IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i2p214-d89505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Perceptual Differences among Stakeholders in the Tourism Supply of Xi’an City, China

Author

Listed:
  • Junsheng Liu

    (College of Tourism and Environment, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

  • Yaofeng Ma

    (College of Tourism and Environment, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

Abstract

The stakeholders’ perceptual evaluations of the supply structure of destination tourism play an important role in promoting the sustainable development of regional tourism. However, the research on the structural perceptions of destination tourism supply is relatively insufficient in current research on the perceptions of tourism stakeholders. This paper analyzes the perceptual differences among inbound tourists, community residents and tourism practitioners from the core and auxiliary tourism supply dimensions. After having applied the structural equation model in this paper, the advantages and disadvantages of the tourism supply of Xi’an, a famous tourist city in China, were identified. In addition, the findings of this paper are: the inbound tourists have high perceptual sensitivity over the factors of the urban core tourism supply; the community residents have high perceptual sensitivity over the auxiliary tourist supply factors; the tourism practitioners have similar perceptual sensitivity over the factors of urban core and auxiliary tourism supply. The advantageous factors involve tourist attractions, tourist shopping, tourist entertainment, hospitality environment and tourist information. Furthermore, the moderately stable supply factors of Xi’an include tourist transportation, tourist catering, tourist accommodation, marketing as well as safety and security, while the natural environment is the limiting factor. The results support sustainable development and the coordination of different stakeholders in the destinations.

Suggested Citation

  • Junsheng Liu & Yaofeng Ma, 2017. "The Perceptual Differences among Stakeholders in the Tourism Supply of Xi’an City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:214-:d:89505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/2/214/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/2/214/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Arnaboldi, Michela & Spiller, Nicola, 2011. "Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: The case of Cultural Districts," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 641-654.
    3. Randle, Erica Jane & Hoye, Russell, 2016. "Stakeholder perception of regulating commercial tourism in Victorian National Parks, Australia," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 138-149.
    4. Imran, Sophia & Alam, Khorshed & Beaumont, Narelle, 2014. "Environmental orientations and environmental behaviour: Perceptions of protected area tourism stakeholders," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 290-299.
    5. Wu, Tsung-Chiung (Emily) & Xie, Philip Feifan & Tsai, Miao-Chi, 2015. "Perceptions of attractiveness for salt heritage tourism: A tourist perspective," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 201-209.
    6. Fuchs, Galia & Reichel, Arie, 2011. "An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 266-276.
    7. Edward Freeman, R. & Evan, William M., 1990. "Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 337-359.
    8. Chang, Grace & Caneday, Lowell, 2011. "Web-based GIS in tourism information search: Perceptions, tasks, and trip attributes," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1435-1437.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jing Zhao & Linshen Wang & Qing Ye & Qiang Zhao & Shutong Wei, 2022. "Association of Environmental Elements with Respondents’ Behaviors in Open Spaces Using the Direct Gradient Analysis Method: A Case Study of Jining, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Chaeyoung Lim & Noha Mostafa & Jaehyun Park, 2017. "Digital Omotenashi: Toward a Smart Tourism Design Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Fátima Farinha & David Bienvenido-Huertas & Manuel Duarte Pinheiro & Elisa M. J. Silva & Rui Lança & Miguel José Oliveira & Ricardo Batista, 2021. "Sustainable Competitiveness of Tourism in the Algarve Region. Critical Stakeholders’ Perception of the Supply Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dibb, Sally & Ball, Kirstie & Canhoto, Ana & Daniel, Elizabeth M. & Meadows, Maureen & Spiller, Keith, 2014. "Taking responsibility for border security: Commercial interests in the face of e-borders," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 50-61.
    2. Todd, Louise & Leask, Anna & Ensor, John, 2017. "Understanding primary stakeholders' multiple roles in hallmark event tourism management," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 494-509.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1059 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Cortez, Maria Céu & Andrade, Nuno & Silva, Florinda, 2022. "The environmental and financial performance of green energy investments: European evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    5. NaHyun Lee & Bong-Seok Kim, 2023. "Differences of Host Country-Destination Image Assessment for International Students According to Risk Perception in COVID-19 Tourism," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    6. Nir Halevy & Sora Jun & Eileen Y. Chou, 2020. "Intergroup Conflict is Our Business: CEOs’ Ethical Intergroup Leadership Fuels Stakeholder Support for Corporate Intergroup Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 229-246, February.
    7. Hummel, John & van der Duim, Rene, 2016. "SNV's modes of ordering: Organizing tourism as development practice," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 312-322.
    8. Bui, Huong T. & Saito, Hiroaki, 2022. "Resource convergence for post disaster recovery," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Mouna Mrad & Slaheddine Hallara, 2014. "The Relationship Between the Board of Directors and the Performance/Value Creation in a Context of Privatization: The Case of French Companies," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 83-108, March.
    10. Jean Baptiste Habumuremyi & Thomas K Tarus, 2021. "Effect of Stakeholders’ Participation on Sustainability of Community Projects in Ruhango District, Rwanda," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(09), pages 429-433, September.
    11. Rybár Pavol & Hronček Pavel & Tometzová Dana & Domaracká Lucia & Jesenský Miloš, 2017. "Underground quarries their possible use for mining tourism purposes – Slovak perspectives on the example of the underground stone quarry of Veľká Stráň," Acta Geoturistica, Sciendo, vol. 8(2), pages 87-107, December.
    12. Bart Neuts & João Romão & Eveline van Leeuwen & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Describing the Relationships between Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty in a Segmented and Digitalized Market," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(5), pages 987-1004, October.
    13. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Cristiano Franceschinis & Joffre Swait & Akshay Vij & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Determinants of Recreational Activities Choice in Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Cucari, Nicola & Wankowicz, Ewa & Esposito De Falco, Salvatore, 2019. "Rural tourism and Albergo Diffuso: A case study for sustainable land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 105-119.
    16. Setiawan Priatmoko & Moaaz Kabil & Yitno Purwoko & Lóránt Dénes Dávid, 2021. "Rethinking Sustainable Community-Based Tourism: A Villager’s Point of View and Case Study in Pampang Village, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2550 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Xiufang Jiang & Jianxiong Qin & Jianguo Gao & Mollie G Gossage, 2022. "The mediation of perceived risk’s impact on destination image and travel intention: An empirical study of Chengdu, China during COVID-19," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    19. Domínguez-Gómez, J. Andrés & González-Gómez, Teresa, 2017. "Analysing stakeholders’ perceptions of golf-course-based tourism: A proposal for developing sustainable tourism projects," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 135-143.
    20. Geert Braam & Erik Poutsma & Roel Schouteten & Beatrice van der Heijden, 2024. "Employee financial participation and corporate social and environmental performance: Evidence from European panel data," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 62(2), pages 381-409, June.
    21. Su, Lujun & Swanson, Scott R., 2017. "The effect of destination social responsibility on tourist environmentally responsible behavior: Compared analysis of first-time and repeat tourists," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 308-321.
    22. Wenbing Luo & Ziyan Tian & Xusheng Fang & Mingjun Deng, 2024. "Can good ESG performance reduce stock price crash risk? Evidence from Chinese listed companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 1469-1492, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:214-:d:89505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.