, 2016), entrepreneurial motivation (Ahmad et al., 2014), the characteristics of entrepreneurial enterprises (Lashley and Rowson, 2010), community relations (Gu and Wong, 2006), sustainable development (Wang and Juan, 2016) and other aspects, researchers have discussed the theoretical framework and practical experience of rural homestay industry development in depth. However, these studies based on Western contexts are not sufficiently relevant to solve the above-mentioned problems that have developed in rural homestays in China.
To address this issue in China, this study selected rural homestay entrepreneurs in the local context of China as the research object and used their community relations and entrepreneurial performance perception as mediating variables. Based on this, the mechanism of the impact of entrepreneurial motivation on this group’s continuous operation intention was explored for the first time by using empirical analysis methods. The results of this study will provide insights into the reshuffling and subsequent development of China’s rural homestay industry under the influence of COVID-19, while promoting relevant theoretical research.

2 Theoretical background and research hypothesis

2.1 Rural homestay entrepreneurs

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, homestays are places where travelers stay and are hosted by local families. Lanier and Berman (1993) described homestays as private residences where unused rooms are rented to supplement income and meet people’s needs. Murphy et al. (2000) emphasized that the cultural attributes of homestays, such as their history, customs, architectural features, cuisine, and others, provide basic and powerful attractions for potential tourists. Scholars in China have not reached a consensus on the concept of homestays. According to the Modern Chinese Dictionary (7th Edition), the homestay is a small hotel built on the basis of private houses. Scholars in Taiwan, China, define homestays as the phenomenon of renting out suites in private houses to tourists, so they actually engage in the hotel business without registering as a profit-making business. Chinese scholars are more inclined to consider homestays as tourism business units that provide accommodation for tourists, and offer comprehensive services such as catering, entertainment, and leisure experiences (Sun et al., 2018).
Based on the Basic Requirements and Evaluation for Homestay Inn (LB/T 065-2019) issued by the Chinese government, we define rural homestays as small accommodation facilities that make use of idle resources in rural areas, in which the owners (or housekeepers) participate in tourist reception and provide tourists with experiences of the local nature, culture, mode of production and lifestyle. According to this definition, we believe that rural homestay entrepreneurs are the founders or entrepreneurs of rural homestays, who play decision-making and leadership roles in the establishment and operation process of the homestays, and control their future development direction. Generally, rural homestay entrepreneurs are homestay owners or investment operators (Wu et al., 2020), and they can be categorized into external commercial developers and either local villagers or local influential figures.

2.2 Entrepreneurial motivation and its structure

Entrepreneurial motivation is the psychological motivation and internal driving force for entrepreneurs to carry out entrepreneurial activities. It is usually a complex, multidimensional construct. Scholars have not yet reached a consensus on its structure. Considering the mainstream research on entrepreneurial motivation, most scholars view entrepreneurial activities with economic rationality. However, the purely rational view of entrepreneurial motivation and behavior is incomplete, and the influence of non-wealth factors such as psychological satisfaction should also be considered. Based on the Hierarchy of Needs Theory proposed by Maslow (1943), Dou and Luo (2011) summarized entrepreneurial motivation into economic needs and social needs.
Getz and Petersen (2005) divided entrepreneurial motivations in the tourism industry into two aspects: growth/profit and lifestyle/autonomy. The concept of lifestyle originates from Western discourse (Skokic and Morrison, 2011), and is considered the mainstream of tourism entrepreneurship (Getz and Carlsen, 2000). Many tourism and hotel entrepreneurs prioritize entrepreneurship based on lifestyle, without focusing on business growth or maximizing profits (Skokic and Morrison, 2011; Iversen and Jacobsen, 2016). Lifestyle entrepreneurs are described as wanting to improve their current living circumstances and be located in rural settings (Getz and Carlsen, 2000). Some even believe that their entrepreneurship is contingent on various factors, and they are also trying to detach themselves from their role as a business owner (Iversen and Jacobsen, 2016).
Based on a survey of small accommodation facilities in Corwall Resorts, Williams et al. (1989) pointed out that economic interests are no longer the only criterion that owners consider in their business development requirements. Although lifestyle entrepreneurial motivation is highly praised in academic circles, some scholars believe that lifestyle entrepreneurs do not actually exist. These scholars insist that lifestyle entrepreneurs violate the model of economic rationality (Skokic and Morrison, 2011). In contrast, entrepreneurs who focus on growth/profit are a minority in the hotel industry, and their entrepreneurship is also driven by profit and growth (Getz and Petersen, 2005; Li et al., 2013). However, from the perspective of tourism development, entrepreneurs who aim for growth and profit should be emphasized more, because they are more able to drive the development of tourism destinations (Getz and Petersen, 2005).
Lifestyle motivation is considered essential for tourism and hospitality entrepreneurs. However, our knowledge on this topic mainly comes from the viewpoint of Western developed economies, and there is a lack of research focusing on transitional and developing countries (Skokic and Morrison, 2011). Sun and Xu (2017) pointed out that unlike Western entrepreneurs, Chinese lifestyle entrepreneurs do not plan to stay in the place of entrepreneurship for a long time, and they will eventually return to their original residence. Many entrepreneurs are characterized by part- time entrepreneurship (Getz and Carlsen, 2000). Therefore, an important logical starting point of this study was to identify the entrepreneurial motivation structure of rural homestay entrepreneurs in the Chinese context, and further explore the impacts of entrepreneurial motivation on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs and its mechanism.

2.3 Relationship between entrepreneurial motivation and continuous operation intention

Rural homestay entrepreneurs are the operators of rural homestays. The continuous operation behavior of this group is directly related to the healthy, sustainable, and high- quality development of the rural homestay industry. Although it is unknowable, the continuous operation intention can be used to indirectly infer the continuous operation behavior of rural homestay entrepreneurs to a certain extent (Hao et al., 2009; Duan et al., 2016). Continuous operation intention is an important aspect and extension of entrepreneurial intention that reflects the psychological or behavioral tendency of entrepreneurs to continue to engage in entrepreneurial activities after some period of time.
As an important factor that induces individuals to act, motivation is closely related to sustainability (Patzelt and Shepherd, 2010). Therefore, entrepreneurial motivation is a vital aspect that affects entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurial motivation can improve the initiative of entrepreneurs for carrying out relevant entrepreneurial activities through various steps. The strengthening of entrepreneurial motivation encourages entrepreneurs to generate stronger entrepreneurial intentions, which further promotes the generation of entrepreneurial behavior. Some studies have provided empirical evidence for this connection. For instance, Shi et al. (2016) found that various entrepreneurial motivations have different effects on entrepreneurial intentions to varying degrees. Achievement motivation was found to have significant positive influences on entrepreneurial intentions (Ge and Wang, 2010; Ferreira et al., 2012). Thus, we propose the first hypothesis as follows.
H1: Entrepreneurial motivation has a significant positive impact on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs.

2.4 Relationship between entrepreneurial motivation, community relations, and continuous operation intention

Tonnies (2011) first proposed the concept of a “community” which refers to a living community with relatives, neighbors, and friendships composed of people that are gathered in a certain geographical space. When homestay entrepreneurs start businesses in rural areas, community relations are an unavoidable factor. Throughout the five thousand years of Chinese history, relations (or guanxi) should be one of the most special phenomena in the Chinese context. Relations, which literally mean a network of interpersonal relationships, is deeply rooted in Confucianism and has been recognized as a major feature of Chinese society. Some scholars define the concept of relations as the network used to gain benefits in personal or business relationships, and many believe that in the early stages of any business activity, Chinese people will first try to establish and maintain relations (Luo, 1997).
In terms of measurement methods, the starting point of the existing research on community relations is mostly based on social transaction theory. The core of this theory is that the basis of good relationships is reciprocity rather than solidarity (Harrill, 2004). However, this theory is not fully applicable to homestay entrepreneurs. In the homestay entrepreneur-community relations, the relationship between homestay entrepreneurs and the community is neither the concept of Three Guidelines and Five Constant Rules in the Confucian sense, nor is it a beneficial tool. Instead, it is a specific way of living (Chen, 2017). Therefore, the measurement tool used in this study is the Emotional Solidarity Scale. The theory of emotional solidarity originated from sociology and was first proposed by Durkheim (1995). Emotional solidarity will occur when individuals have similar beliefs, engage in similar activities, and influence each other (Woosnam and Norman, 2009).
Relations, or guanxi, is a characteristic of rural China (Chen, 2017). Many researchers have realized the importance of relations for the development of rural tourism and conducted studies from singular and multi-dimensional perspectives. From a single-dimensional perspective, researchers pay more attention to investment enterprises. They believe that the development of small enterprises in rural areas is influenced by formal and informal networks, among which informal network relations have a great impact on enterprise development. In particularly, when the entrepreneurial orientation of these small and micro tourism enterprises changes from “interests” to emphasizing both “interests” and “emotions”, good rural social relations are formed, and this benign relationship in turn promotes the development of rural tourism (Li and Wen, 2013).
From a multi-dimensional perspective, most studies examine the role of the whole rural relationship network in rural tourism development based on stakeholder theory and self-organization theory. The development of rural tourism is a complex and dynamic development process, and the game relationship between communities and investors is constantly changing, which has a significant impact on tourism development (Zhang and Long, 2009). When the interests of various stakeholders within the countryside reach a balance, the guanxi between them will tend to be stable, and vice versa. Some scholars even identify the guanxi as a constraint on the development of rural tourism (Li et al., 2007).
For rural homestay entrepreneurs, their entrepreneurial behavior takes place in the soil of the rural community environment. Good community relations can result in a relaxed entrepreneurial environment with less environmental pressure, which is conducive to the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs. Thus, we propose the following three hypotheses.
H2: Entrepreneurial motivation has a significant positive impact on the community relations of rural homestay entrepreneurs.
H3: Community relations have a significant positive impact on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs.
H4: Community relations play a simple mediating role in the impact of entrepreneurial motivation on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs.

2.5 Relationships between entrepreneurial motivation, entrepreneurial performance perception, and continuous operation intention

Entrepreneurial performance perception is the psychological perception and subjective evaluation of entrepreneurs regarding their entrepreneurial benefits. It is an important indicator for measuring entrepreneurial achievements and evaluating the degree of corporate goal achievement (Zhou et al., 2024). Like other enterprises, profit-seeking is an imperative feature of rural homestay entrepreneurship. To survive and develop, rural homestay entrepreneurs cannot ignore their own entrepreneurial performance in the process of entrepreneurship, so they must perform cost-benefit accounting.
Both theory and practice indicate that entrepreneurial motivation will directly affect entrepreneurial performance and subsequent investment and management behavior (Lai, 2009). When entrepreneurs have a better perception of their own entrepreneurial performance, they are more motivated to continue operations. When they do not, they lack the motivation and courage to continue to operate, and their continuous operation intention becomes weak. In the absence of relevant empirical evidence, the relationship between entrepreneurial performance perception and continuous operation intention needs to be explored.
Studies on the factors affecting entrepreneurial performance reveal that the personal characteristics of entrepreneurs are closely related to their entrepreneurial activities. Their sociodemographic characteristics (especially entrepreneurial motivation) are crucial elements that impact entrepreneurial performance (Getz and Carlsen, 2000; Lai, 2009). Specifically, as a goal or vision expressed by entrepreneurs when starting a business due to individual internal or external needs, entrepreneurial motivation will have a direct impact on entrepreneurial performance (Dou and Luo, 2011).
Strong entrepreneurial motivation will make entrepreneurs pay more attention to entrepreneurial activities and provide them with more entrepreneurial motivation, which in turn allows them to obtain higher entrepreneurial performance and a better perception of their entrepreneurial performance. However, only a few studies have provided empirical evidence that lifestyle motivation has a significant positive impact on the subjective performance of small tourism enterprises rather than the objective performance (Wang et al., 2018). Thus, we propose the following three hypotheses.
H5: Entrepreneurial motivation has a significant positive impact on the entrepreneurial performance perception of rural homestay entrepreneurs.
H6: Entrepreneurial performance perception has a significant positive impact on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs.
H7: Entrepreneurial performance perception plays a simple mediating role in the impact of entrepreneurial motivation on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs.

2.6 Serial mediation effects of community relations and entrepreneurial performance perception

In the 1980s, community relations were proposed as an aspect of corporate social responsibility, which is of great significance for the survival and development of enterprises (Wang et al., 2017). The community is an important stakeholder of an enterprise, so good relations with the community can ensure the healthy operation of the enterprise.
Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012) pointed out that the support of community residents for the tourism industry can have a decisive impact on the sustainable development of tourism destinations. The study of Wen and Zhang (2018) affirmed that the stronger the profit-seeking motivation of rural community tourism elites, the higher the social responsibility motivation, which will have an altruistic effect on the local community and can ultimately help businesses to maximize their profits. Various relevant empirical studies have also established that community relations may positively impact entrepreneurial performance (Guo and Ding, 2013; Chen et al., 2015).
Therefore, good community relations may bring higher entrepreneurial income to rural homestay entrepreneurs, which in turn leads to their higher entrepreneurial performance perception. Thus, we propose the following two hypotheses.
H8: Community relations have a significant positive impact on the entrepreneurial performance perception of rural homestay entrepreneurs.
H9: Community relations and entrepreneurial performance perception play serial mediation roles in the impact of entrepreneurial motivation on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs.
Figure 1 Theoretical model of this study

3 Research design

3.1 Variable measurements

Entrepreneurial motivation, community relations, entrepreneurial performance perception, and the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs were all measured with a 5-point Likert scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.
Entrepreneurial motivation (F1). Based on the “push- pull” theory of entrepreneurial motivation (Gilad and Levine, 1986) and measurements in the existing literature (Getz and Carlsen, 2000; Getz and Petersen, 2005; Ahmad et al., 2014; Shen et al., 2014), combined with in-depth interviews with three rural homestay entrepreneurs, a scale for measuring rural homestay entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial motivation was designed. It comprises 12 measurement items that are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Results of exploratory factor analysis
Factors and items Factor loadinga Eigenvalueb Variance
contribution ratec		 Cronbach’s αd
Economy-type Entrepreneurial Motivation（EM） 4.193 34.939% 0.653
m11-I have a lot of resources such as extra rooms at home/local social relations and so on, which were not used, and I can increase my extra income by opening a bed and breakfast 0.785
m12-My friend has succeeded in opening a bed and breakfast, so I want to be as successful as him/her 0.776
m5-I opened a bed and breakfast to earn money 0.557
Life-type Entrepreneurial Motivation（LM） 1.454 12.119% 0.695
m1-I don’t like the tense life in the city, so I want to return to the poetic countryside and improve my quality of life 0.806
m3-My family supports me to run a bed and breakfast because then I can better take care of my family/the elderly/lover/children 0.625
m2-I was dissatisfied with my previous job for the lack of job security, and wanted to change jobs 0.588
Opportunity-type Entrepreneurial Motivation（OM） 1.175 9.793% 0.654
m6-I am preparing for retirement and accumulating money 0.769
m7-There are many favorable support policies under the background of rural revitalization, and I believe that the homestay market has great potential 0.689
m8-The local leaders invited me to open a homestay, hoping that I can drive the rural economy and lead the villagers to share in the prosperity 0.651
Career-type Entrepreneurial Motivation（CM） 1.038 8.647% 0.663
m10-I want to make more like-minded friends 0.726
m4-I like the bed and breakfast atmosphere and feel proud of running a bed and breakfast, and I don’t care about how much money I can make 0.722
m9-I want to challenge myself and start my own independent business 0.571

Note: a. Rotation factor loading; b. Initial eigenvalue; c. Initial variance contribution rate; d. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient of the total scale is 0.825.

Community relations (F2). Considering emotional solidarity theory (Durkheim, 1995), we translated the emotional solidarity scale in the existing literature (Woosnam and Norman, 2009) and designed three questions: “I feel very close to the villagers, and the villagers welcome me very much, just like relatives (r1)”, “I like to chat/ eat/communicate with people in the village (r2)” and “I feel that the village is a part of me (r3)”.
Entrepreneurial performance perception (F3). Referring to the survival and growth performance scale developed by Chrisman et al. (1998) and the enterprise performance perception scale of Ma et al. (2009), we designed three questions: “The sales revenue of my bed and breakfast is increasing (p1)”, “The annual profit margin of my bed and breakfast is increasing (p2)” and “Compared with my peers, I have stronger market competitiveness (p3)”.
Continuous operation intention (F4). We designed a measurement item for this factor: “I am willing to continue to develop my bed and breakfast and continue to invest in operations”.
In addition, several questions related to the demographic characteristics of the respondents (gender, age, marital status, education level, etc.) were also prepared.

3.2 Questionnaire survey

Electronic questionnaires were adopted with the help of Questionnaire Star. Specifically, the process was divided into two implementation stages. The first phase of the questionnaire survey was mainly conducted during the 4th National Homestay Conference organized by the China Tourism Association Homestay Inn and Boutique Hotel Branch (December 4, 2018-January 4, 2019). Due to the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic, the second phase of the investigation was unavoidably delayed by a two-year interval and was conducted during December 4, 2020- January 4, 2021.
Since the authors have been working in the tourism industry for more than ten years and have relatively mature interpersonal relationships in the homestay circle, the questionnaire was first distributed to some rural homestay entrepreneurs contacted by the authors in the form of a one-to-one survey, and the feedback rate was 100%. Then, in a snowballing manner, further precise distribution relied on this group of familiar homestay entrepreneurs to distribute it to their rural homestay friends. Finally, the questionnaire was also distributed in the WeChat group with the help of some regional homestay associations. These three measures ensured that the questionnaire respondents were all representative rural homestay entrepreneurs. In the end, 368 questionnaires were recovered, and all were valid, so the effective recovery rate was 100.00%.
In the first stage, 219 questionnaires were returned. Among the respondents, the majority (61.6%) were male entrepreneurs. Regarding respondent age, post-70s entrepreneurs accounted for a relatively high proportion (44.3%). Most of respondents were non-local entrepreneurs, accounting for 68.9%. The vast majority (89.0%) were married. More than half (50.7%) had a bachelor’s degree, and more than half (54.8%) of the respondents had been engaged in tourism-related occupations (accommodation, catering industry). In terms of the type of entrepreneurship, 58.0% of respondents started their own business full-time after resigning. A majority (70.8%) of respondents had experience in business operations, and the vast majority of respondents (88.1%) were thoughtful when choosing a homestay location. In terms of asset size, the main proportion was 1 to 5 million RMB, accounting for 42.5%. In terms of investment types, sole proprietorship was the largest (45.2%), followed by partnership (44.3%). For the main source of investment funds, personal savings accounted for 32.4%.
In the second stage, 149 questionnaires were returned. Among the respondents, male entrepreneurs were the majority and accounted for 59.7%. Regarding respondent age, post-70s entrepreneurs accounted for a relatively high proportion (40.9%). Most of the respondents were non-local entrepreneurs, accounting for 75.8%. The vast majority (87.2%) were married. Most of respondents had a bachelor’s degree, accounting for 47.0%. Most (59.7%) of the respondents had been engaged in tourism-related occupations (accommodation, catering). In terms of entrepreneurial types, 57.7% of the respondents started their own business full-time after resigning. Most (66.4%) had experience in business operations. The vast majority (90.6%) were thoughtful when choosing a homestay location. In terms of asset scale, the main proportion was 1 to 5 million RMB, accounting for 57.7%. In terms of investment type, more than half (52.3%) were sole proprietorships, followed by partnerships (40.3%). As for the main source of investment funds, personal savings accounted for 45.6%.
Considering that the time interval between the two questionnaire surveys was two years, and the sample size for the confirmatory factor analysis is generally required to be at least 200, the samples of the second stage were used for the exploratory factor analysis in the follow-up empirical analysis. Those of the first stage were used for the confirmatory factor analysis, and the samples from the two surveys were combined for hypothesis testing.

4 Empirical analysis and results

4.1 Exploratory factor analysis

Table 1 presents the results of the exploratory factor analysis of the entrepreneurial motivation scale of rural homestay entrepreneurs with KMO=0.809 (P<0.001), which indicates that the data are suitable for factor analysis. Four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted by principal component analysis and the maximum variance method, which were named as economy-type entrepreneurial motivation (EM), life-type entrepreneurial motivation (LM), opportunity-type entrepreneurial motivation (OM), and career-type entrepreneurial motivation (CM). Their cumulative variance contribution rate is 65.497%, and each factor load is greater than 0.50. The attribution is clear, and the structural validity of the scale is good. The Cronbach’s alpha values of the scales are all greater than 0.65. Therefore, the reliability is acceptable.

4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis

After deleting the items with standardized factor loads lower than 0.40 (m5, m3, m6, and m4), the results of the first-order confirmatory factor analysis in Table 2 suggest that the standardized factor loads of all factors range from 0.518 to 0.989. The square of the multiple correlation coefficient (R2) values are between 0.268 and 0.978. The average variance extracted (AVE) values are between 0.4129 and 0.6808, and the composite reliability (CR) values are between 0.5844 and 0.8648. The performance levels of most indicators basically meet the recommended standards (i.e., standardized factor load not less than 0.71, R2≥0.50, AVE≥0.50, and CR≥0.70). The results of the discriminant validity test in Table 3 demonstrate that the chi-square difference between the six measurement models is statistically significant at the 0.001 level. Therefore, the discriminant validity is high.
Table 2 Results of confirmatory factor analysis
Model Factor Item Meana Factor loadingb R2 AVE CR
First-order confirmatory
factor analysis		 EM m11 3.54 0.717 0.514 0.4842 0.6522
m12 3.14 0.674 0.455
LM m1 4.06 0.635 0.403 0.4129 0.5844
m2 3.03 0.650 0.423
OM m7 4.16 0.729 0.531 0.5599 0.7177
m8 3.51 0.767 0.588
CM m10 4.18 0.842 0.708 0.6769 0.8072
m9 3.96 0.803 0.645
F2 r1 3.98 0.852 0.725 0.6574 0.8441
r2 3.86 0.989 0.978
r3 4.09 0.518 0.268
F3 p1 3.75 0.815 0.664 0.6808 0.8648
p2 3.88 0.844 0.712
p3 3.96 0.816 0.666
Second-order confirmatory
factor analysis		 F1 EM 3.34 0.992 0.983 0.7277 0.9127
LM 3.55 0.648 0.420
OM 3.83 0.897 0.804
CM 4.07 0.838 0.702

Note: a. Arithmetic mean calculated based on the total sample (N = 368); b. Standardized factor loading.

Table 3 Results of the discriminant validity test
Latent variable LM OM CM F2 F3 F1
EM 54.951***
(0.000)		 34.614***
(0.000)		 26.890***
(0.000)		 48.128***
(0.000)		 50.058***
(0.000)		 -
LM - 59.551***
(0.000)		 36.647***
(0.000)		 76.262***
(0.000)		 68.471***
(0.000)		 -
OM - - 39.791***
(0.000)		 53.100***
(0.000)		 55.317***
(0.000)		 -
CM - - - 65.604***
(0.000)		 59.018***
(0.000)		 -
F2 - - - - 77.170***
(0.000)		 50.375***
(0.000)
F3 - - - - - 50.670***
(0.000)

Note: The values above the parentheses are the chi-squared differences, and the values in the parentheses are the P-values, *** P<0.001.

Based on the results of the first-order confirmatory factor analysis, the second-order confirmatory factor analysis of entrepreneurial motivation was carried out. The results show that the goodness of fit is acceptable: χ2=71.458, df=16, χ2/df=4.466, NFI=0.892, TLI=0.846, CFI=0.912, RMSEA= 0.126. Table 2 indicates that the factor loadings of the second-order construct F1 on the first-order construct EM, LM, OM, and CM are between 0.648 and 0.992, the R2 values are between 0.420 and 0.983, AVE=0.7277, and CR=0.9127, so the convergent validity is good. Table 3 demonstrates that the chi-square difference between the second-order measurement model of F1 and the measurement models of F2 and F3 is statistically significant at the 0.001 level, so the discriminant validity is relatively high.

4.3 Analysis of skewness and kurtosis

In Table 4, the skewness values of all variables, i.e., F1-F4, EM, LM, OM and CM, range from -0.782021 to -0.3096609, all of which are approximately equal to 0. The kurtosis values range from 2.806354 to 4.086750, which are approximately equal to 3. Accordingly, the data can be considered to follow a normal distribution.
Table 4 Results of the skewness and kurtosis analyses
Variable Skewness Kurtosis
F4 -0.7465496 4.025557
EM -0.3096609 2.933233
LM -0.4341216 3.191986
OM -0.6330557 3.293770
CM -0.7820210 4.086750
F1 -0.4544258 3.724635
F2 -0.3652942 2.806354
F3 -0.4662923 3.648822

4.4 Structural model path analysis

First, the second-order construct F1 was included in the structural model to test the hypothesis, and the arithmetic mean of each observed variable in the first-order construct was taken as the measurement of the observed variables in the second-order construct. The goodness of fit is good, i.e., χ2=43.458, df=11, χ2/df =3.951, NFI=0.952, TLI=0.929, CFI=0.963, and RMSEA=0.090. The standardized factor loads of each of the indicators in the measurement model ranged from 0.500 to 0.734, with CR=0.7653, and AVE=0.4543, which are acceptable. The data in Table 5 show that all paths have significant positive effects. Therefore, hypotheses H1-H3, H5, H6 and H8 are all supported.
Table 5 Results of structural model path coefficients and the significance test
Hypothesis/Path Estimate S.E. C.R. P
H1: F1→F4 0.317 0.093 3.417 ***
H2: F1→F2 0.743 0.080 9.297 ***
H3: F2→F4 0.115 0.050 2.280 0.023
H5: F1→F3 0.697 0.091 7.658 ***
H6: F3→F4 0.515 0.055 9.322 ***
H8: F2→F3 0.162 0.055 2.947 0.003
Moreover, when each dimension of F1 was incorporated into the structural model, all the paths passed the test, except that the economy-type entrepreneurial motivation has no significant positive impact on the continuous operation intention.

4.5 Robustness check

Stata 12.0 was used to calculate the means of the construct dimensions of F1, F2, F3, and F4. The least square estimation method (OLS) was employed in a multiple regression analysis to test hypotheses H1-H3, H5, H6, and H8. Table 6 shows that after controlling for the respondents’ gender, age, marital status (marital), and education level (edu), conclusions can be drawn from three main aspects.
Table 6 Results of multiple regression analysis
Independent variable Dependent variable
F2 F3 F4
(1) (2) (3)
Gender -0.147** 0.016 -0.016
(0.069) (0.068) (0.061)
Age -0.009 0.057* -0.064*
(0.038) (0.034) (0.034)
Marital 0.214* -0.031 0.102
(0.123) (0.134) (0.097)
Education 0.010 0.077* -0.023
(0.045) (0.043) (0.040)
F1 0.516*** 0.453*** 0.163***
(0.054) (0.057) (0.062)
F2 - 0.265*** 0.142***
(0.058) (0.051)
F3 - - 0.571***
(0.058)
Constant 1.981*** 0.736** 0.884***
(0.322) (0.338) (0.270)
Observations 368 368 368
R2 0.234 0.335 0.490

Note: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.1; the values outside the parentheses show the regression coefficient β, and the values in the parentheses are the robust standard errors; gender and marital status are dummy variables. The reference groups are female (gender=0) and unmarried (marital=0).

First, F1 has a significant positive effect on F2 (β=0.516, P<0.01), indicating that H2 is supported. Secondly, F1 and F2 have significant positive effects on F3 (β=0.453, P<0.01; β=0.265, P<0.01), indicating that H5 and H8 are supported. Third, F1, F2, and F3 have significant positive effects (β=0.163, P<0.01; β=0.142, P<0.01; β=0.571, P<0.01) on F4, indicating that H1, H3 and H6 are supported. Thus, the conclusions drawn are very robust.

4.6 Mediating effect test

In the structural equation modeling software Mplus Version 6.12, the bias-corrected Bootstrap method was used to conduct a complete mediation effect test, including the total mediation effect (TME), specific mediation effect (SPE), and contrastive mediation effect (CME). A mediating effect is significant if the bias-adjusted confidence interval does not include 0.
The data in Table 7 suggest that after controlling for the demographic characteristics of the respondents (gender, age, marital status, and education), the total and direct effects of F1 on F4 are both positive and statistically significant (0.573, P<0.001; 0.163, P=0.010). The overall and specific mediation effects are all statistically significant, and the total mediation effect accounts for 71.55% of the total effect. Among them, the simple mediation effects of F2 and F3 account for 12.91% and 45.03% of the total effect, respectively, and the serial mediation effect of both accounts for 13.61%. These results show that F2 and F3 not only have independent mediating effects (SPE1, SPE2) but also serial mediating effects (SPE3) on the impacts of F1 on F4, indicating that H4, H7, and H9 are supported. In the three groups of contrastive mediation effect tests, only CME1 and CME3 were statistically significant, thereby indicating that of the pairwise comparisons of the three specific mediation effect paths, only SPE1 and SPE2, in addition to SPE2 and SPE3, showed significant differences.
Table 7 Results of the mediation effect test
Effect Point estimate Proportion of total effect (%) SE 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Total mediation effect (TME) 0.410 71.55 0.051 0.322 0.517
Specific mediation effect (SPE)
SPE1：F1→F2→F4 0.074 12.91 0.028 0.024 0.136
SPE2：F1→F3→F4 0.258 45.03 0.043 0.181 0.354
SPE3：F1→F2→F3→F4 0.078 13.61 0.021 0.039 0.125
Contrastive mediation effect (CME)
CME1=SPE1-SPE2 -0.185 - 0.057 -0.308 -0.080
CME2=SPE1-SPE3 -0.005 - 0.033 -0.068 0.065
CME3=SPE2-SPE3 0.180 - 0.047 0.095 0.285
The test results at the dimension level of F1 revealed several interesting aspects. First, the total effect of all entrepreneurial motivation dimensions on continuous operation intention is statistically significant. Second, except for the direct effects of economy-type entrepreneurial motivation and life-type entrepreneurial motivation on continuous operation intention (0.027, P=0.451; 0.060, P=0.145), the direct effects of the other entrepreneurial motivation dimensions are statistically significant. Third, in all sub-models of the entrepreneurial motivation dimensions, the specific mediation effect is statistically significant. Fourth, among the contrastive mediation effects, CME1 is statistically significant for economy-type entrepreneurial motivation, while CME1 and CME3 are statistically significant for both opportunity-type entrepreneurial motivation and career-type entrepreneurial motivation.

4.7 Extended research

This section describes our attempts to artificially cluster the respondents according to the degree of entrepreneurial motivation and the type of strong motivation. The specific method involved judging whether the average value of each respondent in the four motivation types is greater than 3. If it is less than 3, then the motivation of the respondent is a weak motivation; otherwise it is a strong motivation.
According to that criterion, five types of rural homestay entrepreneurs can be identified: weak motivation entrepreneurs, single strong motivation entrepreneurs, double strong motivation entrepreneurs, triple strong motivation entrepreneurs and quadruple strong motivation entrepreneurs. Among them, the four entrepreneurial motivations of weak motivation entrepreneurs are all weak; while the other four types (single strong motivation entrepreneurs, double strong motivation entrepreneurs, triple strong motivation entrepreneurs, and quadruple strong motivation entrepreneurs) are affected by one, two, three or four types of strong motivations, respectively, to carry out their entrepreneurial activities. The subdivision type and quantity of each type of rural homestay entrepreneurs are presented in Table 8. According to Table 8, the number of weak motivation entrepreneurs is the least, and the number of quadruple strong motivation entrepreneurs is the largest.
Table 8 Results of the cluster analysis of rural homestay entrepreneurs
Type Strong entrepreneurial motivation
portfolio		 Frequency Name Total
I None 14 Weak motivation
entrepreneurs		 14
II C 19 Single strong
motivation
entrepreneurs		 45
E 1
L 11
O 14
III E-C 7 Double strong
motivation
entrepreneurs		 36
E-L 2
E-O 3
L-C 18
L-O 3
O-C 36
IV E-L-C 15 Triple strong
motivation
entrepreneurs		 93
E-L-O 2
E-O-C 30
L-O-C 46
V E-L-O-C 147 Quadruple strong
motivation
entrepreneurs		 147
Based on the classification of rural homestay entrepreneurs, a regression analysis was used to further explore whether there are significant differences in the continuous operation intention, entrepreneurial performance perception, and community relations in the five different types of entrepreneurs. The results are shown in Table 9. The data in Table 9 show that after controlling for demographic characteristics, compared with single strong motivation entrepreneurs, the other four types have stronger intentions to continue business, higher entrepreneurial performance perceptions and better community relations.
Table 9 Regression results of the entrepreneur types
Independent variable Dependent variable
F4 F3 F2
(1) (2) (3)
Gender -0.037 -0.006 -0.144**
(0.081) (0.074) (0.072)
Age -0.043 0.047 -0.024
(0.045) (0.038) (0.040)
Marital 0.176 0.063 0.244*
(0.161) (0.149) (0.129)
Education -0.008 0.049 -0.008
(0.054) (0.049) (0.047)
Double_dummy2 0.325** 0.231* 0.291**
(0.153) (0.139) (0.141)
Triple_dummy3 0.619*** 0.370*** 0.443***
(0.149) (0.136) (0.130)
Four_dummy4 0.703*** 0.666*** 0.787***
(0.141) (0.126) (0.119)
Weak_dummy5 -0.307 -0.602** 0.085
(0.322) (0.265) (0.209)
Constant 3.599*** 3.126*** 3.478***
(0.287) (0.265) (0.262)
Observations 368 368 368
R2 0.145 0.171 0.168

Note: *** P<0.01, ** P<0.05, * P<0.1; the values outside the parentheses are the regression coefficient β, and the values in the parentheses are the robust standard errors; gender and marital are dummy variables. The reference groups are female (gender=0), unmarried (marital=0) and single strong motivation entrepreneurs.

5 Conclusions and discussion

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the first-hand questionnaire survey data of 368 rural homestay entrepreneurs, our study explored the impact of entrepreneurial motivation on the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs and its internal mechanism. The main conclusions are as follows.
First, the entrepreneurial motivation of rural homestay entrepreneurs is composed of four dimensions, i.e., economy, life, opportunity, and career. Furthermore, Chinese rural homestay entrepreneurs can be divided into five categories according to the combination of entrepreneurial motivation strengths, i.e. weak, single strong, double strong, triple strong and quadruple strong motivation entrepreneurs. Compared with the existing research, the introduction of this motivational intensity perspective is a pioneering contribution of this study.
Second, entrepreneurial motivation is an important factor that affects community relations, entrepreneurial performance perception and the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs. On the one hand, rural homestay entrepreneurs with strong entrepreneurial motivation have better perceptions of community relations and entrepreneurial performance, and a higher continuous operation intention. This conclusion is also supported in the four dimensions of entrepreneurial motivation. On the other hand, an entrepreneur with more types of strong motivation will have a stronger continuous operation intention, higher perception of entrepreneurial performance and better community relations. These relationships show that entrepreneurial motivation will affect rural homestay entrepreneurs’ community relations, entrepreneurial performance perception and continuous operation intention in two ways: intensity and different types of combinations.
Third, entrepreneurial motivation will indirectly affect the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs through community relations and entrepreneurial performance perception. On the one hand, community relations and entrepreneurial performance perception play simple mediating roles in the process of entrepreneurial motivation affecting the continuous operation intention of rural homestay entrepreneurs. On the other hand, they also have serial mediating effects.
In general, although there are many published studies on homestay entrepreneurship (Wu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023), the studies focusing on entrepreneurial motivation are relatively rare. This study is the first to explore the continuous operation of homestays from the perspective of entrepreneurial motivation. On the one hand, the above conclusions show that the entrepreneurial behavior of rural homestays in China is more strongly driven by multiple motivations concerning economy, life, career, opportunity, and others, rather than the simple binary division of business and life in the Western context (Getz and Carlsen, 2000; Wu et al., 2020). On the other hand, the comprehensive roles of the type and intensity of the entrepreneurial motivation should not be ignored in promoting the continuous operation behavior of rural homestay entrepreneurs. More diversified entrepreneurial motivations and stronger motivations mean better community relations, better perception of entrepreneurial performance, and a stronger continuous operation intention.

5.2 Theoretical contribution

This study may have three theoretical contributions. First, it reveals the four-dimensional structure of entrepreneurial motivation of rural homestay entrepreneurs in the Chinese context and enriches the typological research on the structure of entrepreneurial motivation. Therefore, it has reference value for the subsequent development of the entrepreneurial motivation scale of rural homestay entrepreneurs. Compared with existing research on the motivational structure of homestay entrepreneurs (Getz and Carlsen, 2000; Wu et al., 2020), this study reveals new dimensions of entrepreneurial motivation in addition to the life-type entrepreneurial motivation and economic entrepreneurial motivation, namely opportunity entrepreneurial motivation and career entrepreneurial motivation. Notably, this first identification of opportunity entrepreneurial motivation reflects the uniqueness of the development of rural homestays in China. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial behavior of rural homestays entrepreneurs is driven by government policies, which is of great significance for understanding the underlying logic behind the development of China’s rural homestay industry.
Second, this study reveals for the first time the impact of entrepreneurial motivation and its dimensions on rural homestay entrepreneurs’ continuous operation intention, as well as the dual mediating role of community relations and entrepreneurial performance perception. This will expand at least two types of research: research on homestay entrepreneurship, and research on the sustainable operation of tourism enterprises. Regarding the former, current research on homestay entrepreneurship is mainly based on qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews, case studies, and grounded theory (Wang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023; Cai et al., 2024), while causal quantitative research is relatively rare. In terms of research topics, although some studies involve concepts such as entrepreneurial motivation, community relations, and entrepreneurial performance perceptions, the relationships between these variables have not been studied. For the latter, scholars mainly carry out research from the perspective of destination tourism enterprises as a whole (Wang et al., 2015; Cai et al., 2024), while research based on a segmented tourism industry is relatively rare. The topic of continuous operation of homestays in this study is supplemental.
Third, for the first time, a typological segmentation of rural homestay entrepreneurs was conducted based on the combination of the intensity and dimensions of entrepreneurial motivation, and the differences in community relations, entrepreneurial performance perception, and continuous operation intention among different types of rural homestay entrepreneurs were compared. Existing studies on homestay entrepreneurs tend to classify entrepreneurs only based on the type of entrepreneurial motivation (Getz and Carlsen, 2000; Wu et al., 2020), so the classification results are relatively simple. That simplistic classification approach ignores the difference between strong and weak entre- preneurial motivation, and the combination of different strong and weak entrepreneurial motivations may be the key to understanding the entrepreneurial behavior of rural homestay entrepreneurs. In other words, the introduction of the entrepreneurial motivation intensity perspective in this study enriches the perspective of traditional entrepreneurial motivation types, which allows for a better understanding of the entrepreneurial activities of homestay entrepreneurs.

5.3 Managerial implications

This study has three implications for government authorities in the rural homestay industry. First, it is necessary to correctly understand the business attributes of rural homestays, clarify the industry boundaries, and adhere to the development principle of people’s ownership, management, and life. The singular scale of rural homestays should be controlled, and management strategies should be distinguished from the traditional hotel industry. A scientific industry management system should be established to reform and optimize the service standards, norms and star rating system for homestays.
Second, attention should be paid to the diversification and growth of rural homestay entrepreneurs. This will require controlling the development proportions of owner- lacking and house-rental rural homestays and the legal owners of companies and institutions. Moreover, qualified and capable residents should be encouraged to use their own houses to operate rural homestays. Conditions should be created that allow more migrants with long-term stay and entrepreneurial needs to participate in rural homestay investment. A group of rural homestay entrepreneurs with experience, culture, life philosophy, feelings, and management and service skills should be cultivated.
Third, attention should be paid to enhancing the community environment of the rural homestay experience. This will require attaching importance to co-construction and sharing with the community, creating a good community life and tourism environment, and enhancing the attraction and stay function of the rural homestay community. Tourists should be encouraged to move from simple homestay experiences to rural homestay community experiences, in order to expand the surrounding experiences of rural homestays and local tourism consumption. They should also be combined with community characteristic production and commercial services, from a single room service product to a combination of parent-child, team building, conference, festival, remote office and other activity package products.

5.4 Limitations and future research

First, although two online questionnaire surveys were carried out successively in this study, the 368 samples obtained are still not ideal considering the complexity of the rural homestay entrepreneurs. Second, only mediating variables were considered here instead of moderating variables, so the empirical part of this study is limited to testing the mediation effects without exploring potential moderating effects. In a follow-up study, the sample size should be expanded to further test the conclusions of this study. Moreover, the model should be deepened and a mediated moderation model or a moderated mediation model should be constructed to reveal more in-depth and diverse patterns which can better guide the practice and development of the rural homestay industry.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Ahmad S Z, Jabeen F, Khan M. 2014. Entrepreneurs choice in business venture: Motivations for choosing homestay accommodation businesses in Peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36(1): 31-40.

[2]
Cai B, Wang M, Chen Y. 2024. Characteristics and differences in the sustainability of rural tourism operations in suburban Beijing from the perspective of operators: A case study of Lianhuachi Village in Huairou. Human Geography, 39(3): 92-104. (in Chinese)

[3]
Chen F, Zhang Y, Cai W. 2015. Research on the relationship between social network and entrepreneurial enterprises’ operating performance—Based on the evidence of China’s private economy. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 32(12): 99-103. (in Chinese)

[4]
Chen X. 2017. A phenomenological explication of Guanxi in rural tourism management: A case study of a village in China. Tourism Management, 63(3): 383-394.

[5]
Chen Y, Yang R, Wang M. 2018. Development process of rural homestay tourism and spatial restructuring with the actor-network method from the perspective of shared economy: A case study of Guanhu Village in Shenzhen. Progress in Geography, 31(18): 127-132. (in Chinese)

[6]
Chrisman J J, Bauerschmidt A, Hofer C W. 1998. The determinants of new venture performance: An extended model. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(1): 5-29.

[7]
Dou D, Luo J. 2011. Structural analysis and theoretical model construction of entrepreneurial motivation. Management World, (3): 182-183. (in Chinese)

[8]
Duan J, Sun J, Jian D, et al. 2016. The influence of entrepreneurial attribute framing on entrepreneurial intention: An entrepreneurial cognition perspective. Nankai Business Review, 19(5): 182-192. (in Chinese)

[9]
Durkheim E. 1995. The elementary forms of the religious life. New York, USA: Free Press.

[10]
Ferreira J J, Raposo M L, Rodrigues R G, et al. 2012. A model of entrepreneurial intention: An application of the psychological and behavioral approaches. Journal of Small Business & Enterprise Development, 19(3): 424-440.

[11]
Ge B, Wang K. 2010. The effects of personal traits and personal network on entrepreneurial intention: An empirical study on internet-shop entrepreneurs. Chinese Journal of Management, 7(12): 1819-1824, 1830. (in Chinese)

[12]
Getz D, Carlsen J. 2000. Characteristics and goals of family and owner- operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. Tourism Management, 21(6): 547-560.

[13]
Getz D, Petersen T. 2005. Growth and profit-oriented entrepreneurship among family business owners in the tourism and hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(2): 219-242.

[14]
Gilad B, Levine P. 1986. A behavioral model of entrepreneurial supply. Journal of Small Business Management, 24(4): 45-53.

[15]
Gu M, Wong P P. 2006. Residents’ perception of tourism impacts: A case study of homestay operators in Dachangshan Dao, North-east China. Tourism Geographies, 8(3): 253-273.

[16]
Guo H, Ding G. 2013. Relationship network, opportunity innovation and farmers’ entrepreneurial performance. Chinese Rural Economy, (8): 78-87. (in Chinese)

[17]
Hao Z, Seibert S E, Lumpkin G T. 2009. The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2): 381-404.

[18]
Harrill R. 2004. Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3): 251-266.

[19]
Hu M. 2007. An analysis of the core resources in the management of rural lodgings. Tourism Tribune, 22(9): 64-69. (in Chinese)

[20]
Iversen I, Jacobsen J K S. 2016. Migrant tourism entrepreneurs in rural Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 16(4): 484-499.

[21]
Lai X. 2009. Entrepreneur characteristics, entrepreneurial environment and entrepreneurial performance: Building a conceptual framework. Statistics & Decision, (22): 162-164. (in Chinese)

[22]
Lanier P, Berman J. 1993. Bed-and-breakfast inns come of age. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(2): 15-23.

[23]
Lashley C, Rowson B. 2010. Lifestyle Businesses: Insights into Blackpool’s Hotel Sector. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(3): 511-519.

[24]
Li X, Wen J. 2013. Research on the development of rural micro-tourism enterprises from the perspective of social relations. Rural Economy, (2): 75-79. (in Chinese)

[25]
Li Y, Dong D, Wang Y. 2024. Exploring spatial distribution and influencing factors of B&Bs in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei in the regional integration context based on big data. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 15(3): 626-638.

DOI

[26]
Li Y, Lai K, Feng X. 2007. The problem of ‘Guanxi’ for actualizing community tourism: A case study of relationship networking in China. Tourism Geographies, 9(2): 115-138.

[27]
Li Y, Miao L, Zhao X, et al. 2013. When family rooms become guest lounges: Work-family balance of B&B innkeepers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34(1): 138-149.

[28]
Liu M, Cai X, Ma G. 2019. The production of ‘home’ and power negotiations in the rural guesthouses: The case of Shangliang Village, Huizhou, Guangdong. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 39(12): 1884-1893. (in Chinese)

[29]
Long F, Liu J, Yu H, et al. 2019. The evaluation system and application of the homestay agglomeration location selection. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 10(3): 324-334.

DOI

[30]
Long F, Zhu H. 2020. Supporting the development of homestay tourism in the Yangtze River Delta: A study based on tourists’ perceived value. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 11(6): 624-632.

DOI

[31]
Luo Y. 1997. Guanxi and performance of foreign-invested enterprises in China: An empirical enquiry. Management International Review, 37(1): 51-70.

[32]
Ma H, Dong B, Ge B, et al. 2009. A study on the relations between the orientation in founding a business, the orientation of a small enterprise and the performance of an enterprise. Management World, (9): 109-115, 188. (in Chinese)

[33]
Maslow A H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370-396.

[34]
Murphy P, Pritchard M P, Smith B. 2000. The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1): 43-52.

[35]
Nunkoo R, Ramkissoon H. 2012. Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2): 997-1023.

[36]
Paniagua A. 2002. Urban-rural migration, tourism entrepreneurs and rural restructuring in Spain. Tourism Geographies, 4(4): 349-371.

[37]
Patzelt H, Shepherd D A. 2010. Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4): 631-652.

[38]
Shen R K, Miao L, Lehto X, et al. 2014. Work or/and life? An exploratory study of respite experience of Bed and Breakfast innkeepers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(1): 142-165.

[39]
Shi R, Yin H, Wei Y, et al. 2016. The influence of perceptions of entrepreneurial opportunity, entrepreneurial motivations on entrepreneurial intention—The Mediating Effect Model based on the potential scientific and technological entrepreneurs. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 18(5): 105-110. (in Chinese)

[40]
Skokic V, Morrison A. 2011. Conceptions of tourism lifestyle entrepreneurship: Transition economy context. Tourism Planning & Development, 8(2): 157-169.

[41]
Sun J, He Y, Sun W. 2018. B & B research commentary about mainland and Taiwan, China. Huazhong Architecture, 36(2): 1-4. (in Chinese)

[42]
Sun X, Xu H. 2017. Lifestyle tourism entrepreneurs’ mobility motivations: A case study on Dali and Lijiang, China. Tourism Management Perspectives, 24(10): 64-71.

[43]
Tonnies F. 2011. Community and society. New York, USA: Dover Publications.

[44]
Wang C, Bai B, Xu H. 2015. Influences of corporate social responsibility on sustainable operation of small tourism enterprises located at heritage sites in China. Tourism Tribune, 30(9): 25-33. (in Chinese)

[45]
Wang C, Li G, Xu H. 2018. Impact of lifestyle-oriented motivation on small tourism enterprises’ social responsibility and performance. Journal of Travel Research, 58(7): 1146-1160.

[46]
Wang E S, Juan P. 2016. Entrepreneurial orientation and service innovation on consumer response: A B&B case. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2): 532-545.

[47]
Wang J, Huang X, Hu K, et al. 2017. Research on corporate community relations and corporate community involvement: A case study on Hanying Model. Journal of Management Case Studies, 10(3): 247-261. (in Chinese)

[48]
Wang M, Li Y, Ruan W. 2022. The key elements and theoretical logic of the success of homestay entrepreneurship: Based on Grounded Theory analysis. Nankai Business Review, 25(2): 203-215. (in Chinese)

[49]
Wen T, Zhang Q. 2018. Egoism or altruism? Recognition of the social responsibilities of tourism elite in rural communities. Thinking, 44(6): 161-168. (in Chinese)

[50]
Williams A M, Shaw G, Greenwood J. 1989. From tourist to tourism entrepreneur, from consumption to production: Evidence from Cornwall, England. Environment and Planning A, 21(12): 1639-1653.

[51]
Woosnam K M, Norman W C. 2009. Measuring residents’ emotional solidarity with tourists: Scale development of Durkheim’s theoretical constructs. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3): 365-380.

[52]
Wu L, Wu W, Niu J, et al. 2020. Business or life? Research on entrepreneurial performance perception based on differentiated entrepreneurial motivation of rural homestay entrepreneurs. Tourism Tribune, 35(8): 105-116. (in Chinese)

[53]
Xu F, Hu J, Liu J, et al. 2023. Research on village homestay owners’ entrepreneurial motivation and the acquisition under the perspective of rural revitalization. Human Geography, 38(1): 140-146, 192. (in Chinese)

[54]
Zhang S, Long M. 2009. Game analysis of cooperation between com- munities and tourism investors in rural tourism. Issues in Agricultural Economy, (4): 49-53. (in Chinese)

[55]
Zhang X, Zhang Q, Han J, et al. 2022. The symbiotic relationship between homestays and local community: multiple case studies based on rooting theory. Human Geography, 37(3): 50-59. (in Chinese)

[56]
Zhou L, Yin P, Zhou W, et al. 2024. How to achieve high-performance rural guesthouse entrepreneurship—Mechanism study of place identity and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 15(3): 639-649.

DOI

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉