Next Article in Journal
Probabilistic Expansion Planning of Energy Storage Systems Considering the Effect of Cycle Life
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Differences and Drivers of Tourism Ecological Security in China’s Border Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 15
10.3390/su151511812
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Place Identity, Social Capital, and Rural Homestay Entrepreneurship Performance: The Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy

by
Ping Yin
* and
Linjie Zhou
School of Economics and Management, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(15), 11812; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511812
Submission received: 6 July 2023 / Revised: 22 July 2023 / Accepted: 24 July 2023 / Published: 1 August 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
It is necessary to analyze the entrepreneurial performance mechanism of rural homestays to improve farmers’ incomes under the strategy of rural revitalization in China. This study constructs a mechanism model, in which place identity and social capital are antecedent variables and entrepreneurial self-efficacy is an intermediary variable. Three hundred and fifty five valid samples were collected from rural homestayers in suburban areas of Beijing. A structural equation modelling by Mplus was conducted for path-analysis and also a mediating effects test to verity the theoretical model. The results demonstrate that place identity has no significant effect on entrepreneurial performance, while social capital and entrepreneurial self-efficacy do have. In fact, place identity and social capital have significant positive effects on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy plays a complete mediating role in the relationship between place identity and farmers’ entrepreneurial performance, and a partial mediating role in the relationship between social capital and farmers’ entrepreneurial performance. Under the background of rural revitalization, the conclusions of this study provide a theoretical basis for improving the farmer’s entrepreneurial performance and have certain practical management significance.

1. Introduction

A rural revitalization strategy (RRS) was proposed for the first time in the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in October of 2017 [1], aiming to solve five rural problems, which were the rapid loss of agricultural production elements, excessively fast aging and weakening of agricultural social subjects, the increasing vacancy of rural houses and waste of construction lands, the severe pollution of rural ecological environment, and the deep impoverishment of rural poverty-stricken areas [2]. Since the farmers are the main residents in rural areas in China, the dominant position of farmers was clarified as a basic principle for implementing the rural revitalization strategy from the No. 1 central document of the Central Committee of the CPC in 2018. Farmers are encouraged to start their own businesses to increase income and make prosperous life a reality by the 19th Party Congress and the Central Document No. 1 of 2020. Along with the policies, Chinese farmers’ entrepreneurial activities are believed to be helpful to the effective allocation of rural factors of production and can stimulate the potential for income growth [3], and even be helpful for renewed economic vigor of global rural areas [4,5,6]. Farmers’ entrepreneurship performance has received much attention and has become a hot topic in the academic area. Land titling [7], digital business penetration or E-commerce [8,9], intellectual property protection [10], digital village construction [11], and other factors are examined in the mechanism. During the abundant and substantial research, Naminse et al. [12,13] stated that farmer entrepreneurship studies must emphasize more the individual and his/her characteristics.
With the comprehensive promotion of rural revitalization work, homestays are observed to be an increasing trend and attracting wide support from national policies and attention from farmers. The No. 1 central document of the Central Committee of the CPC in 2022 clearly states that it is necessary to strongly support farmers to directly operate or participate in the operation of homestays, and looks forward to farmers’ homestay entrepreneurship exploring ways and models of increasing income through their own initiative. The Central Rural Work Conference in December 2022 further points out the need to rely on agricultural and rural characteristic resources to promote the upgrading of the entire rural industry chain, and homestays will inevitably become a hot topic for farmers’ entrepreneurship. It follows that, the whole of society, led by the government, must believe and support the farmers to start homestays to increase income, which we can take as an essential method of achieving a sustainable livelihood. However, homestay entrepreneurship often faces the dilemma and confusion of a gap between a beautiful vision and the reality [14]. And, compared with other entrepreneurs, farmers face greater natural and market risks, rendering the entrepreneurial process more challenging [15]. Therefore, identifying the mechanisms for the entrepreneurial performance of farmers’ homestays is necessary for improving their entrepreneurial performance, optimizing the policy environment for farmers to operate homestays, and deepening the implementation of rural revitalization strategies, which has important theoretical significance and practical value.
This paper aims to enrich the current topics on farmers’ entrepreneurial performance by addressing the gap between current research contents and farmers’ practical homestay development in China, and focusing on the entrepreneurial performance of rural homestays. According to the literature review, three factors which have not been taken seriously or whose impact mechanisms have not reached consensus are pinpointed to examine their roles in the mechanism of farmers’ homestay entrepreneurial performance. The first one is place identity, which refers to farmers’ emotional understanding of their place, also known as their hometown. Place identity is believed to affect individuals’ self-identity, social identity, attitudes, and behaviors [16,17], and previous research has shown that tourism entrepreneurs with more sense of belonging to their place are more willing to invest in their various resources, thereby affecting their entrepreneurial performance [18]. However, few studies have conducted in-depth research on whether place identity can be applied to farmers’ entrepreneurship. The second is entrepreneurial self-efficacy. There are three different understandings of entrepreneurial self-efficacy as an individual’s perception of their own abilities in the study of farmers’ entrepreneurial performance. Some studies use it as an antecedent variable of entrepreneurial motivation [19], some use it as an antecedent variable of entrepreneurial performance [20], and other studies use it as an intermediary variable [21]. It can be seen that the mechanism by which entrepreneurial self-efficacy affects farmers’ entrepreneurial performance is still unclear. The third factor is social capital. Social capital is considered to have the greatest impact on farmers’ entrepreneurial performance [22], but existing literature presents different understandings of the mechanism. The intermediary role was verified in rural e-commerce entrepreneurship [9,23], while an antecedent variable of entrepreneurial performance for the new generation of migrant workers was clarified [24]. Extending this line of analysis, this paper takes farmer entrepreneurs who operate homestays in the suburbs of Beijing as the samples, and uses structural equation modeling to construct an impact mechanism model on the entrepreneurial performance of rural homestays.
Social identity theory [25,26] is integrated with resource-based view theory (RBV) [27,28,29] in this paper to examine the relationship among place identity, social capital, self-efficacy, and homestays’ performance. Social identity theory supports the notion that individuals derive a sense of identity and self-esteem from their membership in social groups, and the theory can be used to explain how place identity and social capital, both of which can be seen as parts of social identity, influence entrepreneurial self-efficacy by providing individuals with a sense of belonging, support, and access to resources. RBV theory suggests that firm performance is influenced by the availability and effective utilization of valuable resources. By examining the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between place identity/social capital and entrepreneurial performance, this study aligns with RBV theory by highlighting the importance of self-efficacy in driving entrepreneurial outcomes.
This research intends to make two contributions to rural entrepreneurship research: first, we present a complete map of the mechanism of farmers’ homestay entrepreneurship performance from various factors, which includes three variables and is different from current literature. Second, we assume that place identity as a psychology characteristic in farmers, which has long been overlooked, is an important factor in the mechanism of farmers’ entrepreneurship performance. This paper thoroughly investigates the direct relationship between place identity and entrepreneurship, and place identity and entrepreneurship self-efficacy. Finally, this paper places entrepreneurial self-efficacy into a mediate role in the mechanism map, and investigates the mediating effect. The research will greatly extend the generalizability of rural entrepreneurship theory and rural tourism theory within an important context. And the conclusions will undoubtedly provide theoretical explanations for the continuous deepening and implementation of rural revitalization strategies.
Finally, this paper defines the concept of rural homestay. We combine the concepts of “guesthouse” as “a small residential facility that hosts (or housekeepers) participate in the reception, providing tourists with local natural scenery, cultural connotation and participating in local lifestyle” [14] and “accommodation with temperature” [30]. Combined with the basic requirements and evaluation of tourist homestays (LB/T 065-2017 [31]), rural homestay in this paper refers to “small accommodation facilities that make use of local residents and other idle resources in rural areas, take farmers as the main group (or butler) to participate in reception, provide tourists with local natural leisure, cultural and other tourism and participate in local production and life”.

2. Literature Review and Model Construction

2.1. Place Identity and Entrepreneruship Performance

“Place” is described as the “center of human existence” and can help people to create a sense of meaning and stability in their lives [32]. It becomes a part of people’s self-awareness and provides opportunities for self-expression [33,34]. Place identity is one of the concepts in the “local” series, emphasizing the cognition, beliefs, or ideas generated by an individual’s interaction with the physical world in a specific environmental space [35] which can affect an individual’s self-identity, social identity, attitude, and behavior, including behavior towards the local community [16,17].
In the field of tourism research, place identity is a topic related to tourism development. If people believe that the development of the tourism industry is consistent with their place identity, they are more likely to devote themselves to the tourism industry [36]. The connection between individuals and one place can distinguish them from people in other places, and this connection can help individuals overcome fear and anxiety, better cope with the constantly changing environment, make individuals more confident, and, thus, be more willing to mobilize resources and promote the development of the local tourism industry [37]. In understanding entrepreneurial performance, Hallak et al. (2012) [18] proposed that there is an impact between place identity and tourism entrepreneurial performance, and the mechanism has an indirect impact. Akter et al. (2020) [38] found through a study on the performance of small-l and medium-sized tourism startups in Bangladesh that place identity can have a direct positive and significant impact on entrepreneurial performance. Based on the above literature, this paper believes that farmers who operate homestays are more willing to mobilize their resources to improve entrepreneurial performance when they have a higher sense of identification with the local environment. Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed:
H1. 
Place identity of farmers’ homestay entrepreneurs has a positive impact on entrepreneurial performance.

2.2. Social Capital and Entrepreneruship Performance

The term “social capital” was first proposed by Bourdieu (1980) [39] as the benefits obtained by members of society through various social structures. Nahapiet et al. (1998) [40] defined social capital as the sum of actual and potential resources embedded in the relationship network owned by an individual or social unit, obtained through the network, and obtained from the network. Based on this definition, three dimensions were constructed, which are structural dimension, relational dimension, and cognitive dimension. Portes (1998) and N. Lin (1999) [41,42] enriched and deepened this concept to form a systematic theoretical system, and widely applied it to various research fields.
The structural dimension of social capital measures the degree of individual external connections and has a significant impact on the availability of resources, such as space, facilities, and labor [43]. For farmer entrepreneurs who operate homestays, it is crucial to rely on their social networks to obtain the key resources. The relationship dimension of social capital measures the level of trust and recognition between individuals and members of the network. The higher the level of trust between both parties, the easier it is to integrate various resources, which can be followed by driving the economic development of the enterprise [44] and improving entrepreneurial performance. The cognitive dimension measures the degree of similarity in language, values, and other aspects between individuals and network members. Common values and expressions help both parties understand each other’s thinking processes, increase resource integration efforts, and have a positive impact on entrepreneurial performance [45]. Therefore, the more resources farmers’ homestay entrepreneurs have, the more conducive it is to establish trust and recognition with members in the network, to accelerate the development of homestays in a better direction, and to improve entrepreneurial performance. Based on the above analysis, the hypothesis is proposed:
H2. 
The social capital of rural homestay entrepreneurs has a positive impact on entrepreneurial performance.

2.3. The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a concept proposed by Bandura in 1977, which refers to the level of confidence people exhibit in completing a certain work task [46], and it has become an important concept in explaining human behavior and behavioral changes. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in the ability to successfully complete entrepreneurial tasks [47]. Previous studies have found that individuals with a high sense of entrepreneurial self-efficacy experience positive emotions when encountering difficulties during the entrepreneurial process, and have a strong sense of belief in overcoming these difficulties [48,49], ultimately having a significant impact on entrepreneurial performance [50]. Based on the above analysis, the hypothesis is proposed:
H3. 
The entrepreneurial self-efficacy of farmers’ homestay entrepreneurs has a positive impact on entrepreneurial performance.
As examined earlier, place identity not only reflects an individual’s attachment to a place, but also invests their own cognition, beliefs, perceptions, or thoughts into a specific environment. Therefore, place identity affects the formation of individual self-identity. Twigger-Ross et al. [51] demonstrated through empirical research that the formation of self-efficacy is influenced by the interaction between individuals and the socio–physical environment, as well as their place identity. Hallak et al. [18] found that due to entrepreneurs’ sense of place identity and strong sense of belonging to the local environment, entrepreneurs can reduce their self-doubt about whether they can complete a certain task in entrepreneurship, improve their confidence and complete the task, and improve their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Based on the above analysis, the hypothesis is proposed:
H4. 
The place identity of farmers’ homestay entrepreneurs has a positive impact on entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Entrepreneurial activities, as a social activity, are characterized by various uncertainties and high risks, which require entrepreneurs to evaluate the impact of external environmental changes on enterprises. Social capital can provide entrepreneurs with skills and knowledge to reduce uncertainty in the entrepreneurial process. Maintaining a high level of common language, values, and norms with their partners during entrepreneurial activities, establishing a high level of trust and good co-operative relationships, and obtaining various valuable resources and information needed in the entrepreneurial process through members of the social network, and establishing extensive connections [52] are beneficial for reducing the uncertainty of entrepreneurial activities, which will enhance entrepreneurs’ confidence in completing various tasks of entrepreneurial activities, and enhance their sense of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Based on the above analysis, the hypothesis is proposed:
H5. 
The social capital of rural homestay entrepreneurs has a positive impact on entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Farmer entrepreneurs are susceptible to external environmental influences. Stronger social capital can bring a higher level of mutual trust with network members and more consistent values/beliefs/ways of thinking [53,54]. Research has shown that in the impact mechanism of entrepreneurial performance on farmers’ entrepreneurial groups, entrepreneurial resilience plays a role as an indirect factor between social capital and entrepreneurial performance [55]. Entrepreneurial resilience can reduce the likelihood of setbacks for entrepreneurs while maintaining optimism in unfavorable entrepreneurial environments [56], and self-efficacy is one of variables which effect resilience [57]. Based on the above analysis, the hypothesis is proposed:
H6. 
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy of rural homestay entrepreneurs plays a mediating role in the relationship between social capital and entrepreneurial performance.
Research has found that the impact of local identity on entrepreneurial performance among entrepreneurs in the tourism industry indirectly exists through entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social support [18]. Therefore, for farmers who start businesses in the tourism industry, a sense of identity and belonging to the place in which they live may lead to stronger entrepreneurial beliefs, and we hope to have in-depth communication with other local people or departments to obtain more entrepreneurial information and resources. In the process of communication and co-operation between both parties, not only can we further enhance the sense of identification and belonging of farmers and entrepreneurs to the local area, but the accumulation of entrepreneurial resources and information can also improve entrepreneurial performance. Based on the above analysis, the hypothesis is proposed:
H7. 
The entrepreneurial self-efficacy of rural homestay entrepreneurs plays a mediating role in the relationship between local identity and entrepreneurial performance.
The theoretical model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Data and Methodology

3.1. Variables and Measurement

All variables are based on previous related research. Since the study aims to figure out the Chinese farmers’ entrepreneurship, the explanation of variables is given enough references from China. Social capitals are based on the studies by Zhao et al. [43] and Liao et al. [58]; place identity is based on the studies by Wen et al. [59] and Hallak et al. [18]; entrepreneurial self-efficacy is based on the studies by Wang et al. [20] and Pushkarskaya et al. (2021) [60]; and entrepreneurial performance is based on the studies by Hallak et al. [18] and Zhang et al. [22].
As for the measurement of entrepreneurial performance, at present, the academic circle mainly measures the performance of entrepreneurial enterprises through financial indicators and non-financial indicators. Although financial performance is considered to be the most direct and appropriate way to measure the success of an enterprise, since financial indicators cannot reflect the input and output of certain intangible assets, total reliance on financial indicators is not conducive to the long-term development of an enterprise [61]. Therefore, some scholars proposed non-financial indicators. We can consider many factors to define entrepreneurial performance. First of all, for rural B&B entrepreneurs, the motivation is not simply to increase income, but to realize a certain lifestyle or personal ambition. Therefore, for small and micro enterprises, non-financial performance is an effective research method to define the success of enterprises [62]. Secondly, researchers are faced with various difficulties in obtaining the actual financial data of small and micro enterprises such as rural homestays. Unlike the public financial records of large companies, the financial records of small enterprises are usually private, and due to the lack of standardized management, there is a lack of financial data, which makes it impossible for researchers to obtain them. Therefore, we measure performance utilizing the widely used and accepted method of measuring entrepreneurial performance through self-assessment of entrepreneurs.
The variables and explanations are shown in Table 1.

3.2. Data Collection

A combination of online and offline questionnaire was conducted to collect data in three stages, from March of 2022 to October of 2022. A preliminary survey was conducted on the farmer homestay operators in Beizhai village, Nandulehe town in the Pinggu District, and 85 questionnaires were completed. Reliability and validity analysis of the questionnaire was conducted based on the 85 results, and all sentences or words which were difficult for farmers to understand were adjusted; in the second stage, the survey was conducted according to the list of homestays in the Pinggu District, including Nnadulehe village, Emeishan village, and Liujiahe village; and in the third stage, the authors went to the Huairou District of Beijing for field research. The Credamo platform was chosen for the collection of online data, and the authors designed the questionnaires by selecting keywords such as “region”, “industry”, and “profession”. A total of 410 questionnaires were collected, and 55 invalid questionnaires were removed. Finally, 355 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective rate of 86.6%. All valid samples were from farmers and entrepreneurs in the Pinggu District and the Huairou District of Beijing. Among them, male respondents accounted for 43.9% and female accounted for 56.1%. From the perspective of age structure, the highest proportion was 40% for those aged 31–40, followed by 25.4% for those aged 41–50. The proportion for those aged 21–30 and 51–60 was the same, accounting for 17.5% and 14.9%, respectively, while the proportion for other age groups was 2.3%.

4. Analysis and Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis

The Cronbach α coefficients of overall scale and different variables were 0.953, 0.852, 0.905, 0.942, and 0.930, respectively, which exceeded the recommended level of 0.7 and indicates that the formal questionnaire in this article has high reliability and internal consistency. The KMO values of the four variables ranged from 0.842 to 0.949, and the Bartlett spherical test p-values were all less than 0.001, which indicates that the validity of the items is qualified and can effectively reflect the corresponding construct.
According to Fornell et al. [63] and Raykov [64], this paper chose SMC, CR, AVE, and combining factor load to test the convergence validity of the model. In the four dimensions, social capital and entrepreneurial self-efficacy were second-order latent and observable variables, and local identity and entrepreneurial performance were first-order latent and observable variables. Except for the “cognitive dimension” factor load greater than 0.95 and slightly weaker explanatory ability, the factor loads of other second-order factors were between 0.710 and 0.950. We believe that second-order factor analysis meets the requirements. The factor loads of the first order factors of the four latent and observable variables ranged from 0.663 to 0.905, all meeting the threshold values of 0.50 to 0.95; SMC values all met the standard of more than 0.4; the CR values also met the acceptable threshold of greater than 0.7; and the AVE value of each factor was higher than the threshold value of 0.50. According to the above test results, the convergence validity of the first- and second-order factor measurement models of the four latent and observable variables in this paper were good (Table 2). The square root of AVE of each latent and observable variables was greater than the correlation coefficient between these latent and observable variables and other latent and observable variables (Table 3), which is a sign of good discrimination validity. Overall, the scale had good convergent validity and discriminative validity.

4.2. Evaluation of the Structural Model

Based on the research of Jöreskog et al. [65] and Doll et al. [66], four confirmatory factor-analysis models were used to test the measurement model; Mplus was used and χ 2 / d f , CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR were chosen to test the fitting degree of the measurement model. For place identity and entrepreneurial performance, the fitting results showed that the value of χ 2 / d f is less than 3, and the CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR were, respectively, greater than 0.90 and 0.90, less than 0.080, and less than 0.060; for social capital and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the fitting results of the second order confirmatory factor measurement model (model IV) showed that the values of χ 2 / d f were 1.966 and 2.598, both of which were less than 3. Meanwhile, the CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR values also met the requirements, indicating that the measurement model of the four latent and observable variables was in good fitting condition; in addition, the target coefficients obtained by dividing the value of χ 2 of the model IV and the first-order confirmatory factor measurement model (model III) were equal, or close, to 1. Therefore, for social capital and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the second-order factor model can effectively explain the inter group relationship between first-order factors, and the implicit model IV can fully replace the first-order confirmatory factor, which makes the model more concise.
Mplus was used to test the fit of the structural model, and perform path analysis. The results showed that the research model was designed well (Table 4 and Figure 2).
The results of the SEM indicate that farmer entrepreneurs’ place identity (β = 0.059, p = 0.389) has no direct positive impact on entrepreneurial performance, which means that H1 is not supported. However, the proportion of agreeing and strongly agreeing with the four options of place identity reached over 80%. Social capital of farmers entrepreneurs (β = 0414 (p < 0.001) has a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial performance, which means H2 is supported. Self-efficacy of farmer entrepreneurs (β = 0.317 (p < 0.001) has a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial performance, which means H3 is supported. Place identity (β = 0.304 (p < 0.001) can have a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Therefore, H4 is supported. Social capital of farmer entrepreneurs (β = 0.515 (p < 0.001) has a significant positive impact on self-efficacy in entrepreneurship, which means that H5 is supported.

4.3. Evaluation of Mediating Effect

The confidence interval of mediating effect is obtained by the bootstrap method in this study. The data show (Table 5) that the mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy from place identity to entrepreneurial performance does not include 0 in the 95% confidence interval, and the confidence of the direct effect of local identity to entrepreneurial self-efficacy includes 0 in the 95% confidence interval, indicating that place identity has a complete mediating effect on entrepreneurial performance through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Therefore, H6 is supported. The mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy from social capital to entrepreneurial performance does not include 0 in the 95% confidence interval, and the confidence of the direct effect of social capital to entrepreneurial self-efficacy does not include 0 in the 95% confidence interval. Therefore, H7 is supported.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

This paper takes Chinese farmers homestay entrepreneurship as the research object and constructs a theoretical model of the relationship among place identity, social capital, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial performance. The model is empirically examined by data from rural homestay entrepreneurs in Beijing suburbs and methodology of SEM. The results found that place identity has no significant effect on entrepreneurial performance, while social capital and entrepreneurial self-efficacy do have. Place identity and social capital have significant positive effects on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy plays a complete mediating role in the relationship between place identity and farmers’ entrepreneurial performance, and a partial mediating role in the relationship between social capital and farmers’ entrepreneurial performance. The results extend and enrich the content of homestay entrepreneurship performance to existing research on rural tourism and rural entrepreneurship.

5.1. Theoritical Contributions

The theoretical contributions are:
First, this paper constructs a theoretical model among place identity, farmers’ self-efficacy in homestay entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial performance. Results have shown that place identity is an important factor for the entrepreneurial performance of farmers’ homestays, and the relationship is influenced by the complete mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The conclusion differs from Akter et al. [38] but echoes Hallak et al. [18]. From the conclusion, we believe that in the process of China’s farmer entrepreneurship, the sense of place established by farmer entrepreneurs’ love and recognition of their village makes them more willing to mobilize resources to participate in homestay entrepreneurship. The closer they are connected to their village, the more they have a sense of place identity, which will lead to enhance their confidence in entrepreneurship and, ultimately, have a positive impact on entrepreneurial performance. Furthermore, as the “host” living in the village, farmer homestay entrepreneurs have integrated with the place in which they live, or the tourist destination, including the integration of various attributes, such as social and cultural environment and life experience. In the process of operating rural homestays, through communication with tourists they share the local natural landscape and social culture, the sense of identity of the village of entrepreneurial individuals will gradually strengthen, and they will be more willing to believe that the village is the best place to start a business, further enhancing their self-confidence. In turn, tourists will become increasingly comfortable in the process of communicating with the homestay host, and the relationship between the host and the guest will be continually optimized, and the number of repeat customers will continue to increase, thus promoting improved performance. These conclusions extend the scenario of place identity promoting tourism development from cities to the field of rural entrepreneurship, and enrich the research scenario of local identity theory.
Second, this research proves that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is an important factor in the entrepreneurial performance of rural homestays by playing a crucial mediating role between social capital and entrepreneurial performance, and place identity and entrepreneurial performance. The higher the network constructed by farmers for entrepreneurship and their ability to obtain resources through this network, the more social capital they obtain, and the stronger their sense of belonging to their village. The conclusion expands the research on the impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial performance and supports the current third view on entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which is conducted by Zhao and Zhang [21]. Studies have shown that community participation in local tourism development can not only improve residents’ awareness of the protection, development, and inheritance of ethnic culture, but also strengthen residents’ self-awareness and enhance individuals’ sense of community identity [67]. And this paper proves that farmers’ self-efficacy can be influenced by place identity, which supports the literature regarding building a mutual relationship between self-efficacy and place identity.
Third, the social capital possessed by rural entrepreneurs is an important factor in improving entrepreneurial performance, and it proves the viewpoint of Xie and Zhu [8] and Ma et al. [24] that social capital is an antecedent variable and different from Song et al. [9]. According to the social cognitive theory and the social capital theory, farmer entrepreneurs can make proper use of their own social network resources to start a business. First of all, they can communicate with network members, including relatives, friends, and operators of “benchmark” homestays in the rural homestay industry, obtain relevant information and service experience, and learn to imitate their business philosophy, service standards, and other aspects. In this process, they can not only continually improve the operation and management level of rural homestays, but also continually expand the scale of their own social network, and then accumulate social capital to further improve the level of entrepreneurial performance, forming a virtuous circle. Secondly, by participating in various training courses conducted by local governments or institutions, entrepreneurial individuals can learn advanced business concepts of homestays, obtain hot spot information, and personally learn and experience the production of special catering, so as to improve their own business effects and meet the increasingly rich needs of tourists, thus improving entrepreneurial performance. The conclusion expands the applicability of rural social capital in the field of tourism entrepreneurship.

5.2. Practical Contributions

This research has certain enlightening significance for different stakeholders of farmer homestay entrepreneurs. First, due to the proven impact of place identity on the entrepreneurial performance of farmers’ homestays, various departments and organizations can take corresponding measures in shaping the emotion of “knowing, loving, and prospering the township” for farmers. Village governments or institutions should extensively solicit opinions from villagers when planning and developing village tourism and other aspects. Let the majority of villagers participate in the construction of the village collective, so as to improve their sense of identity and belonging to the village, and have a beneficial effect on the improvement of performance level. Improving farmers’ awareness and love for their hometown can effectively stimulate their enthusiasm and ability for homestay entrepreneurship, further improving their entrepreneurial performance.
Second, the government and other relevant departments should increase the efforts to introduce corresponding reward and assistance subsidy policies, and encourage the financial sector to provide more relaxed financial services for farmers’ entrepreneurship, such as popularizing the forms and channels of bank loans and gradually expanding various other financing channels. In addition, through interviews with some rural homestay entrepreneurs, it was found that there is still a small amount of financial appropriation in the village of the entrepreneurship that is not in place, leading to loss of confidence in the management of the homestay host, therefore, the relevant departments should strengthen the supervision of the implementation of policies, and improve the enthusiasm of the rural villagers’ production and operation. We are pleased to see that the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, in collaboration with the Bank of China, has issued a notice on financial support for high-quality development of rural tourism. The notice states that the Bank of China has designated rural tourism projects as key financing targets and has issued new loans of no less than 10 billion yuan for rural tourism, including homestay clients. The media should promote the entrepreneurial deeds of farmers in multiple ways, and provide necessary entrepreneurial support as much as possible; at the same time, relevant entrepreneurship training should also be actively organized, including the training of business concepts. In the face of such risks and challenges as the outflow of tourists in the post-epidemic period, entrepreneurs can maintain a positive attitude, develop innovative ways to attract tourists, and actively face difficulties, instead of standing still and adopting a depressed condition. Entrepreneurial support also includes addressing special catering and special services-related training because entrepreneurs in the process of learning not only can develop more innovative business models to attract tourists but also enjoy a happy experience, achieving a win–win situation. Through various training, farmer entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs can feel the feasibility and safety of entrepreneurship, improve their confidence in taking risks, and eliminate fears of all kinds of problems that may be encountered in entrepreneurship success and failure. Even in the event of emergencies such as the COVID-19 epidemic, they can still face and solve problems with a positive and optimistic attitude. All parties should work together to further optimize the entrepreneurial environment of farmer homestays and assist them in expanding their social capital for entrepreneurship.
Finally, farmer homestay owners should strengthen their own learning and practice of entrepreneurial theory, actively establish and develop the relationship between homestays and their rural areas, improve various social networks, and, thereby, improve the success rate and sustainable competitiveness of homestay entrepreneurship.

6. Limitation and Future Research

The main field research and questionnaire of this study is the latter half of 2021 and the first half of 2022, and there is a possibility of distortion in the performance of homestay operations due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the future, data could be comprehensively tracked and sample coverage areas could be expanded to obtain more comprehensive data support. In addition, the entrepreneurial performance of homestays in this study did not consider more antecedent variables such as human capital. Future research could further improve the antecedent variables, construct a more systematic impact model of homestay entrepreneurial performance, and test the impact mechanism of homestay entrepreneurial performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, P.Y. and L.Z.; data collection and analysis, L.Z.; writing and editing, L.Z. and P.Y.; funding acquisition, P.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by the Beijing Social Science Fund (grant number 22GLA004).

Institutional Review Board Statement

There is no need of the statement because the research does not involve ethical issues.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Please email the authors to get the data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liu, Y.S.; Zang, Y.Z.; Yang, Y.Y. China’s rural revitalization and development: Theory, technology and management. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 12, 1923–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zheng, X.Y.; Liu, Y.S. Scientifiv connotation, formation mechanism and regulation strategy of “rural disease” in China in the new era. Hum. Geogr. 2018, 2, 100–106. [Google Scholar]
  3. Li, X.; Guo, H.; Jin, S.; Ma, W.; Zeng, Y. Do farmers gain internet dividends from E-commerce adoption? Evidence from China. Food Policy 2021, 101, 102024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hanna, N.K.; Qiang, C.Z.W. China’s emerging informatization strategy. J. Knowl. Econ. 2010, 2, 128–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ma, W.; Zhou, X.; Liu, M. What drives farmers’ willingness to adopt e-commerce in rural China? The Role of Internet Use. Agribusiness 2020, 1, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Miao, S.; Chi, J.; Liao, J.; Qian, L. How does religious belief promote farmer entrepreneurship in rural China? Econ. Model. 2021, 97, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bu, D.; Liao, Y. Land property rights and rural enterprise growth: Evidence from land titling reform in China. J. Dev. Econ. 2022, 157, 102853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xie, C.; Zhu, Y.; Zhao, Q. How digital business penetration influences farmers’ sense of economic gain: The role of farmers’ entrepreneurial orientation and market responsiveness. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 187744–187753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Song, Y.; Li, L.; Sindakis, S.; Aggarwal, S.; Chen, C.; Showkat, S. Examining E-Commerce Adoption in Farmer Entrepreneurship and the Role of Social Networks: Data from China. J. Knowl. Econ. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, X.M.; Zheng, Y.; Yu, W.C. The Nonlinear Relationship between Intellectual Property Protection and Farmers’ Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Analysis Based on CHFS Data. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cai, Z.; Li, S.; Cheng, D. Has Digital Village Construction Improved Rural Family Resilience in China? Evidence Based on China Household Finance Survey. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Naminse, E.; Zhuang, J.C.; Awuni, J. Economic growth, farmer entrepreneurship and rural poverty alleviation in China: A critical review. Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Soc. 2016, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Naminse, E.Y.; Zhuang, J.C.; Zhu, F.Y. The relation between entrepreneurship and rural poverty alleviation in China. Manag. Decis. 2018, 9, 2593–2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wu, L.; Wu, W.Z.; Niu, J.Y. Business or life? Research on entrepreneurial performance perception based on differentiated entrepreneurial motivation of rural homestay entrepreneurs. Tour. Trib. 2020, 8, 105–116. [Google Scholar]
  15. Guo, C.; He, A.H. Social capital, entrepreneurial environment and peasants’ entrepreneurial performance in agriculture related businesses. J. Shanghai Univ. Financ. Econ. 2017, 2, 76–85. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  16. Proshansky, H.M.; Fabian, A.K.; Kaminoff, R. Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. J. Environ. Psychol. 1983, 3, 57–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pretty, G.H.; Chipuer, H.M.; Bramston, P. Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Hallak, R.; Brown, G.; Lindsay, N.J. The place identity—Performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: A structural equation modelling analysis. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sun, H.X.; Guo, S.F.; Chen, H.Y. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial resources and farmers’ entrepreneurial motivations. Stud. Sci. Sci. 2013, 31, 1879–1888. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wang, Y.M.; Yi, X.Q.; Kong, X.Z. Self-efficacy, resource patchwork and performance analysis of farmers. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 1, 83–93. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhao, H.X.; Zhang, Q.W. Study on the rural micro-enterprise startup: Human resource of entrepreneur influence of entrepreneurial performance: Mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2013, 12, 151–156. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang, Q.Q.; Wu, X.X.; Ma, H.Y. How does three-dimensional capital improve farmers’ entrepreneurship performance? Chain intermediary role of entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Agric. Econ. Manag. 2022, 21, 395–404. [Google Scholar]
  23. Huang, S.S.; Yan, C. Interactive influence of human capital and social capital on entrepreneurial performance of rural e-commerce entrepreneurs: Mediating role of frugal innovation. J. Agro-For. Econ. Manag. 2022, 21, 395–404. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ma, H.Y.; Chen, M.Y.; Xia, X.L. Social capital, psychological capital and new generation of migrant workers’ entrepreneurial performance. Sci. Res. Manag. 2020, 41, 193–201. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tajfel, H.; Turner, J.C. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations; Academic Press: London, UK, 1979; pp. 33–47. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hogg, M.A.; Williams, K.D. From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2000, 4, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based View of the Firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Barney, J.B. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 1231–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Barney, J.B. Firm resource and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wu, W.Z.; Wang, D.D. A study on the definition, characteristics and policy guidance of B & B industry. Tour. Forum. 2018, 11, 81–89. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  31. LB/T 065-2017; Basic Requirements and Evaluation of Tourist Homestay. National Tourism Administration: Beijing, China, 2017.
  32. Gustafson, P. Meanings of place: Everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McAndrew, F.T. The Measurement of ‘Rootedness’ and the Prediction of Attachment to Home-Towns in College Students. J. Environ. Psychol. 1998, 18, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Relph, E.C. Place and Placelessness; Routledge Kegan & Paul: London, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  35. Jorgensen, B.S.; Stedman, R.C. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gu, H.M.; Ryan, C. Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism—The case of a Beijing hutong. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, S.R.; Wang, S.S.; Xu, H.G. Influence of place identity on residents’ attitudes to dark tourism. J. China Tour. Res. 2017, 13, 338–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akter, M.; Alim, M.A.; Shabbir, R.; Ali, M.B.; Kasuma, J. The Mediating effects of place satisfaction and support for community: An evaluation of the performance of small and medium tourism enterprises in Bangladesh. Asian J. Bus. Account. 2020, 13, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Oxford, UK, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organization advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Portes, A. Social Capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998, 24, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Lin, N. Social networks and status attainment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1999, 25, 467–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhao, W.B.; Ritchie, J.R.B.; Echtner, C.M. Social capital and tourism entrepreneurship. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1570–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kramer, R.M.; Tyler, T.R. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1998, 43, 186–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xu, F.J.; Ma, L.N.; Li, F. Social capital, firm characteristics and entrepreneurial performance. Financ. Account. Mon. 2019, 22, 69–76. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, C.C.; Greene, P.G.; Crick, A. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers. J. Bus. Ventur. 1998, 13, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ardichvili, A.; Cardozo, R.; Ray, S. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. J. Bus. Ventur. 2003, 18, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lindsley, D.H.; Brass, D.J.; Thomas, J.B. Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1995, 20, 645–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Miao, C.; Qian, S.S.; Ma, D.L. The relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance: A meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55, 87–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Twigger-Ross, C.L.; Uzzell, D.L. Place and identity processes. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996, 16, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhong, W.D.; Huang, Z.X. Empirical research on the relationship of tie strength, self-efficacy and entrepreneurs’ performance. Forum Sci. Technol. China 2012, 1, 131–137. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  53. Pu, M.Z.; Zheng, F.T.; Fu, J.H. Rural migrants’ self–employment cluster in Urban China: From perspective of entrepreneurial self–efficacy. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2016, 16, 61–76. [Google Scholar]
  54. Wu, X.X.; Wu, N.N.; Ma, H.Y. Social capital, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial performance of migrant workers: Based on 722 questionnaires in Shaanxi Province. World Agric. 2020, 1, 108–117. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  55. Rui, Z.Y.; Fang, C.L. The influence of different entrepreneurial capital and resilience on new generation migrant workers’ entrepreneurial performance. J. Soc. Sci. 2017, 5, 54–60. [Google Scholar]
  56. Duchek, S. Entrepreneurial resilience: A biographical analysis of successful entrepreneurs. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2018, 14, 429–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Alshebami, A.S. Redefining resilience: The case of small entrepreneurs in Saudi Arabia. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 10, 1118016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liao, J.W.; Welsch, H. Social capital and entrepreneurial growth aspiration: A comparison of technology and non-technology-based nascent entrepreneurs. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2003, 14, 365–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wen, T.; Zhang, Y.L.; Zhang, Q.F. Embedding, identification, responsibility: Small tourism business in local communities. Hum. Geogr. 2021, 36, 157–165. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  60. Pushkarskaya, H.; Fortunato, M.W.; Breazeale, N.; Just, D.R. Enhancing measures of ESE to incorporate aspects of place: Personal reputation and place-based social legitimacy. J. Bus. Ventur. 2021, 36, 106004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I. Account. Horiz. 2001, 55, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Walker, E.; Brown, A. What success factors are important to small business Owners? Int. Small Bus. J. 2004, 22, 577–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Raykov, T. Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1997, 21, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jöreskog, K.G. ; Sörbom. D. LISREL7: A Guide to the Program and Applications, 3rd ed.; Scientific Software International, Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  66. Doll, W.J.; Xia, W.D.; Torkzadeh, G. A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Q. 1994, 18, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sun, J.X. Community participation in tourism and ethnic culture protection: Type and logical correlation. Thinking 2013, 39, 97–102. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 11812 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Sustainability 15 11812 g001
Sustainability 15 11812 g002
Figure 2. Result of the model. Note: *** represents significance at the 1% level.
Figure 2. Result of the model. Note: *** represents significance at the 1% level.
Sustainability 15 11812 g002
Table 1. Variables and scale items.
Table 1. Variables and scale items.
VariablesDimensionCodeItemsReferences
Place identity
(PI)		—PI1The village where I live means a lot to meWen et al. [59] and
Hallak et al. [18]
PI2I am fond of the village I live in
PI3I strongly have the same values of my village
PI4I will never leave the village
Social capital
(SC)		Relational capital
(RSC)		SC1The community encourages us to start our own business to be independentZhao et al. [43] and
Liao et al. [58]
SC2Local government offers support to start-ups
SC3Social organizations (banks, committees, and associations) offer support to start-ups
Structural capital
(SSC)		SC4Some friends start their own homestays
SC5Family members and relatives are involved in homestay operations.
Cognitive capital
(CSC)		SC6Local media pays attention and promotes successful start-ups
SC7Family and friends think offering services to tourists is an ideal job.
Entrepre-neurial
self-efficacy
(ESE)		Eliciting respect from the community
(ERC)		ESE1I am believed to be a person worthy of respectPushkarskaya et al. [60] and Wang et al. [20]
ESE2I am believed to be a person worthy of trust
ESE3I am believed to be a person who can benefit the village
ESE4I am believed to be an intelligent person
Creative planning
(CP)		ESE5I am capable of finding a way to resolve problems with limited resources
ESE6I am capable of finding a new way to achieve goals by integrating resources
ESE7I am capable of remaining decisive when unclear
Marshalling HR
(MHR) 		ESE8I can manage relationships
ESE9I can encourage my employees
ESE10I am capable of delegating tasks and taking responsibility
Managing uncertainty
(MU)		ESE11I am capable of working efficiently under continuous pressure or conflict
ESE12I am capable of adapting flexibly to changes
ESE13I am capable of handling uncertain matters in my work
Entrepre-neurial performance
(EP)		—EP1The homestay I operate has generated a large number of salesHallak et al. [18]
EP2I am satisfied with the performance
EP3The homestay is successful
EP4The homestay meets my expectation
Likert-type scale of five points was used to measure the items. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The demographic indicators, including gender, age, and education level, were collected along with the questionnaire.
Table 2. Convergent validity.
Table 2. Convergent validity.
VariablesDimensionItemLoadSMCCRAVE
First-Level FactorSecond-Level FactorFirst-Level FactorSecond-Level FactorFirst-Level FactorSecond-Level Factor
PL—PI10.805—0.6480.908—0.711—
PI20.8810.776
PI30.8830.780
PI40.8000.640
SCRSCSC10.6630.8530.4400.8130.8930.5940.740
SC20.834 0.696
SC30.805 0.648
SSCSC40.7870.7100.6190.760 0.613
SC50.779 0.607
CSCSC80.7430.9940.6070.734 0.579
SC90.729 0.552
ESEERCESE10.7880.9430.6210.8480.9510.5820.830
ESE20.746 0.557
ESE30.739 0.546
ESE40.777 0.604
CPESE50.8320.8790.6920.845 0.646
ESE60.838 0.702
ESE70.737 0.543
MHRESE80.7840.9500.6150.831 0.621
ESE90.815 0.664
ESE100.765 0.585
MUESE110.7920.8700.6270.885 0.719
ESE120.853 0.728
ESE130.896 0.803
EP—EP10.832 0.6920.930—0.770—
EP20.905 0.819
EP30.867 0.752
EP40.904 0.817
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
Table 3. Discriminant validity.
SCPIESEPER
SC0.860
PI0.6730.843
ESE0.7200.6510.911
PER0.6820.5440.6540.877
Table 4. Model-fitting degree.
Table 4. Model-fitting degree.
Indexχ2/dfCFITLIRMSEASRMR
Ideal value<3>0.90>0.90<0.080<0.060
Actual value1.8740.9580.9530.0500.041
Table 5. Result of mediating effect.
Table 5. Result of mediating effect.
PathPath Coefficient95% Confidence Interval
Lower Limit 2.5%Upper Limit 2.5%
PI → ESE → EP0.119 *0.0290.274
SC → ESE → EP0.276 **0.1370.52
Note: *, **, represent significance at the 10%, 5% level, respectively.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yin, P.; Zhou, L. Place Identity, Social Capital, and Rural Homestay Entrepreneurship Performance: The Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511812

AMA Style

Yin P, Zhou L. Place Identity, Social Capital, and Rural Homestay Entrepreneurship Performance: The Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511812

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yin, Ping, and Linjie Zhou. 2023. "Place Identity, Social Capital, and Rural Homestay Entrepreneurship Performance: The Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511812

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop