Abstract
Tourism livelihood has become an essential livelihood decision for people to get rid of poverty. Under the background of the internet era, it is of great significance to study how ethnic village farm households can participate in tourism livelihood with the help of information capacity. Applying the Resource Orchestration Theory and taking Guolan Yao Village in Jiangyong County of Hunan Province as an example, this paper uses binary logistic regression model and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis method to explore the mechanism of farm households’ information capacity affecting their tourism livelihood. The findings are as follows: Firstly, in addition to financial capital, other livelihood capital and information capacity have a significant impact on farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood. Secondly, when financial capital is lacking, farm households in ethnic villages with information capacity can unite with human capital, social capital, natural capital or physical capital to make up for the non-existent defect of financial capital and help realize tourism livelihood. Thirdly, when human capital is lacking, farm households in ethnic villages with information capacity can make up for the absence of human capital by combining natural capital, financial capital and social capital to help realize tourism livelihood.
1. Introduction
Rural revitalization is a major strategic deployment of China to address serious rural problems such as population decline, aging, and lack of economic opportunities (Liu et al., 2020). The Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and The State Council on Comprehensively Promoting the Key work of Rural Revitalization in 2023 clearly states that “pay more attention to fostering courage and overall quality, focusing on industrial employment.” The development of tourism industry is an important way to reduce poverty and improve people’s livelihood (Saarinen et al., 2011), as well as an important means of rural revitalization in China. As rural areas vigorously develop the tourism industry, it will continue to promote the upgrading of the tourism industry. More farm households choose tourism for livelihood, which not only enriches the diversity of livelihood, but also improves the resilience of livelihood (Bires and Raj, 2020; Su et al., 2019). The most important thing is to get rid of poverty and achieve family prosperity. Ethnic villages are an important position for China’s rural revitalization. Colorful ethnic customs, time-honored national culture and unique residential buildings provide a broad space for the vigorous development of tourism. The development of tourism has laid a solid industrial foundation for ethnic villages (Fan and Li, 2023), provided employment opportunities for local rural residents (Lor et al., 2019), and carried the ardent expectations of low-income farm households in ethnic villages for a prosperous life. More and more ethnic village farm households choose to participate in tourism livelihood, which is already an objective social phenomenon.
In China, the livelihood decisions of farmers can be divided into two categories according to the place of employment: remote livelihood and local livelihood. In academic circles, there are more studies on living in different places, and the research objects are mainly land-lost farmers (Xie, 2019), while there is relatively little research on making a living locally. Livelihood capital is the resource and capacity that farm households need to achieve their livelihood goals, whether they are making a living in a different place or in a local area. Livelihood capital is the starting point of livelihood analysis (Yu et al., 2020), and the exploration of farm households’ livelihood decision-making from the perspective of livelihood capital endowment has been highly valued by the academic community (He and Ahmed, 2022; Huang et al., 2021). In southwest China, physical capital and natural capital have a positive impact on farm households’ adoption of agricultural livelihood strategies, while human capital, financial capital and social capital have a positive impact on farm households’ adoption of non-agricultural livelihood strategies (He and Ahmed, 2022). Tourism is often considered to be a sustainable way of making a living compared to the general off-farm livelihood decisions, because tourism livelihood can promote local economic development, improve the living standards of residents, while protecting the local environment and cultural resources. The concept of tourism livelihood has not been clearly defined at present. According to previous relevant studies (Rongna and Sun, 2022), tourism livelihood refers to the behavior of obtaining economic benefits and meeting livelihood needs through tourism activities. Nowadays, tourism livelihood has attracted the attention of academic circles. In the Basa region of Vietnam, where tourism industry is developed, families with more financial capital are less likely to engage in agricultural livelihood, and both financial capital and social capital can promote the participation of tourism livelihood (Huang et al., 2021). When people have sufficient livelihood capital, they will achieve their livelihood goals, personal development, family prosperity and social harmony and stability.
Internet technology, with its advantages of high efficiency, low cost and transcending time and space constraints (Wang et al., 2022), has become a new tool to empower farm households’ livelihood activities, and the current era requires farm households to have certain information capacity (Marshall et al., 2020). In the information age, the internet is embedded in the economic life of farm households, and the principle of connectivity is used to influence livelihood capital, exert the “multiplier effect”, and improve the sustainable livelihood ability of farm households (Li et al., 2023). The internet can help farmers timely access to information on policies such as farmland ownership confirmation (Mi et al., 2020), thereby facilitating efficient land transfer and optimizing their capital structure. Farmers with information capacity can obtain product information from various platforms, purchase material products, and improve their physical capital. The internet breaks the space restriction and gives farmers the opportunity to participate in online skills training, which helps to enhance their learning ability (Wang et al., 2022) and human capital (Leng et al., 2020). The internet provides diversified investment channels, helps farmers manage and use funds flexibly, and enhances their borrowing capacity (Weng et al., 2023) and financial capital. The internet makes it more convenient for farmers to keep in touch with relatives, friends, partners and community members, share information and resources, and promotes the improvement of farmers’ social capital stock (Zou and Mishra, 2022).
In summary, previous studies have found that natural capital and physical capital have a positive impact on farmers’ adoption of agricultural livelihood strategies (He and Ahmed, 2022), while financial capital and social capital have positive effects on farmers’ participation in tourism livelihood (Huang et al., 2021). However, when farm households adopt a certain livelihood decision, they often consider livelihood capital all together, yet the joint role of livelihood capital has not been proved. The internet has been found to help farmers improve their livelihood capital (Leng et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022; Weng et al., 2023; Zou and Mishra, 2022). However, the mechanism of the influence of farm households’ information capacity on their livelihood capital is still unclear.
Therefore, this paper explores the influence mechanism of information capacity on farm households’ tourism livelihood, with the following objectives: (1) To explore the key influencing factors of farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood in ethnic villages. (2) Identify the information capacity and livelihood capital arrangement of farm households who adopt tourism livelihood. (3) Explore the comprehensive role of farm households’ information capacity in livelihood capital and tourism livelihood, optimize and regulate farm households to achieve tourism livelihood. The research results will help to enrich the research system of sustainable livelihood under the background of information age, comprehensively understand the role of information capacity in farm households’ tourism livelihood, help farm households better adopt tourism livelihood, and promote the improvement of rural employment quality and efficiency.
2. Literature review
The origins of livelihood capital can be traced back to the 1980s, when development economists began to realize that traditional economic indicators could not fully explain the complexity of poverty and development, and therefore proposed more comprehensive concepts (Drinkwater et al., 1999). The British Department for International Development (DFID) has included natural capital, physical capital, human capital, financial capital and social capital into the research category of livelihood capital (Drinkwater et al., 1999). Livelihood capital is the basis of sustainable livelihood analysis and the core of farm households’ livelihood structure (Drinkwater et al., 1999).
The concept of livelihood capital was developed to understand how individuals and families sustain themselves through resources and capabilities in different areas, and how these resources and capabilities affect their lifestyles and opportunities (Drinkwater et al., 1999). Therefore, there are more achievements in using livelihood capital to study the livelihood strategies of rural households (He and Ahmed, 2022; Huang et al., 2021). The results show that physical capital and natural capital have a positive impact on farm households’ adoption of agricultural livelihood strategies, and the other three livelihood capital have a positive impact on farm households’ adoption of non-agricultural livelihood strategies. In addition, some scholars have studied the relationship between livelihood capital and adaptive decision-making, and found that natural capital, social capital, human capital and physical capital will promote farm households to adopt climate change adaptation decisions, while financial capital will hinder farm households to adopt climate change adaptation strategies (Kuang et al., 2019). In addition, some scholars have studied the relationship between livelihood capital and land use decisions, and found that the diversity of livelihood capital has little impact on farm households’ land transfer decisions, and the stock of livelihood capital will affect farm households’ land transfer-in and self-cultivation (Tang et al., 2022).
Information capacity was originally defined as people’s ability to use information resources in production and life. Later, some scholars further demonstrated the connotation of information capacity for individual farmers, that is, information capacity is the ability of farmers to search, judge, organize and use information in accordance with individual needs (Aker et al., 2016). According to the theory of information science, as a cognitive subject, people will transform the ontological information of the external world determined by the nature of things into different grammatical, semantic and pragmatic information through their own perception, understanding and value judgment. In other words, farm households will screen, store and process the knowledge and information acquired from the outside world to their own thinking, and then make reasonable behavioral decisions based on the results of these information processing. Therefore, whether farm households have information capacity and whether they can effectively obtain, use and evaluate information will also affect their livelihood decisions to a large extent.
However, farm households’ information capacity has not been paid enough attention to in China. At present, only a few literatures have discussed the relationship between farmers’ information capacity and livelihood behavior. In the study of farmers’ breeding behavior, it was found that farmers’ information capacity significantly promoted the adoption of rice-and-shrimp breeding model (Wang et al., 2022). In the internet era, the use of the internet can reflect the information capacity of individuals to some extent. Existing studies have confirmed that the use of the internet can significantly increase the non-agricultural income of migrant workers and enhance the livelihood flexibility of Chinese migrant workers (Chen et al., 2022). In addition, rural residents who use the internet are more likely to start their own businesses than farmers who do not (Li et al., 2023). Some scholars have further explored the mediating effect between internet use and farm households’ livelihood decisions, among which the research results that take social capital as the mediating variable are abundant. Studies have found that the use of the internet by farm households can improve their ability to manage risks, including building up farm households’ human capital, social capital and self-efficacy, and further reduce poverty vulnerability (Zhang et al., 2023). In addition, the use of the internet significantly increases farm households’ social capital, promotes land transfer (Zhang et al., 2022), and improves the possibility of non-agricultural livelihood strategies.
By reviewing the existing relevant literature, it is found that there is a large space to expand the research on the impact of livelihood capital and information capacity on farm households’ tourism livelihood. First, most of the existing studies study the role of livelihood capital on farm households’ livelihood decision-making from a linear perspective (He and Ahmed, 2022; Huang et al., 2021; Kuang et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2022). However, from the perspective of non-linear livelihood capital arrangement, there are few studies on the portfolio utility of livelihood capital to its livelihood decision making. Second, existing studies have confirmed that the use of the internet can significantly improve the non-agricultural livelihoods probability of farm households and develop balanced livelihoods (Li et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2022). However, in the context of tourism, few scholars have explored how farm households’ information capacity affects their tourism livelihoods. Third, in the information age, it has been proved that the use of the internet helps farm households improve their human capital, financial capital and social capital (Zhang et al., 2022, 2023). However, the complex effect between information capacity and livelihood capital, the comprehensive mechanism of livelihood capital arrangement affecting farm households’ tourism livelihood has not been clarified, and there is room for further research.
3. Research design
3.1 Case site and data sources
Case site
Goulan Yao Village, the key cultural relics protection unit in Hunan Province, the village with Chinese minority characteristics and the key village of rural tourism in China, is selected as the case site. Goulan Yao Village is located in Lanxi Yao Nationality Township, Jiangyong County, Yongzhou City, Hunan Province. It consists of three natural villages: Huangjia Village, Shangcun Village and Daxing Village, covering an area of 6 square kilometers. The overall layout of the Goulan Yao Village conforms to the trend of the mountain terrain. The village is now inhabited by 13 surnames, such as Jiang, Ouyang, Huang and He, and the Yao ethnic group accounts for 95% of the population. There are 19 village groups under the jurisdiction of the village, with a total of 518 households and 2228 people. Goulan Yao Village has beautiful natural environment and rich cultural landscape. Since 2016, it has developed rural tourism and opened up a new path of “enriching people with tourism”. The village adopts the way of “talented people driven, group development, and e-commerce driven” to develop the industries of characteristic homestay, agritainment, and specialty products direct store. Villagers use internet technology to build a website platform of Goulan Yao Village, and publish information about customs and traditions, tourist attractions, farmhouse accommodation, and featured agricultural products on the internet. Tourists can inquire and place orders online. Up to now, there are 9 characteristic homestays, 8 farmhouses and 3 ethnic clothing rental shops.
The reasons for choosing Goulan Yao Village as the case site are as follows: First, Goulan Yao Village has achieved precise poverty alleviation through the development of tourism industry (Deng et al., 2017), which is representative to a certain extent for the study of farm households’ tourism livelihood. Second, the industry of Goulan Yao Village is driven by e-commerce. Local government support, developed industry, communication network and other infrastructure is perfect there (Han et al., 2023). It is significant to study the enabling effect of information capacity on farm households’ tourism livelihood. Third, the research team has been actively serving the tourism development of Goulan Yao Village since 2015. The technical services carried out by the team include guiding Goulan Yao Village to participate in the evaluation of the tourism rating of Chinese scenic spots (3A and 4A), as well as assisting in the formulation of rural tourism operation plans. Therefore, the team has an extensive understanding of the specific circumstances about Goulan Yao Village.
Data collection
In January 2023 and March 2023, the research team made two data collection trips to Goulan Yao Village. Cluster sampling method was adopted in the interview. 90–100 sample households were randomly selected in each sub-village for household survey, and the survey objects were the head of each household or the main labor force. The questionnaire included farm households’ livelihood capital, information capacity and demographic characteristics. In order to ensure the reliability of the data, this study adopts “one-to-one” and “face-to-face” methods to obtain data. A total of 276 farm households were interviewed. Excluding the interviews with logical errors, a total of 266 farm households were effectively interviewed, and the interview efficiency was 96.38%. Among them, 182 farm households participated in tourism livelihood, and 84 farm households did not participate in tourism livelihood. The tourism livelihood behaviors of farm households involved in this paper are mainly reflected in the tourism management or service work such as Taobao e-commerce, live streaming marketing, homestay, agritainment catering, local specialty sales, clothing rental, cleaning services, and song and dance performances.
Variable selection
Explained variable: Tourism livelihood decision (Y). Let the number of farm households participating in tourism livelihood be 1, and the number of farm households not participating in tourism livelihood be 0.
Explanatory variables: The sustainable livelihood analysis framework proposed by the British Department for International Development (DFID) is the most widely recognized sustainable livelihood analysis paradigm (Guo et al., 2020). Therefore, based on the DFID framework, this paper constructs the livelihood capital evaluation index system of ethnic village farm households, including the five livelihood capital mentioned above. Natural capital shows the use of farmland by farm households (Wang et al., 2021); physical capital is measured as the facilities used for production and life; human capital represents the ability and cultural level of farmers; financial capital reflects the economic strength of farm households; social capital refers to the connections between farm households and other people (Drinkwater et al., 1999).
With reference to previous studies, farm households’ information capacity is evaluated from four aspects: information awareness, information acquisition capability, information utilization proficiency, and informational influence (Yuan et al., 2014). The term “capacity” refers to the inherent quality of accomplishing a goal or task, while “capital” refers to the fundamental factors of production utilized in the manufacturing process. It is important to note that there is a difference between these two concepts. For example, the physical capital of farm households contains essential tools for obtaining information. Information capacity, however, focuses on the level of skill an individual has in accessing these channels and using these tools. In addition, human capital is concerned with the quality of labor, including education, age and physical fitness of the worker. As the internet enters the stage of popularization and intelligence of mobile internet, higher requirements are also put forward for people’s information capacity. People not only need to master the basic information expression and information interaction skills, but also need to learn to efficiently acquire, accurately process and in-depth analysis of information. Even if a person has a high human capital, there may be deficiencies in information acquisition, processing and application, since information capacity is also affected by personal interest, experience, self-learning and other factors. Therefore, information capacity is treated as a separate variable in this study.
3.2 Research methodology
In order to avoid the influence of subjective factors, this paper adopted the entropy method to measure the livelihood capital except social capital. Binary Logistic regression analysis combined with fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was used to test the relationship between farm households’ tourism livelihood and various variables. Binary logistic regression method is usually linear, symmetric and simple, and is used to explain the independent variable effect that causes the change of the dependent variable. In contrast, fsQCA is an asymmetrical, multi-outcome set theory technique that allows joint causal configuration to perform configuration analysis of factors affecting dependent variables.
Construction of binary logistic regression model
The explained variable of farm households’ tourism livelihood decision was assigned as 0 or 1 (see Table 1 for definitions), and binary logistic regression was used for analysis. The model is as follows:
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr1043
where P represents the probability of farm households participating in tourism livelihood, 1−P represents the probability of farm households not participating in tourism livelihood, where
Calibration
Before analyzing the necessity and sufficiency conditions, data processing and variable calibration are prerequisites for conducting a qualitative comparative analysis of fuzzy sets. In cases where non-normal distribution is observed in the data, anchor points are often set at 20%, 50% and 80% quantiles (Pappas et al., 2021). Given that our research data exhibit non-normal distribution, we adopt the threshold of complete membership, the intersection, and the threshold of complete non-membership were determined by using the 20%, 50% and 80% quantiles, respectively, as the values of the three anchors. This enables us to convert the data into membership scores of fuzzy sets.
Geographical location and jurisdiction of Goulan Yao Village. Source: Map data from Ministry of Natural Resources of the People's Republic of China. Figure number GS (2023) 2763.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr1043
Measures of livelihood capital
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr1043
4. Data analysis
4.1 Binary logistic regression analysis
Model analysis
SPSS software was used to test, and the Cronbach’s
Results
Binary logistic regression initially revealed the impact of five kinds of livelihood capital and information capacity on farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood in ethnic villages. The results are shown in Table 2.
Binary logistic regression results of influencing factors of farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr1043
4.2 fsQCA analyses
Analysis of necessity
Before the adequacy analysis in fsQCA, the necessity analysis of variables in the presence and absence cases should be carried out to test whether a single condition constitutes a necessary condition for farm households in ethnic villages to participate in tourism livelihood. Through necessity analysis (Ragin, 2009), it can be seen that the consistency of all variables is lower than 0.9, indicating that all variables selected in this study are not necessary conditions for ethnic village farm households to participate in tourism livelihood.
Analysis of adequacy
The first step of adequacy analysis is to construct the truth table (Ragin, 2009), and the second step is to reduce the truth table. In order to identify all possible cases and ensure the strength of interpretation of the configuration, this paper set the number of acceptable cases as 2, the consistency threshold as 0.8, and the PRI value as 0.75. The results were interpreted using the intermediate solution (Ragin, 2009), and the obtained configuration analysis results of farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood in ethnic villages are shown in Table 3.
Configuration analysis results of farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood in ethnic villages
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 3 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr1043
As shown in Table 3, the consistency of all conditions is greater than 0.8, and each configuration can be used as adequate conditions for farm households to participate in tourism livelihood. The consistency of the entire solution reached 0.849, indicating that the causal combination guaranteed the ideal result. Moreover, the coverage rate of the entire solution is 0.412, indicating that 41.2% of the cases involved in tourism livelihood are accompanied by the combination of these six causal conditions.
After classifying each deficiency and existing causal conditions, the configuration of influencing factors of farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood in ethnic villages can be divided into three modes, namely, information capacity loss type (S1), information capacity empowerment type (S2) and other types (S3).
The type of information capacity loss. The type of information capacity loss includes one configuration, S1 (X1*X3*X4*X5*~X6). The original coverage is 0.0959, which explains 9.59% of the cases.
The type of information capacity empowerment. The type of information capacity empowerment includes four configurations, S2a (X1*X3*~X4*X5*X6), S2b (X2*X3*~X4*X5*X6), S2c (X1*~X3*X4* X5*X6), S2d (X1*X2*X5*X6). The original coverage sum for those configurations is 0.5628, which explains 56.28% of the cases.
Other type. Other type includes one configuration, S3 (X1*X2*X3*X4). The original coverage is 0.185, which explains 18.5% of the cases.
Robustness test
Robustness tests examine whether evaluation methods and indicators maintain consistent, stable interpretations of evaluation results when certain parameters change. In QCA research, the threshold setting has certain flexibility and the analysis results may change accordingly, so the robustness test must be completed by adjusting the PRI consistency threshold (Scarpi et al., 2022). This paper increases PRI consistency from 0.75 to 0.8, and the production configuration remains consistent. The test results show good robustness.
5. Discussion and conclusion
Based on the questionnaire sampling data of farm households in Goulan Yao Village, combined with the research purpose, through literature review and selection of influencing factors, the binary logistic regression model and fsQCA method were used to explore how farm households’ information capacity enables farm households in ethnic villages to participate in tourism livelihood. The conclusions are as follows:
First, in addition to financial capital, farm households’ information capacity and other livelihood capital have a positive impact on farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood. The results of binary logistic regression model show that the increase of financial capital will significantly hinder the participation of ethnic village farm households in tourism livelihood. This supports the research conclusion that migrant workers with more financial capital accumulation are reluctant to return (Xie et al., 2020). Financial capital needs to accumulate. Before the occurrence of tourism, farmers in ethnic villages may have accumulated through other employment decision-making behaviors, and under the influence of path dependence psychology, they are less likely to participate in tourism livelihood. In addition to financial capital, farm households’ information capacity and other livelihood capital can significantly promote farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood in ethnic villages. This supports the research conclusion that land capitalization will prompt farm households to choose non-agricultural livelihood (Babulo et al., 2008). The capitalization of land has liberated the labor force, and the perfect physical capital helps farm households to receive and serve tourists, which is good preparation for farm households to enter the tourism industry. At the same time, this paper confirms once again that human capital is a key indicator that positively affects the transformation of farmers’ livelihood strategies from agriculture to the secondary or tertiary industry (Kuang et al., 2019). For the consideration of their own development, farmers with scientific and cultural qualities are more willing to choose non-agricultural employment. At the same time, it also confirms the research conclusion that the use of the internet will promote non-agricultural employment (Zhang et al., 2022). Farm households with information capacity have abundant access to non-agricultural livelihood information and can easily achieve non-agricultural livelihood (Zhang et al., 2022). In addition, the research conclusion of this paper once again proves that obtaining family support has a positive impact on farm households’ willingness to engage in tourism (Luo et al., 2022). Social networks reduce transaction costs in the labor market (Chen et al., 2023), enable farmers to match jobs with high income and good working conditions (Baranowska-Rataj et al., 2023), and promote farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood (Zhou et al., 2022).
Second, farm households’ information capacity will play an effective role in conjunction with livelihood capital, complement financial capital and human capital, and enable farm households to participate in tourism livelihood. The fsQCA analysis shows that farm households’ livelihood capital configurations are diverse when they participate in tourism livelihood. From the perspective of information capacity, they are as follows:
As can be seen from S2a and S2b in Table 3, when financial capital is lacking, farm households in ethnic villages with information capacity can make up for the absence of financial capital by combining human capital, social capital, natural capital or physical capital to help them participate in tourism livelihood. The reason is that internet finance has gradually entered the lives of farm households and broadened rural financing channels (Wang et al., 2022). Farm households with information capabilities have better access to financial services (Munyegera, 2018). At the same time, the internet broadens the social contact network of farm households in ethnic villages and increases the accumulation of social capital (Zhang et al., 2022). Farm households can raise money through personal formal and informal social networks. In addition, farm households with information capacity can participate in tourism knowledge training through the internet, enhance skilled human capital, and increase household income (Zheng et al., 2022). In addition, farm households with information capacity can more easily understand the endowment effect and security effect brought by policies such as confirmation of agricultural land rights (Mi et al., 2020), so as to promote land transfer and realize household income increase.
According to S2c in Table 3, when human capital is lacking, farm households in ethnic villages with information capacity can make up for the non-existent defect of human capital by combining natural capital, financial capital and social capital to help them participate in tourism livelihood. The reason is that when the scientific and cultural level is not dominant, farm households with information capacity can use the internet to enhance their management and learning ability and get rid of the embarrassing situation of insufficient human capital (Leng et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2021). At the same time, farm households with information capacity can more easily understand the endowment effect and security effect brought by policies such as determining the right to agricultural land (Mi et al., 2020), promote land transfer, liberate part of surplus labor force from agricultural production, and choose livelihood activities other than agriculture (Babulo et al., 2008). In addition, farm households with information capacity can better grasp the tourism employment knowledge and skills training opportunities provided by the government or travel agencies through social networks, and enhance human capital.
6. Enlightenment and Prospect
According to the conclusion of this research, the management enlightenment is drawn as follows: first, the livelihood capital is not the more the better, and the right combination can participate in the tourism livelihood. The study found six kinds of livelihood capital arrangement combinations for ethnic village farm households to participate in tourism livelihood, which can guide farm households to choose the appropriate path to realize tourism livelihood in combination with their own resources and capabilities. Second, the theory of subsistence capital should be abandoned and strive to cultivate the information capacity of farm households in ethnic villages. It is true that livelihood capital is a necessary resource and capacity for farm households to achieve their livelihood goals, but it is not irreplaceable. Information capacities empower human and financial capital to help farm households achieve tourism livelihoods. Therefore, the government should focus on the cultivation of information capacity for farm households lacking in human capital and financial capital.
The research contribution of this study has three aspects. First, it extends the research framework of sustainable livelihood in the context of the information age. This paper incorporates farm households’ information capacity into the framework of sustainable livelihood with the times, and considers the historical background of five kinds of livelihood capital and their comprehensive impact on farm households’ tourism livelihood. Second, the research perspective on local livelihoods is of concern as it serves as a guarantee for rural prosperity and the condition for achieving common prosperity. In China, the study of employment in different places is quite common. This paper specifically focuses on residents of tourist areas who make their living locally, thereby enriching the field of agricultural livelihood research. Thirdly, it deciphers the enabling role of information capacity in farm households’ tourism livelihood. Information capacity not only directly promotes farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood, but also complements financial capital and human capital to improve farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood.
Despite some contributions, this study still has some limitations, which can be further discussed in the future: Firstly, although the case site in this paper relies on tourism industry to develop the economy, and the study of farm households’ participation in tourism livelihood is representative to a certain extent, it is essential to note that ethnic villages in China are numerous and diverse. Therefore, there is still room for further improvement in the universality of this study. Secondly, in addition to information capacity, other types of capacity of farm households may also play an enabling role in tourism livelihood. In the future, the innovation capacity, management skills and market insight of farm households can be further explored. Thirdly, according to the destination life cycle theory, the choice of farm households’ livelihood decision is affected by the development stage of destination tourism. In the future, a longitudinal study on the time series of this case can be conducted, or ethnic villages with different life cycles can be selected for comparative study.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) “Research on the Influence of Social Network of Farmers in Ethnic Village” (72064006); Research Fund of Guangxi Research Institute of Tourism Industry “Research on the Driving Mechanism of Local Tourism Employment of Farmers in Ethnic Villages” (LYCYX2023-27) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Aker, J.C., I. Ghosh and J. Burrell. 2016. The promise (and pitfalls) of ICT for agriculture initiatives. Agricultural Economics 47: 35–48.
Babulo, B., B. Muys, F. Nega, E. Tollens, J. Nyssen, J. Deckers and Erik Mathijs. 2008. Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 98: 147–155.
Baranowska-Rataj, A., Z. Elekes and R. Eriksson. 2023. Escaping from low-wage employment: The role of co-worker networks. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 83: 100747.
Bires, Z. and S.l Raj. 2020. Tourism as a pathway to livelihood diversification: Evidence from biosphere reserves, Ethiopia. Tourism Management 81: 104159.
Chen, H., C.-p. Chen, Y. Li, L. Qin and M.S. Qin. 2022. How Internet usage contributes to livelihood resilience of migrant peasant workers? Evidence from China. Journal of Rural Studies 96: 112–120.
Chen, Q., M. Wu, H. Xie and H. Lu. 2023. Do farmers’ social networks aggravate cultivated land abandonment? A case study in Ganzhou, China. Land Degradation & Development 34: 4699–4711.
Drinkwater, M., T. Rusinow, N. Singh and K. Neefjes. 1999. Livelihoods approaches compared: A brief comparison of the livelihoods approaches of the UK Department for International Development (DFID), CARE, Oxfam and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Oxfam, London.
Deng, J.J., J. Tang and Y.X. He. 2017. Sample analysis of industrial poverty alleviation in Jiulangyao Village of Jiangyong County. Hunan Daily. Available online at https://m.sohu.com/a/137667752_119717/?pvid=000115_3w_a
Fan, H. and X. Li. 2023. Research on the evolution of the governance logic of ethnic-minority villages from the perspective of tourism development—a case study of Longjing Village, Guizhou Province. Sustainability 15: 3187.
Guo, H. and Y.X. Yang. 2020. Research Review of sustainable livelihood of rural tourism. Tourism Tribune 35(9): 134–148.
He, Y. and T. Ahmed. 2022. Farmers’ livelihood capital and its impact on sustainable livelihood strategies: Evidence from the poverty-stricken areas of Southwest China. Sustainability 14: 4955.
Huang, L., L. Yang, N.T. Tuyến, N. Colmekcioglu and J. Liu. 2021. Factors influencing the livelihood strategy choices of rural households in tourist destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30: 875–896.
Han, Y.H., R.F. Xu, X.J. Gao and X.Q. Dai. 2023. Lanxi Yao Township: Cultural and tourism integration of the millennium of Yao village glory. Hunan Daily. Available online at https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20231220A07WPO00
Kuang, F., J. Jin, R. He, X. Wan and J. Ning. 2019. Influence of livelihood capital on adaptation strategies: Evidence from rural households in Wushen Banner, China. Land Use Policy 89: 104228.
Leng, C., W. Ma, J. Tang and Z. Zhu. 2020. ICT adoption and income diversification among rural households in China. Applied Economics 52: 3614–3628.
Li, D., D. Kojima, L. Wu and M. Ando. 2023. Digital ability and livelihood diversification in rural China. Sustainability 15: 12443.
Liu, C., X. Dou, J. Li and L.A. Cai. 2020. Analyzing government role in rural tourism development: An empirical investigation from China. Journal of Rural Studies 79: 177–188.
Lor, J.J., S. Kwa and J.A. Donaldson. 2019. Making ethnic tourism good for the poor. Annals of Tourism Research 76: 140–152.
Luo, W., D.J. Timothy, C. Zhong and X. Zhang. 2022. Influential factors in agrarian households’ engagement in rural tourism development. Tourism Management Perspectives 44: 101009.
Marshall, A., M. Dezuanni, J. Burgess, J. Thomas and C.K. Wilson. 2020. Australian farmers left behind in the digital economy – Insights from the Australian Digital Inclusion Index. Journal of Rural Studies 80: 195–210.
Munyegera G.K. and T. Matsumoto. 2018. ICT for financial access: Mobile money and the financial behavior of rural households in Uganda. Review of Development Economics 22(1): 45–66.
Mi, Y.S., Y. Qian, T.J. Yang and Y. Xie. 2022. Does land registration expand the gap between the rich and the poor in credit availability? Issues in Agricultural Economy (5): 54–65.
Pappas, I.O. and A.G. Woodside. 2021. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management 58: 102210.
Qian, C., N. Sasaki, D. Jourdain, S.M. Kim and P.G. Shivakoti. 2017. Local livelihood under different governances of tourism development in China – A case study of Huangshan mountain area. Tourism Management 61: 221–233.
Ragin, C.C. 2009. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Rongna, A. and J. Sun. 2022. Tourism livelihood transition and rhythmic sustainability: The case of the Reindeer Evenki in China. Annals of Tourism Research 94: 103381.
Saarinen, J., C. Rogerson and H. Manwa. 2011. Tourism and Millennium Development Goals: tourism for global development?. Current Issues in Tourism 14: 201–203.
Scarpi, D., I. Confente and I. Russo. 2022. The impact of tourism on residents’ intention to stay. A qualitative comparative analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 97: 103472.
Sharp, K. 2003. Measuring destitution: integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in the analysis of survey data. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
Su, M.M., G. Wall and Y. Wang. 2019. Integrating tea and tourism: a sustainable livelihoods approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27: 1591–1608.
Tang, H., J. Liu, X. Dai, Y. Zhang, W. He, Q. Yin, F. Huang, R. Ran and Y. Liu. 2022. Household groups’ land use decisions investigation based on perspective of livelihood heterogeneity in Sichuan Province, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 9485.
Wang, J., D. Zhou and J. Martinez Torres. 2022. How Internet use spurs entrepreneurial activities? Evidence from China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering: 8363325.
Wang, M., M. Li, B. Jin, L. Yao and H. Ji. 2021. Does livelihood capital influence the livelihood strategy of herdsmen? Evidence from Western China. Land 10.
Wang, Y., Z. Cai and J. Wang. 2022. The impact of digital technology use on passive entrepreneurial exit in rural households: Empirical evidence from China. Sustainability 14: 10662.
Wang, Y., Z. Yu and B. Sun. 2022. Equalization or polarization? The effect of the Internet on national urban hierarchies across the world, 2000–2018. Cities 131: 103989.
Weng, F., X. Liu and X. Huo. 2023. Impact of Internet use on farmers’ organic fertilizer investment: A new perspective of access to credit. Agriculture 13: 219.
Wang, H., Z.H. Qi, C.Y. Yang and Z.Y. Tian. 2022. Study on the influence of farmers’ information capability on the adoption intention of ecological planting and breeding model–mediation based on perceived ease of use. World Agriculture (7): 93–105.
Xie, Y. 2019. Land expropriation, shock to employment, and employment differentiation: Findings from land-lost farmers in Nanjing, China. Land Use Policy 87: 104040.
Xie, Y.F., Y.Q. Ma and H.J. Li. 2020. Migration characteristics and return migration lntentions of migrants in the context of new urbanization. Tropical Geography 40(4): 612–624.
Yu, P., J. Zhang, Y. Wang, C. Wang and H. Zhang. 2020. Can tourism development enhance livelihood capitals of rural households? Evidence from Huangshan National Park adjacent communities, China. Science of the Total Environment 748: 141099.
Yuan, F., K. Tang and Q. Shi. 2021. Does Internet use reduce chemical fertilizer use? Evidence from rural households in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 28: 6005–6017.
Yuan, C.H., Z.W. Gong, W.J. Chen and Y. Wan. 2014. Farmers’ information literacy scale compilation and lts reliability and validity test. Information Science 32(2): 26–30.
Zhang, F., X. Bao, S. Guo, X. Deng, J. Song and D. Xu. 2022. Internet use and land transfer in: empirical evidence from China’s rural panel data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 29: 88288–88301.
Zhang, F., X. Bao, X. Deng and D. Xu. 2022. Rural land transfer in the information age: can Internet use affect farmers’ land transfer-in? Land 11: 1761.
Zhang, G., X. Wu and K. Wang. 2022. Research on the Impact and mechanism of internet use on the poverty vulnerability of farmers in China. Sustainability 14: 5216.
Zhang, S., Q. Liu, X. Zheng and J. Sun. 2023. Internet use and the poverty vulnerability of rural households: from the perspective of risk response. Sustainability 15: 1289.
Zheng, Y.-y., T.-h. Zhu and W. Jia. 2022. Does Internet use promote the adoption of agricultural technology? Evidence from 1449 farm households in 14 Chinese provinces. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 21: 282–292.
Zhou, H.L., L. Lu and Y.J. Jiang. 2022. Configuration Analysis of Influencing Factors of Farmers’ Local Tourism Employment Behavior in Ethnic Villages. Economic Geography 42(11):232–238.
Zou, B. and A.K. Mishra. 2022. How internet use affects the farmland rental market: An empirical study from rural China. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 198: 107075.
Corresponding author
